MacArthur

[HappyChristian]

D-28 has been banned. Had he given the appearance of actually discussing instead of dissing, he would have been allowed to stay.  That begs another new word - "supergoodbyeism." 

And, by the way - "after" is not, in the purest definition, a polysyllabic word. It has two syllables and so someone COULD say it is poly...but the generally accepted polysyllabic word would have three or more syllables. 

 

[Alan]

43 minutes ago, HappyChristian said:

D-28 has been banned.

HappyChristian,

Thank you.

Alan

[No Nicolaitans]

12 hours ago, D-28 Player said:

What absolute moron would read anything I've said and interpret it to mean "--A person may get saved believing one thing and then go on to believe another, thus still being saved but having a different faith to the saving faith they once had;

--Lots of Calvinists have got saved before becoming Calvinists, and therefore are saved in spite of being Calvinists"

Apparently, you edited one of your posts in order to remove the quote above; however, the full post was quoted by another member before you had the chance to remove it.

I'm not sure whether that's a good sign or not. Did you remove it, because you were convicted of it...or...did you remove it just because you feared it would make you look bad to your friends on the other site?

As I recall, you were greeted warmly and openly when you joined.

I asked you some sincere, respectful questions since you said that you were willing to answer questions and discuss Calvinism. In response, you answered with a vague and non-definitive question that didn't directly address my question(s)...and you know it didn't. Therefore, I asked the question(s) again with somewhat different wording; to which, you intimated that my intelligence wasn't adequate...an attempt to shame me. In fact, when I saw how fruitless a discussion with you would be, I pointed out that you turned the discussion "dirty" and bowed out of the conversation. You sir, are the one who chose to "play dirty"...not me.

I later re-entered this conversation and made a post that wasn't directed at you; to which, you again responded to me by insinuating that my words would bring more "entertainment" to your friends on Facebook...again, it was an attempt to bring both ridicule and shame upon me (and others). You sir, are the one who chose to "play dirty"...not me.

I later made a remark (in another thread) regarding the fact that A.W. Pink is a Calvinist. Why? I made the remark, because you said that you were reading one of his books. Whether you realize it or not, just by saying what you're reading, you are also (in effect) recommending the book. Someone may see what you are reading, it might stir their interest, and they might seek out the book for themselves. You have therefore, recommended the book by default. I simply gave information so that people would know more about the author of the book. Yet again, you chose to "play dirty" and accused me of hatred toward Calvinism simply because I said Pink was a Calvinist.

As I am one of the "four people" whom you feel are attacking you, I would ask you to read back over my posts that are directed toward you and see if I have attacked you...or...if it's actually you who attacked me. Here is what I DID do...

1. I employed the use of "LOL" in response to some of your words toward me. Words that were once again attempting to question my intellect and shame me...which I did find quite humorous. However, if my "LOLs" offended you, I apologize.
2. I employed a few "made up words" that I will admit were used purposely to make a point. If my "made up words" offended you, I apologize.
3. I made a couple of posts; in which, I purposely spoke in a manner that feigned ignorance. It was meant in good fun; however, if those posts offended you, I apologize.

I think those are the only things that anyone could possibly or even remotely consider as me attacking you...and I'm giving the benefit of the doubt.

From what I've seen, you are the one who "plays dirty". From what I've seen, you are the one who attacks. From what I've seen, you are the one who tries to demean, ridicule, and shame others...as evidenced in your words toward me and the quote above (as one other example)...

Here's the thing sir...

As evidenced in some of your other postings, you are willing to fellowship with others who have doctrinal differences that you don't deem "major". In fact, you fellowship with a group on Facebook that has "major" doctrinal differences. That's fine; it's your prerogative to do so.

We IFBs "who have a reputation that you now understand" aren't quite as open to such as that. We realize the danger of accepting doctrine(s) which we find disagree with God's word. Doctrine is placed very highly in God's word, yet many today are willing to forego their doctrinal differences in order to come together...something that the Bible strongly warns and commands against. We IFBs believe that all actual doctrine is major, and as the Bible instructs, we don't take what we consider to be false doctrine lightly.

