|
Post by gorship on Nov 8, 2013 3:45:45 GMT 3
Yup still at the gym, and no I wont be using roids or anything I just lift heavy and eat a lot. As for this thread, Ill need to read through and see where its at... It would appear however that the debate is necessary?
|
|
|
Post by gorship on Nov 8, 2013 4:14:07 GMT 3
Alright, can't tell what the current "problem" with us non-calvinists is. Ill wait for the next round "well romans says"
|
|
|
Post by eph1eleven on Nov 8, 2013 5:21:50 GMT 3
Gennie says,.... oh, wait; you didn't make any points in your last post. You failed to provide a proof text showing that the Gospel message includes an explanation of the doctrine of predestination. Your point is unbiblical and invalid.
Now that I have answered your question, you can answer mine. If Romans 3:11 is true(there is none that seeketh after God), then how are men saved? If no one seeks God, then how and why are you saved? Are you more intelligent than the reprobate? Are you more humble? More willing to believe? Which is it? If most people end up in Hell, why are you going to Heaven? Is it by your own merit? Have you contributed anything? If you tell me that you contribute your own Faith, then I will only remind you that you were "ordained" to belief(Acts 13:48).
How do you reconcile your position to the Lamb's Book of Life being a finished document since the foundation of the world(Rev 17:8)?
One last question; What is the meaning of the universe? What is the point of creation from the vantage point of the Creator? Is it to please you? or is it to Glorify God Almighty in all of His attributes?
And enough with the emotion. Stick to exegesis.
|
|
|
Post by genuinefaith on Nov 8, 2013 7:03:51 GMT 3
Gennie says,.... oh, wait; you didn't make any points in your last post. You failed to provide a proof text showing that the Gospel message includes an explanation of the doctrine of predestination. Your point is unbiblical and invalid. Right after you proof-text that you should hold back the bad news that most have been non-preselected from the ability of responding to the Good News. Hmm, maybe I missed the part where you refuted the Biblical instructions I demonstrated which say to preach the whole truths in the Word as a message of light. Nice try with the suggestion I proof-text against your disingenuous exclusions, but I don’t engage in the illogical fallacies of trying to prove or proof-text negatives. Actually find it comical that you would claim a conclusion invalid otherwise, but very typical of Calvinist’ reasoning. I leave you to your misery of hiding behind half-truths in your gospel and your misguided imagination that you can proof-text to me that poor Deterministically Sovereign God had to create robots to get any of them to respond to His less than genuine loving offer of grace to bring Himself glory…
|
|
|
Post by gorship on Nov 8, 2013 8:44:34 GMT 3
Alright let me give this a shot with my not so smart brain. My responses will be in Red
Gennie says,.... oh, wait; you didn't make any points in your last post. You failed to provide a proof text showing that the Gospel message includes an explanation of the doctrine of predestination. Your point is unbiblical and invalid. Now that I have answered your question, you can answer mine. Is it ok if I try?If Romans 3:11 is true(there is none that seeketh after God), then how are men saved? It would appear that THE JAILOR Had to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ.
Also we have This we would see the prerequisite for baptism was the personal confession in Christ If no one seeks God, then how and why are you saved? Are you more intelligent than the reprobate? Are you more humble? More willing to believe? Which is it? If most people end up in Hell, why are you going to Heaven? Is it by your own merit? Have you contributed anything? If you tell me that you contribute your own Faith, Valid and fair question, however acts 13:48 really doesn't fit your point. Our problem is sin (obviously ha!) remember, even Adam hid from God in the garden when first introduced with sin. and Adam, well... he walked with God. Sin pulls us away! And Just as God called for adam first and at first he Hid, we too can Hide... But God calls all men! What does God feel about the death of the wicked? what are we to do with them? Its also worth noting it says "Turn yourselves"then I will only remind you that you were "ordained" to belief(Acts 13:48). A Valiant defense for sure. However, this has less to do with a proof text for calvinism and more of a proof text that we really need to brush up on our english! Ordain has some meaning behind it. From the KJV dictionary on this verse the defined word would be as follows: 3. To set; to establish; to institute; to constitute. So as many as that constituted eternal life (picture signing a declaration) believed. While I am big fan of Dr. David Sorensons commentary; Adam Clarke does a fantastic job on this piece. HoorayHow do you reconcile your position to the Lamb's Book of Life being a finished document since the foundation of the world(Rev 17:8)? Well I would think this would be a pretty easy one no? I don't think we have to get super technical but I suppose we could. However lets try not to. God is outside of time and we are not (duh), So It also says in chapt:verse 13:8 the Lambs sacrifice before the foundation of the world, God knew man would rebel, but forced robotic love isn't Love, so God made a way out through His son, He had it all in control from the beginning. So God has the finished book, with our free choices to serve Him in the fullness of time written down. One last question; What is the meaning of the universe? What is the point of creation from the vantage point of the Creator? Is it to please you? or is it to Glorify God Almighty in all of His attributes? Bah I think you were trying to make a cheap shot here. I think we both know we are given life to love God and enjoy Him and what He gives us forever.And enough with the emotion. Stick to exegesis. I believe I have
|
|
|
Post by eph1eleven on Nov 8, 2013 13:40:59 GMT 3
Gorship says,"It would appear that THE JAILOR Had to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ."
