Re: Calvinism
MonkeeSage you write: [Actually that was Spurgeon who said that, but I was using it as espressing my position, so I'll take credit for it in that sense.
"Re: But isn't it just the opposite." <--- (me, om your repost)
It is not. What Spurgeon is pointing out is called double-jeopardy. If Christ paid for all sins of all people ever, then the Father punishes some people in hell for eternity for their sins (which Chirst paid for once already), then you have a case of double-jeopardy.]
[Interpreting the Bible by the Bible is the ONLY valid hermeneutic, so it's not my opinion that "pas/pan" can have the meaning of "all manner" because that is EXACTLY what it means in Luke 11:42. There is no difference in the meaning as used in Titus 2, or 1 Tim--as context makes clear. The assumption seems to be on your part; that `all means all and thats all.'] <---- (Did you read that before ya posted it. "The assumption seems to be on your part; that `all means all and thats all.' " How is all, meaning all, become a assumption on my part? Its reminds of Clinton's... 'that depends on what the meaning of is... is!' lol To me, all, in that usage means "all men" No disrespect but it seems your playing the spin doctor part with regard to the word.)
Re: Calvinism
Part II
Interpreting the Bible by the Bible is the ONLY valid hermeneutic, NO! really? Main Entry: her·me·neu·ti·cal = Etymology: Greek hermEneutikos, from hermEneuein to interpret, from hermEneus interpreter. Between ME and the Holy Ghost... what else need there be to Interpreting... other then me and the Holy Spirit... ?
[ I haven't insulted you, not intentionally at least. If I did so inadvertently, I apologize. And I also did not call your question unChristian, I called your intentional misrepresentation of my position ("...if Calvin was right there would be no need for repentance in the first place. Its a done deal.") dishonest--which it was, and is, as you know in your heart, thus not a Christian way of acting.] (Not so brother... just because someone ask a question or makes a statement doesn't mean he was being dishonest... by far. IF I don't find your opinion to be satisfactory to the scriptures doesn't mean I'm dishonest, it just means I don't agree with you... that's all right, isn't it?)
Again, "pan-pas" here means "all manner" JUST LIKE in Luke 11:42. Luke 11:42 But woe unto you, Pharisees! for ye tithe mint and rue and all manner of herbs, and pass over judgment and the love of God: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone. (Passed over judgment... meaning that had a choice but passed it up!)
"Timothy 2:1 I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men;
(be made for all men. Why pray for them if they can't be saved.)"
Again, does "all men" mean every individual? No, Paul goes on (in the next verse, gee, where did that go to?) to define who he means by "all men"--"For kings, and for all that are in authority... (v. 2)" What are Kings and people who are in positions of authority? Are they types of people? Obviously. Thus Paul is telling them to pray for ALL types of people, even those who persecute them, such as Kings and people in authority, not only those who are in the Church.
WHY? Why should Paul tell them to pray for all types of people if not all individuals they pray for will come to a knowledge of God? Because "this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour...(v. 3)" pure and simple.
(MonkeeSage I feel your explanation is very wanting... Paul is asking for prayers for all men, ALL. You can interrupt it anyway you want buts the intention of Paul is clear to me.)
MonkeeSage you write: [WHY? Why should Paul tell them to pray for all types of people if not all individuals they pray for will come to a knowledge of God? Because "this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour...(v. 3)" pure and simple.]
"1 Timothy 2:4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.
(Who will have all men to be saved, "don't know what else to say about that, it says it all")"
[And I guess "all means all and that's all." Only that is not correct. Unless a person believe that the Pharisees "tithe mint and rue and _every individual herb that exists_...(Luke 11:42)" Did the Pharisees steal other people's herbs and tithe them? Did they have magical powers that let them gather herbs from the far reeaches of the earth, and every single herb on the earth, at that? To say so would be reidiculous, and yet the same Greek word appears there.]
{1 Timothy 2:4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.} to equate 1tim2:4's all men to
{Luke 11:42 But woe unto you, Pharisees! for ye tithe mint and rue and all manner of herbs, and pass over judgment and the love of God: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.} Is nonsense to me, and that verse alone shows that Pharisees passed over judgement and the love of God SHOWING they had a choice or Jesus wouldn't have been getting on them.)]
[ Plus, now you are being intentionally DISHONEST, which is totally unChristian. I have been telling you the whole time that GOD USES MEANS, and I made this point especially clear in my last post: "People haven't existed eternally, so obviously, election from eternity does NOT mean that there is never a point in time where men are brought by means to recognize and and be changed by (sanctification), the fact of their salvation. God uses means."]
(First off the address wasn't directed at anyone but general in nature. Now the means to sanctification would have been a done deal at irrevocable predestination. How could it not be, anything else would have just been a formality. To say, your predestined and it is unalterable, and before your existence, any other means would be of no consequence, hence no need for repentance or confession of Christ. NOW I'm not saying that's your stance, just I don't see the need for anything else if irrevocable predestination is true. )
I haven't insulted you, not intentionally at least. If I did so inadvertently, I apologize. (Accpeted.):)
Look back at the first article from the Canons of Dort, you're misrepresenting my position again. I've made it explicit in my posts that no one is ever judged for anything except their own sin. The thrity-five year old man in China died in his sins and likewise would be punished in hell for his sins, period. Not because He didn't hear about Christ. Just stop misrepresenting my position, please! (It's not a misrepresentation, you admit the outcome is the same. He in the end burns in hell, and God left him no way out of burning in hell.)