Now, if THAT is what has given us this so-called "reputation", then I see nothing wrong with that...so your attempt to shame us by proclaiming that you now understand why we have the reputation that we do...is another failed attempt.

We're a bunch of mean-spirited people who don't play nice...I get it. Paul didn't play very nice with false doctrine either, did he? Nor did the Lord Jesus Christ play nice when he confronted false doctrine, did he?

Now, if you want to actually discuss this matter of Calvinism and show us where we are wrong, misconstrued, mislead, or any other supposed misconception that we have about Calvinism, Reformed Doctrine, Doctrines of Grace, etc., then please feel free to show us. 

Edited April 8, 2017 by No Nicolaitans
spelling

[Pastor Scott Markle]

9 hours ago, Orval said:

To D-28,

I have waited all day for you to respond to my presupposition that Reformed place their faith in their election.  You have called me a liar on two occasions and yet you have not refuted in any way my reasoning for saying what I do.  So I will ask again this simple question can you be saved without election or God sovereignty? You say you get saved by Christ alone through faith alone yet you (the reformed) also believe you cannot be saved apart from election.  If as you say it is Christ alone through faith alone then admit you do not need election and I will walk away from this thread.  I do not believe you can say election is not necessary thereby proving you place faith in the election of God more than the Christ.  I know this angers you, but this is the only way I can show you that Calvinism is a system of believe and is inconsistent in light of scripture.  Each point of Calvinism needs, in fact has to have, the support of the other four points.   

By the way you have not, to this point answered my questions.  Are you a Calvinist and what is your church affiliation? 

My intent in this post, is for you to seriously consider what I am saying and respond in a gracious manner.  Regardless of what you might believe I do not hate Calvinists.   Also I know I am saved, I know the date, the year and the time I was saved, I know exactly where I was when I got saved so being accused of not being saved does not offend me at all Satan has accused me of that many times over the forty plus years I have served my Savior.  

Try to enjoy the challenges presented to you by the posters on this forum, if truth is the desired end why not take the time to express your rebuttals with the Word of God.  I think you will be received much better even if folks believe you are wrong in your doctrine.  Just a suggestion. 

Brother Orval,

Since Brother "D-28 Player" has been banned, I would like to take a shot at being the "Calvinist's advocate" in response to your above posting.  (Note to all in the audience: I am NOT a Calvinist.  Rather, I am an opponent of the Calvinistic system.  In fact, I personally believe that the Calvinistic system presents a false gospel from which I choose to separate myself.  However, it has been acknowledged in this thread discussion that I DO possesses a fairly accurate grasp of the Calvinistic system; therefore, I am making the following attempt in order to "sharpen" a brother in Christ.)

Reading your posting, the following thoughts came to mind -- IF I were a Calvinist, I might answer:

Yes, election is certainly NECESSARY for my eternal salvation.  Romans 8:29-30 declares, "For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.  Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified."  According to this passage, the Lord our God calls, justifies, and glorifies only those whom he has first predestinated.  In fact, this passage presents a sequence among these matters, such that each consecutive matter is built upon the foundation of the previous matter.  Even so, an individual can only be glorified if that individual is first justified.  Even so, an individual can only be justified if that individual is first called.  Even so, an individual can only be called if that individual is first predestinated.  Now, if justification is an aspect of eternal salvation (and it is), then this passage teaches that predestination (election) is certainly NECESSARY for justification (salvation).

However, although election (predestination) is NECESSARY in the work of God for salvation (justification), it is NOT necessary that a sinner's faith be placed in that election (predestination).  NO passage of Scripture instructs a lost sinner to have faith in God's work of election (predestination).  Indeed, Scripture ever instructs the lost sinner to have faith in the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.  As such, I believe that it is possible for an individual to have faith in Christ for eternal salvation without ever even knowing or understanding anything about the doctrine of election (predestination).