If this is to refute the fact that no man, apart from God's grace, seeks God(Romans3:11), then your answer is insufficient. God is the only seeker. Man never initiates. Luke 19:10 says,"For the Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost." If we assume that the Bible is true in it's assessment of the human condition, we should be able to show from scripture that the very act of believing is a product of God's grace , and is not our contribution. The Bible gives us such a verse. Acts 13:48 says,"And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ORDAINED to eternal life believed." We do not ordain ourselves. If you say that man is predestined due to his foreseen, hypothetical, not-yet-existing faith from eternity past, I would only redirect you to Romans 3:11 which clearly states that no unregenerate man ever does this. So the bottom line is this. If you are saved, and most people are not, what makes you different from the rest who do not believe? Are you better? More intelligent? Wiser? More humble? What good attribute was required on your part for God to save you? Or is the truth found in the answer to Paul's question,"who maketh the to differ?". Build your theology from the Biblical definition of humanity, and you will not arrive at synergism.
|
|
|
Post by gorship on Nov 8, 2013 22:19:21 GMT 3
I am sad. I worked hard to answer you and you didn't read my full reply as if you did, none of these questions would apply. Please read my entire post.
|
|
|
Post by Dr James Ach on Nov 9, 2013 0:01:40 GMT 3
Gorship says,"It would appear that THE JAILOR Had to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ." If this is to refute the fact that no man, apart from God's grace, seeks God(Romans3:11), then your answer is insufficient. God is the only seeker. Man never initiates. Luke 19:10 says,"For the Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost." If we assume that the Bible is true in it's assessment of the human condition, we should be able to show from scripture that the very act of believing is a product of God's grace , and is not our contribution. The Bible gives us such a verse. Acts 13:48 says,"And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ORDAINED to eternal life believed." We do not ordain ourselves. If you say that man is predestined due to his foreseen, hypothetical, not-yet-existing faith from eternity past, I would only redirect you to Romans 3:11 which clearly states that no unregenerate man ever does this. So the bottom line is this. If you are saved, and most people are not, what makes you different from the rest who do not believe? Are you better? More intelligent? Wiser? More humble? What good attribute was required on your part for God to save you? Or is the truth found in the answer to Paul's question,"who maketh the to differ?". Build your theology from the Biblical definition of humanity, and you will not arrive at synergism. Eph1eleven says, "God does the seeking, not man". I beg to differ. "Seek the LORD while He may be found" Isaiah 55:6 "Ye shall SEEK for me and find me when ye shall search for me with your whole heart" Jeremiah 29:13 "Seek and ye shall find" Luke 11:9 "Behold I stand at the door and knock (Notice is doesn't say 'I am about to kick the door in') If any man OPEN THE DOOR, I will come in" Revelation 3:20 "That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things." Acts 15:17 "That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us" Acts 17:27 "To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life" Romans 2:7 "But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him" Hebrews 11:6 "So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation." Hebrews 9:28 When John the Baptist was in prison, he doubted about Christ and asked, "And said unto him, Art thou he that should come, or do we look for another?" Matthew 11:3 If God compels us to salvation, and we never have to look, then God should also compel our confidence and security. If John the Baptist thought that God predestinated us based on an unconditional election, he sure didn't act like he believed that. When I was in the military, we sometimes did rescue missions and found others who had escaped from their captors trying to find their way to freedom. We found them because they were also seeking to be free. If they had hid in a bush, and not sought freedom, they would have never been found. So the Seeker can seek at the same time as a person seeking to be free. Furthermore, just because a person is seeking freedom does not imply that he believes there is something intrinsically good about him that deserves freedom. In fact, a person can not be saved unless they can fall before God in repentance of their wickedness before a Holy God. It seems everytime a Non Calvinist is critiqued by a Calvinist, they act like they've never heard us say that before, while a few Calvinists preach a completely inconsistent message of repentance that appeals to a man's reason while at the same time maintaining that man is not involved in any way in salvation. This also fails to account for the fact that God uses men to deliver the gospel and since