A chance for what though? They all, every one of them, took the chance to reject Him, unless God regenerated their heart. But notice, again, that you automatically assume that "lighteth" means "makes salvation possible for..." (as you did with "grace" in Gal. 5:4) when that idea is nowhere in the text, in fact v. 13 goes on to tell us just why the believers do believe and become the children of God "...not of bloods, neither the will of the flesh, nor the will of man, but of God."
1 Timothy 1:15 This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.
"...you let man teach you, not the word and you think one has to be learned by man to understand the bible..."
As far as perceptions go, it seems to me that you are upset at me, because, the last part of that comment seems like kind of a low blow. I again apologize if I hurt your feelings, or disrespected you--that was not my intention (I think of you as a brother in Christ), ]
(Well ya called my actions purposely DISHONEST and my actions UN-Christians so I did take it as a offense because it was far from the case. I to count you as my brother in Christ and pray we can bypass these issues. I have insulted anyone or purposely been dishonest or misrepresented anyone else's stance anyone... not purposely for sure.)
Here Luke on the matter. Acts 17:30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent: (but now commandeth all men every where to repent: Clearly meaning all men everywhere... some by their own free will, will not do so, but they can. Nor would He call all men to repent if they were not able to.)
End post: found out was it was :) "I think?"
Edited by: KJChristianWarrior at: 3/31/02 11:14:29 pm
[Total Depravity: (Total Inability):
Total Depravity is probably the most misunderstood tenet of Calvinism. When Calvinists speak of humans as "totally depraved," they are making an extensive, rather than an intensive statement. The effect of the fall upon man is that sin has extended to every part of his personality -- his thinking, his emotions, and his will. Not necessarily that he is intensely sinful, but that sin has extended to his entire being. The unregenerate (unsaved) man is dead in his sins (Romans 5:12). Without the power of the Holy Spirit, the natural man is blind and deaf to the message of the gospel (Mark 4:1). This is why Total Depravity has also been called "Total Inability." The man without a knowledge of God will never come to this knowledge without God's making him alive through Christ. (Ephesians 2:1-5).]
[The man without a knowledge of God will never come to this knowledge without God's making him alive through Christ.] (That last statement is the key. He knows the heart of man, and calls man to change his heart by seeking the will of Father. He is no way is some kind of a barbaric God leaving no way to His love and mercy. I have shown by scripture time and again that all have a chance to receive this love and mercy... I know some feel the need to think they are the special ones and some aren't but this is not by scripture, only opinion. To think that God said... I pick you, you and you for my love and mercy, and you, you and you are to burn in hell is not biblical and no one has come even close to showing that it is... On the contrary, I have posted many posts to show just the opposite of that doctrine and heres some more :)
1.Spiritual consequences of sin cannot be transmitted from father to son but only falls on the one who committed the act: Ezek 18:1-4; 18-20; Jer 32:29-30
2. Exodus 32:3133 In this passage, Moses wanted to receive the punishment for someone else's sin. In verse 33, the one who sinned is removed from the book, not the one whose parents have sinned.
3.We will be judged only by our own actions: Mt 12:36-37; Rom 2:6; 2 Cor 5:10; 1 Pe 1:17
4. Isa 59:1-2, "Your sins have separated you from your God" not Adams
5. Sin is committed by individually breaking God's law: 1 Jn 3:4
Luke 19:10 For the Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost.
1 John 2:1 My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:
1 John 2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for our's only, but also for the sins of the whole world.
(Now that is the full of the verse i posted just 2:2 before... the full of it shows John is addressing the save, then makes it clear that Christ is the propitiation for our sins and the sins of the whole world... and again repeats it in 4:14 1 John 4:14 And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world. NOW that don't mean they all will, just there for those that want it.)
2 Corinitains 5:14 For the love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead:
2 Corinitains 5:15 And that he died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again.
(HE DIED FOR ALL. Thats clear and all means all.)
Hebrews 2:9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.
(Every man. And every man to me means just that every man.)
(Its as if you view the blood of Christ as not able to wash away some sins.)
John 1:29 The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.
Mark 16:15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
Mark 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
(Why preach it to every creature, if its no no effect to some? Because the have the chance to, though some will rejected it all have the chance.)
Romans 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. (every one that believeth, and it in no way limits the number that can believe>)
John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. (Again no one can give a satisfactory justification to obmit or change this verse.)
Romans 5:18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.
AND that is very clear... very.
I will address the rest of your post later on besides these as my time is short today...
I hope we can get past the insults, and the debate tactics used in most debate channels. (I have insulted no one.)
Take time to address the other guy’s arguments. (To assume I don't take time to address each issues i feel the need to is a asumption on your part) No need to re-post, attack individuals, Or continue to post arguments that do not address the other guy’s issues. (To keep the post in forum and keep others that read this debate, as many are watching, it is best to repost what issues one is addressing to hold down on the confussion) Are we here to debate, or are we here to simply post sides and never address the deeper theological aspects? (Read what ya just wrote before that, thats what I am doing, and if i feel a post or verse isn't addressed right I will bring it up again, as im not a lap dog to be force fed)
DON'T BE A GLK! (To shout a statement like that is being a GLK isn't it?, please refrain from doing so..)
please?