Edited April 8, 2017 by Pastor Scott Markle

[Orval]

46 minutes ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Yes, election is certainly NECESSARY for my eternal salvation.  Romans 8:29-30 declares, "For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.  Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified."  According to this passage, the Lord our God calls, justifies, and glorifies only those whom he has first predestinated.  In fact, this passage presents a sequence among these matters, such that each consecutive matter is built upon the foundation of the previous matter.  Even so, an individual can only be glorified if that individual is first justified.  Even so, an individual can only be justified if that individual is first called.  Even so, an individual can only be called if that individual is first predestinated.  Now, if justification is an aspect of eternal salvation (and it is), then this passage teaches that predestination (election) is certainly NECESSARY for justification (salvation).

I did not know D-28 was banned, not sure whether I am in agreement or not but it was not my call. 

Ok Mr. Calvinist, (just kidding)

We shall look at your position on Romans 8 in the context of the complete passage. 

So, we are not drawn off course shall we establish the vocabulary we are referencing in this debate?  By foreknowledge in verse 28 you believe that God foreknew who would have faith and who would not have faith? Those whom God foreknew would have faith it is those and those alone whom he predestined to be like Jesus in verse 29?

have I described your understanding of foreknowledge and predestination correctly in the context of these verses?

Edited April 8, 2017 by Orval

[Jim_Alaska]

I think simply, does that make me simple minded? 

I have never found anywhere in scripture that anyone was predistinated to be saved. Indeed, the verses offered in Rom.8 plainly show that any predestination afforded by God is to be "conformed to the image of His son."

My simple reasoning is that anyone that is saved will be conformed to the image of His son.

[Pastor Scott Markle]

1 hour ago, Orval said:

Ok Mr. Calvinist, (just kidding)

We shall look at your position on Romans 8 in the context of the complete passage. 

So, we are not drawn off course shall we establish the vocabulary we are referencing in this debate?  By foreknowledge in verse 28 you believe that God foreknew who would have faith and who would not have faith? Those whom God foreknew would have faith it is those and those alone whom he predestined to be like Jesus in verse 29?

have I described your understanding of foreknowledge and predestination correctly in the context of these verses?

This is Pastor Scott Markle, an opponent of Calvinism, speaking as a "Calvinism advocate," (All who read, please remember that I myself oppose the Calvinistic system; therefore, in my own position of belief, I may disagree with some or all of that which I present as a "Calvinism advocate.")

Brother Orval,

That would be an incorrect definition for the word "foreknow" in the context of Romans 8:29-30.  In this context the word "foreknow" does not speak informationally, but speaks relationally.  As I believe we all would recognize, the word "know" in Scripture can be used either informationally or relationally.  Informationally, it would mean that an individual possesses some amount of information about a person or subject.  Relationally, it would mean that an individual possesses some form of relationship with a person.  Now, the word "foreknow" simply means "to know before."  Therefore, the word "foreknow" could mean to possess information beforehand, as you seem to be referencing it.  However, the word "foreknow" could also mean to possess a relationship beforehand.  In this context, when speaking concerning God's "foreknowledge," this word "foreknow" indicates that God before chose to have a relationship of love upon and with certain individuals.  Even so, it would be similar to that which the Lord our God declared in Jeremiah 31:3, wherein He indicated that He loved His own "with an everlasting love."

Edited April 8, 2017 by Pastor Scott Markle

[Orval]

59 minutes ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

That would be an incorrect definition for the word "foreknow" in the context of Romans 8:29-30.  In this context the word "foreknow" does not speak informationally, but speaks relationally.  As I believe we all would recognize, the word "know" in Scripture can be used either informationally or relationally.  Informationally, it would mean that an individual possesses some amount of information about a person or subject.  Relationally, it would mean that an individual possesses some form of relationship with a person.  Now, the word "foreknow" simply means "to know before."  Therefore, the word "foreknow" could mean to possess information beforehand, as you seem to be referencing it.  However, the word "foreknow" could also mean to possess a relationship beforehand.  In this context, when speaking concerning God's "foreknowledge," this word "foreknow" indicates that God before chose to have a relationship of love upon and with certain individuals.  Even so, it would be similar to that which the Lord our God declared in Jeremiah 31:3, wherein He indicated that He loved His own "with an everlasting love."