the gospel is by hearing, and yet they can't hear unless a preacher be sent, how is it that God uses man in the delivery of the gospel which is an essential part of a person hearing the gospel, and yet at the same time claim that man is not involved somehow? Romans 10:14-17 shows that there's at least one other person involved in your salvation and that's the preacher. Does that mean the preacher SAVED YOU? Of course not, but leave it up to Calvinists to repeatedly make that absurd accusation. If man was not given a choice, then Jesus would not speak in hypothetical imperatives such as "IF YE BELIEVE NOT that I am he ye shall die in your sins" John 8:24. He would not tell us to "draw nigh to God, and He will draw night to you". James 4:8. He would not tell the Israelites "come let us reason together" Isaiah 1:18. He would not have told Israel "Turn ye unto me and I will turn unto you" Zechariah 1:3. And finally, the reaction that God has of anger at His people's rebellion is silly if they are all doing exactly what He determined them to do. If man does only that which has been determined to do, then God would be schizophrenic for reacting in anger against those who perform according to the destiny He has given them, and for doing exactly what He wanted them to do. Anger is a response to that which is wrong, and against our desires, but if man is acting within the desires that he has been given, then God's reaction to them would be absurd if they were not given the choice to act otherwise.
|
|
|
Post by gorship on Nov 9, 2013 0:38:40 GMT 3
Dr James steppin in and droppin knowledge bombs! BOOM! Hey DrJ you on Baptistsymposium?
|
|
|
Post by genuinefaith on Nov 9, 2013 1:10:50 GMT 3
Gorship says,"It would appear that THE JAILOR Had to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ." If this is to refute the fact that no man, apart from God's grace, seeks God(Romans3:11), then your answer is insufficient. I think you missed the point that I was simply arguing that "IF" your Determinist doctrines were true then there is a problem with the half-truth in giving the Gospel as "IF" it it were a genuine offer to the person hearing it. Thereby "ALL" your answers trying begin with scriptural food-fights to prove Determinism is correct are irrelevant. My point stands. I would call your constant attempts to go down that road a smokescreen fallacy. Anybody can raise countless arguments in this way while they avoid the direct subject of the argument. You see, I made one simple argument to which you replied but you simply wanted to sway the argument into proof-texting your entire Deterministic system and this always ends up in circular never-ending arguments where no true conclusion can be drawn out. I much rather stick to a specific argument than chase every rabbit that comes out and goes in another direction. I hope you understand what I've been saying to you. Again, even "IF" you proved Determinism to be true it doe not not change my argument so there is no point in me going down that road. Its not where my interests are for a "debate".
There is nothing wrong if you or others want have scriptural food-fights ("discussions") that go on and on with no real direction of reaching conclusions based on specific premises which raise issues and make claims toward that specific conclusion. Scriptural food-fights are good practice for going over the many scriptures but I do not regard these "discussions" as "debates" in the sense that I prefer a debate that sticks to the claims made and that works to draw a true conclusion on those specific claims. I'm sure many here or on the new site I attend (which you are welcome to visit) would be glad to have never-ending scriptural food-fights until the cows the come home. That said, "if" the subject where "seeking God" I might be glad to engage in that debate, but in the same way I (personally) would want to stick to the direct issues of the claim and the meaning of that specific verse and would not go down the smokescreen road of chasing down your entire system and every dogmatic proof-text for it while you try defend the T through P of your system. Thought I should make that clear because didn't want you to think I was objecting to you personally, I simply have other goals for which I base my reasons for being in a "debate". Hope that makes sense. Blessings
|
|
|
Post by genuinefaith on Nov 9, 2013 1:39:51 GMT 3
Dr James steppin in and droppin knowledge bombs! BOOM! Hey DrJ you on Baptistsymposium? We don't currently have any debates going on there for him to drop any booms, just kind of hanging out, fellowship and posting about our non-C positions in productive and non-offensive ways. The C's haven't shown up yet - I think maybe the Calvinist who know about it like having their biased advantages and ways over on the BB. LOL Chickens! LOL Just kidding...sorta. Nah, I enjoy posting there though and the atmosphere is a nice change. I think it is structured to bring about some good discussions and debates. I hope more old friends like Dr James show up at some point.
|
|
|
Post by eph1eleven on Nov 9, 2013 4:13:19 GMT 3
Dr Ach says,"I beg to differ."