By the way you encluded #christianwarrior as one of the rooms you debate in, but i dont recall you being in there but like four times and then didnt talk much at all. Second thats what debate is, to debate, thats what this forum is for, and because you don't like someones debate tactics doesnt make them wrong or you, just different styles is all, thats okay isn't it, that all don't debate to your liking?)
I will finish up with the rest of your post at a later time, as my family needs time also... God bless your soul.
MonkeeSage Registered User
Posts: 68
(3/31/02 11:34 pm) Reply
Re: Calvinism
"(Did you read that before ya posted it. "The assumption seems to be on your part; that `all means all and thats all.' " How is all, meaning all, become a assumption on my part? Its reminds of Clinton's... 'that depends on what the meaning of is... is!' lol To me, all, in that usage means "all men" No disrespect but it seems your playing the spin doctor part with regard to the word.)"
The assumption is not that all means all ("every individual that exists"), in itself, as I would have thought was obvious from the context of demonstrating the different uses of "pan/pas" (all); the assumption is "...that's all"--i.e., that it can ONLY mean that.
"Pas/pan" can mean "every individual that exists" and I didn't deny that, but it can also mean "every manner/type/kind that exists" and even "the greatest part of the whole [1]"
[1] "This word [all], not only in popular language, but in the scriptures, often signifies, indefinitely, a large portion or number, or a great part. Thus, all the cattle in Egypt died; all Judea and all the region round about Jordan; all men held John as a prophet; are not to be understood in a literal sense, but as including a large part or very great numbers." Noah Webster, 1828 Dictionary of American English.
If I am a spin doctor in regards to this word, so are the KJV translators at Luke 11:42, as they employed the exact meaning I have given for the word:
apodekatoute to hduosmon kai to phganon kai PAN lacanon (Scrivener, 1894, No Variants)
you tithe mint and rue and ALL herbs
AV: "ye tithe mint and rue and all manner of herbs"
They must have been trying to get "all" to fit into their doctrinal standards! So, let's get the "all means all and that's all" reading back, and please explain it to me:
"you tithe mint and rue and every individual herb that exists"
Did they steal other people's herbs? Did they have extra-human powers whereby they could gather every extant herb? Obviously these question are rhetorical, but they do well to show the absurdity that results from mangling the rendering, as is advocated by the "...that's all" methodology.
The simple fact is that context distinguishes which meaning it has and translators have to make a personal judgment call as to its meaning at any specific passage. Equally, when they have translated it as merely "all" and committed themselves to no judgment--that is, they have left it as "all" without giving a definite referent--individuals or types; the interpreter must make a judgement call as to which meaning it takes on by study of the context.
Neither myself nor the translators or the KJV translators are spin doctors, and it is simply an error to assume that every meaning of a word will fit the scope one has constructed for it, the text must be allowed to speak for itself, and it is our job to listen.
"(Not so brother... just because someone ask a question or makes a statement doesn't mean he was being dishonest... by far. IF I don't find your opinion to be satisfactory to the scriptures doesn't mean I'm dishonest, it just means I don't agree with you... that's all right, isn't it?)"
As I said: "It had to be intentional unless you just ignored everything I've said in this forum--its not a matter of whether you find my position to be satisfactory, its a matter of you saying I believe one thing (that God doesn't use means, thus we can disregard all means, like repentence, faith, preaching, etc.); when I've specifically said that I do not hold that position at all."
I don't believe it, so don't say I do; to do so is, to use no uncertain terms, dishonest. I believe God uses means because He has chosen to use means. That's my belief, right there, which I've pointed out over and over, from the word go. Thus, to say: "...if Calvin was right there would be no need for repentance in the first place. Its a done deal." is just to ignore what I (and Calvin) actually believe and accuse me of holding to something alien, which I do not hold in any way.
Disagreement is expected, but not misrepresentation; if you mean disagree about what I actually believe, then I firmly object to the idea; I could come up with all types of whacky misrepresentations of Arminainism (e.g., "You believe that God is a sickly old man on a bed somewhere who needs man to help him out since he can't do anything himself"), and apply them to you as if you really believed them, and I'm sure you would then raise the same objection! It's not honest. In essence its the same as lying.
"Luke 11:42 But woe unto you, Pharisees! for ye tithe mint and rue and all manner of herbs, and pass over judgment and the love of God: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone. (Passed over judgment... meaning that had a choice but passed it up!)"
I disagree that just because we are told they passed over judgment, that means that they could have done otherwise. Their nature was corrupt, their actions follow suit. If the text had said something to the effect of "...and were given a chance to believe but passed over judgment" then I would agree; as it stands I find it to be an affirmation that every man, even the outwardly religious man, is corrupted by sin unless God renews their heart.
Also, my whole point is quoting Luke 11:42 is the use of the word "pas/pan" there, which seems to have slipped your notice; you need a new translation bro, someone has spin doctored yours. ;P
"(MonkeeSage I feel your explanation is very wanting... Paul is asking for prayers for all men, ALL. You can interrupt it anyway you want buts the intention of Paul is clear to me.)"