Hello brother Scott, :To those reading obviously I am not a Calvinist but as you will see I have a particular problem with "Unconditional Election" I look forward to this discussion hoping I can learn and that I might sharpen my presentation against Calvinism.

Forgive me sir, but you did not answer my questions instead you offered me two choices. 

We cannot move forward until I know what you believe in relation to Romans 8:29-30.

Do you believe Romans 8:29-30 teaches the meaning of word foreknowledge as “that God before chose to have a relationship” with only those who he foreknew would have faith? And because of that “before relationship” chose only those who would have faith in Christ to be predestined?  You stated in your post, that foreknowledge can only be informational or relational please tell me which you believe Romans 8:28 teaches in context?    

[Pastor Scott Markle]

1 hour ago, Jim_Alaska said:

I think simply, does that make me simple minded? 

I have never found anywhere in scripture that anyone was predistinated to be saved. Indeed, the verses offered in Rom.8 plainly show that any predestination afforded by God is to be "conformed to the image of His son."

My simple reasoning is that anyone that is saved will be conformed to the image of His son.

This is Pastor Scott Markle, an opponent of Calvinism, speaking as a "Calvinism advocate," (All who read, please remember that I myself oppose the Calvinistic system; therefore, in my own position of belief, I may disagree with some or all of that which I present as a "Calvinism advocate.")

Brother Jim,

Yet 2 Thessalonians 2:13 very specifically states, "But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth."

Furthermore, I believe that we all would recognize that in the context of the epistle to the Romans, being justified is Biblically equivalent to being saved.  Now, Romans 8:29 certainly does say that the Lord our God predestinated certain individuals specifically "to be conformed to the image of his Son."  Yet in the context of Romans 8:29-30, being conformed to the image of God's Son is Biblically equivalent to being glorified, as per verse 30.  Furthermore, the process of being called and being justified (saved) is a part the process whereby the Lord our God brings such individuals unto being glorified (conformed unto the image of His Son).  Even so, the Lord our God has not only predestinated individuals unto the final objective of being glorified and conformed to the image of His Son, but also unto the process of being called and being justified (saved) whereby that final objective is accomplished.

_________________________________

Now, I wish to speak as Pastor Scott Markle, the opponent of Calvinism.

I believe that it is better for us non-Calvinists, not to state that there is no passage which teaches that the Lord our God has elected us unto salvation, but to state that there is no passage which teaches that the Lord our God has elected us unto faith.  Biblically, the doctrine of salvation encompasses various aspects, including regeneration, adoption, forgiveness, cleansing, redemption, imputation, justification, reconciliation, sanctification, and even glorification.  These all are the work of God upon the believer in the "package of salvation," and indeed some passages DO teach that some of these aspects of salvation ARE predestinated by God for the believer.  However, the matter of faith is that particular and prerequisite responsibility which the Lord our God has assigned unto us, through which He applies the "package of salvation" unto the believer.  Therefore, the precise conflict between the non-Calvinist and the Calvinist in this regard is this -- The Calvinist believes that the Lord our God has indeed predestined individuals to believe, whereas the non-Calvinist does not.

Edited April 8, 2017 by Pastor Scott Markle

[Pastor Scott Markle]

9 minutes ago, Orval said:

Hello brother Scott, :To those reading obviously I am not a Calvinist but as you will see I have a particular problem with "Unconditional Election" I look forward to this discussion hoping I can learn and that I might sharpen my presentation against Calvinism.

Forgive me sir, but you did not answer my questions instead you offered me two choices. 

We cannot move forward until I know what you believe in relation to Romans 8:29-30.