Yes sir, you may. However, you have not shown by any of your proof texts that any man seeks God apart from His Grace. Romans 3:11 has not changed simply because you beg to differ. Neither has Acts 13:48. The Lambs Book of Life was a finished document from the beginning; which is in perfect accord with the biblical doctrine of predestination. To say that election is based on "foreseen faith" is a logical fallacy(a fallacy because no man yet existed at the foundation of the world to exercise either belief or unbelief and all such action must have first proceeded from the mind of God). To show that God instructs men to believe is of no value to your position, because God does not imply by this that man is able to believe or even ordained to believe. If by this instruction we gather that man is able to do as God commands, you would also necessarily destroy the Gospel itself; for God commands men to be perfect(Matt 5:48), and if God, by the commandment, implies that man is able to perform the thing required of him, it would then follow that man is able to keep the whole law(the ten COMMANDMENTS), making the cross unnecessary. But we know this is not true. God commands men to believe knowing that they cannot believe without His Grace; and God ordains men to believe based on His good pleasure. What you are struggling with is the dichotomy between the eternal and temporal; and not accounting for the fact that the eternal God must condescend to man within the framework of time in order to interact with him. God carries out punishment against the wicked, all the while knowing that they will never repent; but must admonish them to turn and believe anyway, so that at the judgment, no man can point the finger at God, and call him unjust for not giving fair warning. This is "systematic theology". It will not allow for cherry picking of proof texts, and requires that you deal with some basic parameters. The primary considerations are the Biblical definition of God, and the biblical definition of man. Synergism inevitably reduces God to an impotent entity that operates within the universe(instead of the Creator of the universe from whom proceeds all things). It also elevates man to the center of the universe and erects a new god called "man's free will" which God reacts to, and is bound by, since eternity past. A point that is so thoroughly refuted by the scriptures, that it's propagation can only be ascribed to willful ignorance.
|
|
|
Post by Dr James Ach on Nov 9, 2013 11:04:26 GMT 3
Dr Ach says,"I beg to differ." You may not pick ONE VERSE that appears paradoxical to the MANY MANY verses that are CLEAR that men DO seek God and HAVE sought him to build an erroneous doctrine. That is just bad hermeneutics. If you were consistent in your application of Romans 3:11 as an absolute universal standard, then you must also apply every single verse after that with the same standard; that NO MAN, saved or unsaved has ANY UNDERSTANDING, and that ALL MEN are swift to shed blood, and that NO MAN FEARS GOD, and yet Cornelius is said to be "one that FEARETH GOD". Acts 10:2. So either there is an explicit contradiction in Scripture, or your building a doctrine around a single passage is wrong. Paul is quoting from Psalm 14 and 53 to show that men IN GENERAL do not seek after God, which is obvious because the remaining verses do not support that all men everywhere have killed someone. Paul used this passage to add weight to his claim that men are sinful and gives a list of examples of specific sins that ALL MEN IN GENERAL have in common. Paul used such an example in the previous chapter where in Romans 2 Paul says, "Thou that sayest a man should not commit adultery, dost thou commit adultery? thou that abhorrest idols, dost thou commit sacrilege?" Romans 2:22. When the Rich Young Ruler was asked to recite the law, he said "all these things have I kept from my youth", but was he right? Jesus pointed out there was one thing he lacked. Some men have not violated EVERY law, but in breaking just ONE they are guilty of ALL (James 2:10) and that is the point that Paul is making in Romans 3:11. It is erroneous for you to build a doctrine that conflicts with numerous other clear passages in the Bible that show that men DO seek God. I have explained Acts 13:48 in another post in this forum. "The context begins in verse 46 where the Jews had considered themselves unworthy of everlasting life, and thus Paul vowed to go to the Gentiles. The text shows that they already glorified the word of the Lord. The assumption made in this verse is that the term “ordained” ALWAYS means something predetermined ahead of time, and that’s not the usage of the word ordained in this passage. For example, Acts 14:23, they ORDAINED them elders. Did that mean they were chosen ahead of time? No, it means they were appointed for a specific purpose AFTER they had already been saved and AFTER they had already consented to be an elder. See also Romans 13:1, Hebrews 9:6. In Acts 1:22, “Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection.” Notice the ordination was based on a condition: 1) the believer had to be present from the baptism of John 2) unto the same day Christ was ascended. The ordination was descriptive of the condition, not prescriptive of the condition. So in Acts 13:48, the emphasis on what the Gentiles were appointed to as a result of the Jews rejection of the gospel. The passive particple throws the emphasis on the eternal life, not on the ordination. Thus this verse does not teach that the Gentiles were saved because they were ordained, but that ordination is describing what they were appointed to." If the Lambs book of life was a finished document from the beginning, then explain Revelation 3:5, "He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life, but I will confess his name before my Father, and before his angels." And, your argument that "to base election on foreseen faith" is again, another argument against Arminianism when I stated plainly that I am not an Arminian. So your rehearsed arguments against Arminians are going to cause you a few problems when you are trying to assume what I believe and make arguments against me that I do not hold to. You have spent far too much time memorizing James White's debate tactics. Since you didn't address the rest of my post, I'll get to the rest of yours later today to address the classic James White "temporal vs eternal dichotomy" fallacy.