Yes, for all men, where "all" means "every manner/kind/type;" including kings and all those who are in authority, and all other types of men as well. I am interpreting it by the context. You likewise are free to force a faulty methodology onto the text, but I don't see any other way of rendering legitimately it.
"{1 Timothy 2:4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.} to equate 1tim2:4's all men to
{Luke 11:42 But woe unto you, Pharisees! for ye tithe mint and rue and all manner of herbs, and pass over judgment and the love of God: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.} Is nonsense to me, and that verse alone shows that Pharisees passed over judgement and the love of God SHOWING they had a choice or Jesus wouldn't have been getting on them.)]"
Its the actual text, call it what you will:
1 Tim. 2:4 ov PANTAS anqrwpous qelei swqhnai (Scrivener, 1894, No Variants)
1 Tim. 2:4 Who will have all men to be saved (AV)
Luke 11:42 apodekatoute to hduosmon kai to phganon kai PAN lacanon (Scrivener, 1894, No Variants)
Luke 11:42 ye tithe mint and rue and all manner of herbs (AV)
Though you agreed: "Interpreting the Bible by the Bible is the ONLY valid hermeneutic" Yet, when it comes to the application of the principle, you seem to think it is nonsensical. Odd.
Regarding the words "pass over judgment and the love of God," I've explained (above) why I don't agree with your interpretation, but I want to add another thought: where do you get the idea from the text that they were able to do otherwise? Isn't that an interpretation based on other things you believe, or do you think this text actually says that--if you believe its in this text, where, specifically, do you find anything about being able to do other than they actually did do?
"(First off the address wasn't directed at anyone but general in nature. Now the means to sanctification would have been a done deal at irrevocable predestination. How could it not be, anything else would have just been a formality. To say, your predestined and it is unalterable, and before your existence, any other means would be of no consequence, hence no need for repentance or confession of Christ. NOW I'm not saying that's your stance, just I don't see the need for anything else if irrevocable predestination is true. )"
Hmmmm...before you were in existance no means would have been of consequence, simply because you didn't exist yet to be effected; as soon as you did, then they could be consequential.
There is no reason why God could not have predestined us unto means in order to accomplish the ends of salvation; in fact, that is just what He did do according the the Bible.
"He has chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, in order that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will," (Eph. 1:4-5).
God COULD HAVE saved everyone by simply `snapping His fingers,' He could have prevented the fall, He could also have not allowed two planes to hit the TT on Sept. 11th, etc. etc. But He did not. We don't NEED a means in terms of God's ability, we NEED a means because God, of His own good pleasure, has chosen to use means.
1 Cor. 1:21 For seeing that in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom knew not God, it was God's _good pleasure through the foolishness of the preaching_ to save them that believe. (ASV)
"God could, if He had liked, have furnished man with wings to fly with, just as He gave wings to kites. We must _not_, however, run to the conclusion that He _did_ this because He was _able_ to do it." (Tertullian; Against Praxeas, Ch. 10., emphasis mine)
"(It's not a misrepresentation, you admit the outcome is the same. He in the end burns in hell, and God left him no way out of burning in hell.)"
It is a misrepresentation. You said that I believed that the man would go to hell for not hearing about Christ. That is not what I believe. I believe:
"Since all men have sinned in Adam, lie under the curse, and deserve eternal death, God would have done _injustice to no one_ if He had willed to _leave_ the whole human race in sin and under the curse, and to _condemn it on account of its sin_, according to these words of the apostle: that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God (Rom. 3:19). All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God (Rom. 3:23); and, the wages of sin is death (Rom. 6:23)." (Cn. Dord., head. i, art. 1, emphasis mine)
"Don't confuse the solution to the problem with the problem...the problem is man's own sin. For example, if a somebody was bit by a snake and died, we wouldn't say that he died because he didn't get a treatment for his snake bite, we would say he died because he got bit by a snake. In the same way, when man is condemned to hell, he's condemned to hell because he has violated God's law." Gene Cook Jr. ("Does God Exist: A Debate Between Gene Cook Jr. and Edward Tabash" [mp3] - www.sermonaudio.com/play....pastorgene )
"1 Timothy 1:15 This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief."
Wow, I love this verse :D
I'm suprised you would quote it though (??!!?)...how can you make any type of sense out of it:
Did Christ come to *actually* save sinners, or only to make it possible? the text says nothing about possibility or granting choice, etc.
If He came to *actually* save sinners, did He fail?--not all are saved: or, did He perhaps die for only a certain number who are actually saved (scope-limited atonement)?
"(Well ya called my actions purposely DISHONEST and my actions UN-Christians so I did take it as a offense because it was far from the case. I to count you as my brother in Christ and pray we can bypass these issues. I have insulted anyone or purposely been dishonest or misrepresented anyone else's stance anyone... not purposely for sure.)"
OK, I believe you. I do not see how you have misunderstood my position so badly, but I believe you if you say it wasn't intentional, and I apologize (with the forum as my witness) for claiming that it was intentional. I'm sorry.
"Here Luke on the matter. Acts 17:30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent: (but now commandeth all men every where to repent: Clearly meaning all men everywhere... some by their own free will, will not do so, but they can. Nor would He call all men to repent if they were not able to.)"
Actually, I would see v. 26 as limiting the range of "pantas pantacou" (all everywhere) to being the "eqnos" (nations), i.e. the Gentiles, in the sense that it is assumed that the Jews had already been commanded to repent through the Law, and now, through the administration of the Gospel dispensation, a more general call to repentence has gone out among the rest of the peoples of the world, so that now it can be said that "all everywhere" are commanded to repent.
This is of little consequence though, and I will readily take it as meaning "every individual that exists" for the sake of discussion.
Now, taking it to mean "every individual that exists," how does the fact that God has commanded it, mean that they are able to do it (or not)?
Doesn't God command obedience to His ways (Gen. 18:19)? to keep his laws (Exo. 34:11-16)? He does; and yet we find that the Spirit tells us:
"...the mind of the flesh is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can it be [1]: and they that are in the flesh cannot please God." (Rom. 8:7-8, ASV)
[1] oude gar dunatai - "For it is not even able to do otherwise." [Robertson]
To really understand the idea of Sovereignty, as it's presented in all it's aspects in Scripture (and thus by Calvinists), one needs to understand the nature of God's will / decrees.
Commonly, this is done through catagorization based upon the objects of will, or the nature of the relationship of will to object.
1) The first division is the (A) decretive and (B) preceptive will (keeping in mind we are speaking of God's one, eternal, immutable, will, just making distinctions for our own understanding).
A) God's decretive will concerns that which God does, or is going to do; with the accomplishment of events in time.
A.1) The positive decree concerns that which God wills should happen, as to an actual event, which He acts to bring about. An example would be "God sent His Son," (Gal. 4:4). From there we distinguish;
A.2) The negative decree; that which God wills should come about, as to an actual event, which He does not (or, rather, ceases to) act to bring about. In this case, God has allowed men to sin (to break his negative and/or positve preceptive will, see below), in order to accomplish an actual event.
An example showing both the positive (A.1) and negative (A.2) decretive will is Act 2:23 "...being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, you have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified..."
The "delivered...determinate counsel" conveying God's positive (A.1) decretive will; "foreknowledge...have crucified" expressing the negative (A.2) decretive will, as well as the negative (B.2) precept--"by wicked hands."
B) His preceptive will refers to that which God prescribes to us, that is, how He expects us to act and what He requires from us.
B.1) The positive precept concerns that which God approves, or requires of us.
B.2) The negative precept will concerns that which God does not approve, or prohibits us.
God can, and does, give positive precepts (B.1) to all men, such as repentence and belief, which He only positively decrees (A.1) to grant to some, and there is no moral or logical conflict.
And, God's positive decree (A.1) will never be in tension with His negative precept (B.2) because for God to cause men to act in a way that is contrary to His own law would be to will an absurdity.
-J
S.D.G
Edited by: MonkeeSage at: 4/1/02 10:02:16 am
Re: Calvinism
man bro dats a longgggggg post!!! Will have to read and tackle that sucker in the morrow when I have time to address each issues... God bless ya MonkeeSage... and hope there aren't any hard feelings between us we been friends a long time... see ya tomorrow!!!
Tomorrow when you answer my other post, you might note this post as well, as I intend to show where in the first paragraph of your answer to IHS, you have misunderstood Calvinism:
"He is no way is some kind of a barbaric God leaving no way to His love and mercy."
No, He's not barbaric at all, He is completely just for leaving anyone in sin, because none deserve mercy, and none deserve a "way" or anything else except death and eternal hell.
"I have shown by scripture time and again that all have a chance to receive this love and mercy..."
No, not all do, some people have never even heard the Gospel (e.g. your 35 year old man in China)--what, is he going to be resurrected for a special time period, told about Jesus, then "have a chance"? What about all the people who died in the OT? Did Pharaoh have a chance?
Besides, even if all "have a chance" they will all take the chance to deny God and "no one is able to come to [Jesus] unless the Father...draw him" (John 6:44).
"I know some feel the need to think they are the special ones and some aren't but this is not by scripture, only opinion."
We would say that it is the Arminian system which makes God to play favorites; in that scheme God saves those who believe because of their own goodness--something in themselves--their belief; and He does not save others because of their refusal to believe, because they were not as "good" as those who believed.
The ones who chose to believe are the "special" ones, who are so much better than everyone else, who had the same oppertunities as they did, but misused them. Like the man who starts with a branch and carves a beautiful sculpture, while everyone else has only deformed their branch and marred it; so he glories in his creation, and demeans the rest.
The Calvinist system simply asks: "...who maketh thee to differ? and what hast thou that thou didst not receive? but if thou didst receive it, why dost thou glory as if thou hadst not received it?" (1 Cor. 4:7).
"To think that God said... I pick you, you and you for my love and mercy, and you, you and you are to burn in hell is not biblical and no one has come even close to showing that it is..."
"I pick you, you and you for my love and mercy"
"...he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love he predestined us for adoption through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved.
In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace, which he lavished upon us, in all wisdom and insight making known to us the mystery of his will, according to his purpose, which he set forth in Christ as a plan for the fullness of time, to unite all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth.