|
|
|
Post by eph1eleven on Nov 9, 2013 14:17:57 GMT 3
Dr Ach says,"You may not pick ONE VERSE that appears paradoxical to the MANY MANY verses that are CLEAR that men DO seek God and HAVE sought him to build an erroneous doctrine."
Actually, this verse appears at least three times in the Bible(Psalm 14, Psalm 53, Romans 3), declaring that "no man seeketh God". Have you not read, "in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established"? So how is this reconciled with verses showing that men do in fact seek Him? This is a contradiction in your theology if you do not assign the cause of men seeking to "God's grace" and not to man's fallen will. Speaking of the natural man, Paul and the Psalmist are 100% correct in saying that no man in the flesh ever seeks God. What does Jesus say? "No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him". Jesus plainly teaches that "no man can" come to Him unless he is first drawn; so now your theory is in direct opposition to the testimony of Christ. The unregenerate man is described as being "Dead in trespasses and sins" which precludes any sort of spiritual seeking, as dead men seek nothing and feel no need. The spiritually dead man will continue to fit himself for Hell until he is regenerated by God's Spirit. This operation of the Spirit is performed entirely at God's discretion(e.g. the wind bloweth where it listeth...so is every one that is born of the Spirit). The Lambs Book of Life was a finished document at the foundation of the world. This is not debatable. Revelation 17:8 says,"... whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world...". So why then are names spoken of as being blotted out in the Biblical narrative? Because what God has decreed from the "foundation of the world" is carried out in our temporal existence. It's the Temporal vs. Eternal dichotomy made obvious by even a casual reading of the Bible.
Then the Dr. says,"So in Acts 13:48, the emphasis on what the Gentiles were appointed to as a result of the Jews rejection of the gospel. The passive particple throws the emphasis on the eternal life, not on the ordination. Thus this verse does not teach that the Gentiles were saved because they were ordained, but that ordination is describing what they were appointed to."
Sir, if this is the only way you can deal with this passage, then you have no argument. The verse reads,"And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed."
The "ordination" is not in juxtaposition to the Jews, but is contrasted against the Gentiles who did not believe. Luke is writing expressly about the Gentiles having "heard this" (every Gentile present heard Paul), And then tells us about those who believed, describing them as being "ordained" to eternal life as opposed to the rest of the Gentiles who did not believe and were not "ordained to eternal life". The Jews are not a component part of the immediate context(within the verse) and they are not what the saved Gentiles are being compared against. If the Gentiles, by virtue of the Jew's rejection of the Gospel, are "ordained" simply because Paul turns his efforts toward them, the verse necessitates that all of those Gentiles present were saved because, according to your butchery, they were all "ordained" due to the actions of the Jews. But even a child knows that this is not what the verse is saying. Luke is only telling of those Gentiles who believed, and comparing them with those who did not, and declaring their prior election with a word that can never be made to mean "self-will".
Then the Dr. says," You have spent far too much time memorizing James White's debate tactics."
Actually, I'm influenced far more by Luther and Calvin, than White. In fact, I can honestly say, that the only points I've memorized are from Luther's "Bondage of the Will".
|
|
|
Post by eph1eleven on Nov 9, 2013 15:19:10 GMT 3
Gorship says,"I am sad. I worked hard to answer you and you didn't read my full reply as if you did, none of these questions would apply. Please read my entire post."
Sorry Mr. Gorship. I am not going to refute your entire novella in a single post. I pick the most pertinent arguments and work from there. Otherwise I would get bogged down in the minutia, when this debate really only hinges on the interpretation of a few very clear chapters in the Bible(e.g. John6, Eph1, Rom9, ect.).
|
|