In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will, so that we who were the first to hope in Christ might be to the praise of his glory." (Eph. 1:4-12 (ESV))
"you, you and you are to burn in hell"
"And all that dwell on the earth shall worship him, every one whose name hath not been written from the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb that hath been slain.
...
The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and is about to come up out of the abyss, and to go into perdition. And they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, they whose name hath not been written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, when they behold the beast, how that he was, and is not, and shall come.
...
And if any was not found written in the book of life, he was cast into the lake of fire." (Rev. 13:8, 17:8, 20:15).
The whole position is plainly stated in Romans 9.
vss. 8-24 "That is, it is not the children of the flesh that are children of God; but the children of the promise are reckoned for a seed.
For this is a word of promise, According to this season will I come, and Sarah shall have a son. And not only so; but Rebecca also having conceived by one, even by our father Isaac--for the children being not yet born, neither having done anything good or bad, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth, it was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.
Even as it is written, Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.
What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid. For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.
So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that hath mercy.
For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, For this very purpose did I raise thee up, that I might show in thee my power, and that my name might be published abroad in all the earth.
So then he hath mercy on whom he will, and whom he will be hardeneth.
Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he still find fault? For who withstandeth his will?
Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why didst thou make me thus? Or hath not the potter a right over the clay, from the same lump to make one part a vessel unto honor, and another unto dishonor?
What if God, willing to show his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering vessels of wrath fitted unto destruction: and that he might make known the riches of his glory upon vessels of mercy, which he afore prepared unto glory, even us, whom he also called, not from the Jews only, but also from the Gentiles?"
"Pas/pan" can mean "every individual that exists" and I didn't deny that, but it can also mean "every manner/type/kind that exists" and even "the greatest part of the whole [1]"
KJV Romans 12:18 If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men. (All men there means just the elect... then. The others I don't have to try to live in peace with... kind like the Muslims. To me it means every individual that exists. As it does when it says All men in MOST places unless you can clearly see in that verse its not talking of all men.)
If I am a spin doctor in regards to this word, so are the KJV translators at Luke 11:42, as they employed the exact meaning I have given for the word: (I am by no means a KJV only kinda guy, there are stumbling block in every translation.)
I don't believe it, so don't say I do; to do so is, to use no uncertain terms, dishonest. I believe God uses means because He has chosen to use means. (I already told you though the means in acculaity is a formallity in the Calvinism view, if it can't be undone from the time of creation, and none of the elect can lose their salvation, repentance, confession of Christ would be done no matter what!)
Also, my whole point is quoting Luke 11:42 is the use of the word "pas/pan" there, which seems to have slipped your notice; you need a new translation bro, someone has spin doctored yours. ;P (YOU Just admitted it could be translated both ways. :P )
"{1 Timothy 2:4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.} to equate 1tim2:4's all men to
{Luke 11:42 But woe unto you, Pharisees! for ye tithe mint and rue and all manner of herbs, and pass over judgment and the love of God: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.} Is nonsense to me, and that verse alone shows that Pharisees passed over judgement and the love of God SHOWING they had a choice or Jesus wouldn't have been getting on them.)]"
Its the actual text, call it what you will:
(No its not MonkaaSage, no where is 1 tim 2:4 linked in context with luke 11:42 except the word all and you just admitted it could be defined of translated two ways.)
Regarding the words "pass over judgment and the love of God," I've explained (above) why I don't agree with your interpretation, but I want to add another thought: where do you get the idea from the text that they were able to do otherwise? Isn't that an interpretation based on other things you believe, or do you think this text actually says that--if you believe its in this text, where, specifically, do you find anything about being able to do other than they actually did do?
Joel 2:12 Therefore also now, saith the LORD, turn ye even to me with all your heart, and with fasting, and with weeping, and with mourning:
Joel 2:13 And rend your heart, and not your garments, and turn unto the LORD your God: for he is gracious and merciful, slow to anger, and of great kindness, and repenteth him of the evil. (Fact they had that very word at the time, and knew they weren't doing it, God wouldn't say to do it unless it could be done.)
"Don't confuse the solution to the problem with the problem...the problem is man's own sin. For example, if a somebody was bit by a snake and died, we wouldn't say that he died because he didn't get a treatment for his snake bite, we would say he died because he got bit by a snake.
(NOT if there was a antidote for the snake bit... look in Genesis, they were bitten by the snakes, and a antidote was give, the brass snakes, now if they didn't look on the brass snakes, they would die, and if the did, they would live. Same with Christ, they are bitten 'by sin' and have been giving a antidote 'atonement' for that sin, if they chose not to take that atonement, then it is rejection of the atonement that damns them.)
"1 Timothy 1:15 This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief."
Wow, I love this verse
I'm suprised you would quote it though (??!!?)...how can you make any type of sense out of it:
Did Christ come to *actually* save sinners, or only to make it possible? the text says nothing about possibility or granting choice, etc.
If He came to *actually* save sinners, did He fail?--not all are saved: or, did He perhaps die for only a certain number who are actually saved (scope-limited atonement)?
(Heh by your take buddy, he came to die for sinners, and if he did that, and its irrevocable all sinners are saved. And all those not saved are not sinners. I win that one big time )
(scope-limited atonement)? Your the one limiting atonement to the election list from pre-creation, not the bible, it is unlimited to all those that want it.
"Here Luke on the matter. Acts 17:30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent: (but now commandeth all men every where to repent: Clearly meaning all men everywhere... some by their own free will, will not do so, but they can. Nor would He call all men to repent if they were not able to.)"
... I will readily take it as meaning "every individual that exists" for the sake of discussion.
Now, taking it to mean "every individual that exists," how does the fact that God has commanded it, mean that they are able to do it (or not)?
Doesn't God command obedience to His ways (Gen. 18:19)? to keep his laws (Exo. 34:11-16)? He does; and yet we find that the Spirit tells us:
"...the mind of the flesh is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can it be [1]: and they that are in the flesh cannot please God." (Rom. 8:7-8, ASV)
(They are still in the flesh, as you once were... and its a call to preach to them to listen and give ear to the Lords way by preaching.)
Acts 17:30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:
To really understand the idea of Sovereignty, as it's presented in all it's aspects in Scripture (and thus by Calvinists), one needs to understand the nature of God's will / decrees. <------ From there on, was opinion and in all from then on you quoted two bible verses... mans opinions for me are of little use.
1 John 2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.
God bless ya Bro and will get to the other post sometime tonight God willing.
Daaaaa King
MonkeeSage Registered User
Posts: 80
(4/2/02 12:21 am) Reply
Re: Calvinism
"KJV Romans 12:18 If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men. (All men there means just the elect... then. The others I don't have to try to live in peace with... kind like the Muslims. To me it means every individual that exists. As it does when it says All men in MOST places unless you can clearly see in that verse its not talking of all men.)"
""Pas/pan" can mean "every individual that exists" and I didn't deny that..."
Mabye you ought to read what I post, eh?
"(I am by no means a KJV only kinda guy, there are stumbling block in every translation.)"
Fine, so explain what the passage means. Luke 11:42, use any translation you like.
"(I already told you though the means in acculaity is a formallity in the Calvinism view, if it can't be undone from the time of creation, and none of the elect can lose their salvation, repentance, confession of Christ would be done no matter what!)"
No, I already told you what Calvinists believe, don't try and tell me what I believe. God has ordained BOTH the ENDS and the MEANS. That is what Calvinists believe.
"(No its not MonkaaSage, no where is 1 tim 2:4 linked in context with luke 11:42 except the word all and you just admitted it could be defined of translated two ways.)"
Yes, it is the actual text and I provided it. There doesn't need to be a contextual link to show that a word can be used in more than one way. I didn't admit it, I have been ARGUING that it can be translated in multiple ways. Are you agreeing or not?
"(Fact they had that very word at the time, and knew they weren't doing it, God wouldn't say to do it unless it could be done.)"
That's what I thought, it was not based on anything in the text of Luke 11:42-43 at all.
"1 Timothy 1:15 This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief. ... (Heh by your take buddy, he came to die for sinners, and if he did that, and its irrevocable all sinners are saved. And all those not saved are not sinners. I win that one big time )"
No; by my take "Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners" I don't see a reason to ADD the word "all" to the text. Christ came to save sinners. Also, mabye this is why you are so willing to misrepresent Calvinism, because you think this is about scoring "points" or winning.
You need to wake up. This is about defending the faith once delivered up to the saints, not about making King look good.
I'm defending the historical orthodox belief. The belief of the early church and of the Protestant Reformers. If, perhaps, you set aside (your pride in) thinking you have greater spiritual insight than anyone who has ever lived, and read some of their writings, like Martin Luther's "Bondage of the Will" or Augustine's "Trestise on the Predestination of the Saints (to Hilary and Prosper)," etc. then you would not so badly misrepresent their beliefs.
"(scope-limited atonement)? Your the one limiting atonement to the election list from pre- creation, not the bible,..."
If Christ died to actually save sinners and not all are actually saved, what does that mean?
1) That Christ failed, or
2) Christ didn't die for all
Simple. You either limit the scope of the atonement or the power. You limit the power.
"...it is unlimited to all those that want it."
No one wants it without regeneration.
1 Cor. 2:11-14 For who knows a person's thoughts except the spirit of that person, which is in him? So also no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might understand the things freely given us by God. And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who are spiritual. The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned. (ESV)
"(They are still in the flesh, as you once were... and its a call to preach to them to listen and give ear to the Lords way by preaching.)"
oude...dunatai - "are not able," or "do not have the power."
John 10:25-30 Jesus answered them, "I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in my Father's name bear witness about me, but you do not believe because you are not part of my flock. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand. I and the Father are one." (ESV)
Matthew 13:10-15 Then the disciples came and said to him, "Why do you speak to them in parables?" And he answered them, "To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given. For to the one who has, more will be given, and he will have an abundance, but from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away. This is why I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand. Indeed, in their case the prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled that says: " 'You will indeed hear but never understand, and you will indeed see but never perceive. For this people's heart has grown dull, and with their ears they can barely hear, and their eyes they have closed, lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears and understand with their heart and turn, and I would heal them.' (ESV)
John 12:37-40 But though he had done so many miracles before them, yet they believed not on him: That the saying of Esaias the prophet might be fulfilled, which he spake, Lord, who hath believed our report? and to whom hath the arm of the Lord been revealed? Therefore they could not believe, because that Esaias said again, He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them.
"From there on, was opinion and in all from then on you quoted two bible verses... mans opinions for me are of little use."
I'm done talking to you King. This is my last post to you. It is ridiculous that you will not even contemplate a systematic arrangement of what the Bible has revealed just because it was a man who arranged it. Apollos watered. When you are ready to act like you should, tell me, and I'll speak with you again, until then; be ashamed (2 Thess. 3:14-15).
1 John 2:26-27 I write this to you about those who would deceive you; but the anointing which you received from him abides in you, and you have no need that any one should teach you; as his anointing teaches you about everything, and is true, and is no lie, just as it has taught you, abide in him.
So now I'm a deciever and the Spirit is providing you discernment even through my deceptions, since that is the context? Gee, Thanks.
Romans 12:3-8 For by the grace given to me I bid every one among you not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think, but to think with sober judgment, each according to the measure of faith which God has assigned him. For as in one body we have many members, and all the members do not have the same function, so we, though many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another. Having gifts that differ according to the grace given to us, let us use them: if prophecy, in proportion to our faith; if service, in our serving; he who teaches, in his teaching; he who exhorts, in his exhortation; he who contributes, in liberality; he who gives aid, with zeal; he who does acts of mercy, with cheerfulness.
Re: Calvinism
KJV Romans 12:18 If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men. (All men there means just the elect... then. The others I don't have to try to live in peace with... kind like the Muslims. To me it means every individual that exists. As it does when it says All men in MOST places unless you can clearly see in that verse its not talking of all men.)"
""Pas/pan" can mean "every individual that exists" and I didn't deny that..."
Mabye you ought to read what I post, eh?
(No need to get testy bro, was just pointing it out that just because that all COULD be interpeted as not meaning "all" by some, even though its clear to mean "all")
[Fine, so explain what the passage means. Luke 11:42, use any translation you like.]
(The question isn't how you interpert 'all' in Luke 11:42, my dear brother, but rather these verses)
1 Timothy 2:1 I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men;
1 Timothy 2:4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.
John 12:32 And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.
Romans 5:18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.
(Your gonna have a real hard time with that one MonkeeSage.)
Titus 2:11 For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men,
Luke 13:3 I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.
Acts 17:30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:
2 Peter 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
(Its those and many more like them that you interpet 'all' not to mean 'all'. If I am wrong then please enlighten me to what 'all' means in each one of them.)
(I already told you though the means in actuality is a formality in the Calvinism view, if it can't be undone from the time of creation, and none of the elect can lose their salvation, repentance, confession of Christ would be done no matter what!) <---- me
[No, I already told you what Calvinists believe, don't try and tell me what I believe. God has ordained BOTH the ENDS and the MEANS. That is what Calvinists believe.] <--- you, just to make it easier for others to follow.
(I am not telling you what you, or anyone believes, I'm telling you the facts, if God ordained a certain number to be saved, and there is nothing anyone can do to change that, then the rest, repentance, confession of sins, confession of Christ AND Judgment would be nothing but a formality. AGAIN no need to get testy bro, this is just a simple debate forum to analyze doctrine and to approve all things )
"1 Timothy 1:15 This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief. ... (Heh by your take buddy, he came to die for sinners, and if he did that, and its irrevocable all sinners are saved. And all those not saved are not sinners. I win that one big time )"
No; by my take "Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners" I don't see a reason to ADD the word "all" to the text. Christ came to save sinners. Also, mabye this is why you are so willing to misrepresent Calvinism, because you think this is about scoring "points" or winning.
You need to wake up. This is about defending the faith once delivered up to the saints, not about making King look good.
(Again getting testy? He said he came into the world to save sinners, that is anyone that is a sinner in my book and no its not about scoring points, your right, its about approving doctrine)
I'm defending the historical orthodox belief. The belief of the early church and of the Protestant Reformers. If, perhaps, you set aside (your pride in) thinking you have greater spiritual insight than anyone who has ever lived, and read some of their writings, like Martin Luther's "Bondage of the Will" or Augustine's "Trestise on the Predestination of the Saints (to Hilary and Prosper)," etc. then you would not so badly misrepresent their beliefs.
(Really? I should let man teach me, as others do?)
1 John 2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.
(No thanks, and by the way my dear brother, you must have missed what Luther had to say about Jews?)
1 Corinitains 2:13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
(Naaaa I'll stick with the Holy Ghost.)
If Christ died to actually save sinners and not all are actually saved, what does that mean?
1) That Christ failed, or
2) Christ didn't die for all
(forgot #3 Man failed. Happens all the time.)
I Just came to where you terminated the debate, and wish not to debate the matter any further. I understand. You tell me to be ashamed, why just because I don't believe everything JUST the way you do. ANYTHING else could have been and should have been worked out. Well that's okay if that's the reason, seems there's a lot of that going on. At any rate the debate is here in full for others to read
God bless.
)
Re: Calvinism
Re: Calvinism
Email This To a Friend
Topic Commands
Click to receive email notification of replies 
Click to stop receiving email notification of replies