Do you believe Romans 8:29-30 teaches the meaning of word foreknowledge as “that God before chose to have a relationship” with only those who he foreknew would have faith? And because of that “before relationship” chose only those who would have faith in Christ to be predestined?  You stated in your post, that foreknowledge can only be informational or relational please tell me which you believe Romans 8:28 teaches in context?    

This is Pastor Scott Markle, an opponent of Calvinism, speaking as a "Calvinism advocate," (All who read, please remember that I myself oppose the Calvinistic system; therefore, in my own position of belief, I may disagree with some or all of that which I present as a "Calvinism advocate.")

Brother Orval,

I do apologize.  It appears that I did not communicate myself clearly enough in previous posting.  Therein I stated as follows:

1 hour ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

That would be an incorrect definition for the word "foreknow" in the context of Romans 8:29-30.  In this context the word "foreknow" does not speak informationally, but speaks relationally.  As I believe we all would recognize, the word "know" in Scripture can be used either informationally or relationally.  Informationally, it would mean that an individual possesses some amount of information about a person or subject.  Relationally, it would mean that an individual possesses some form of relationship with a person.  Now, the word "foreknow" simply means "to know before."  Therefore, the word "foreknow" could mean to possess information beforehand, as you seem to be referencing it.  However, the word "foreknow" could also mean to possess a relationship beforehand.  In this context, when speaking concerning God's "foreknowledge," this word "foreknow" indicates that God before chose to have a relationship of love upon and with certain individuals.  Even so, it would be similar to that which the Lord our God declared in Jeremiah 31:3, wherein He indicated that He loved His own "with an everlasting love." (emphasis added by Pastor Scott Markle)

Those portions of my previous posting that I have now emboldened were intended to communicate that you were wrong in your presented viewpoint that the word "foreknow" was to be taken informationally in the context of Romans 8:29-30.  Indeed, I stated that "in this context the word 'foreknow' does NOT speak informationally, but speaks relationally."  Furthermore, I stated that in the context of Romans 8:29-30, "when speaking concerning God's 'foreknowledge,' this word 'foreknow' indicates that God before chose to have a relationship of love upon and with certain individuals."

So then, NO - I (as the "Calvinism advocate" only) do NOT believe "Romans 8:29-30 teaches the meaning of the word 'foreknowledge' as 'that God before chose to have a relationship” with only those who he foreknew would have faith."  For I would have disagreement with the addition of that portion which I have emboldened in your quotation.  To say that God foreknew who would have faith is to speak informationally.  The context of Romans 8:29-30 is NOT speaking informationally.  Rather, it is speaking relationally.  The Lord our God simply chose in eternity past by His sovereign will to bestow His grace and mercy upon certain individuals and therein to place His relationship of love upon them regardless of any condition in them or decision by them.  In the context of Romans 8:29-30 the matter of faith is NOT at all relevant to God's decision of foreknowledge (before love).

 Prayerfully, I have communicated my position (as the "Calvinism advocate" only) more clearly in this posting.

[Pastor Scott Markle]

To all,

Acting the part of the "Calvinism advocate" is NOT as easy as it may sound.  While presenting the Calvinist's side, I already know my non-Calvinist arguments against each point that I present.  Therefore, it is not easy to argue for the side of Calvinism without biasing the communication itself.  I am indeed working hard to argue the depth and detail of the Calvinist's logic, and not to turn the "Calvinism advocate" into a "straw man Calvinist" who is easily blown down.

On the other hand, what I am doing is what Brother "D-28 Player" could have done, if he truly desired to correct false perceptions concerning the system of Calvinism.  In fact, I believe that I myself (an opponent of Calvinism) may have presented more substance concerning the depth and details of Calvinistic doctrine than he did.

[wretched]

27 minutes ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

So then, NO - I (as the "Calvinism advocate" only) do NOT believe "Romans 8:29-30 teaches the meaning of the word 'foreknowledge' as 'that God before chose to have a relationship” with only those who he foreknew would have faith."  For I would have disagreement with the addition of that portion which I have emboldened in your quotation.  To say that God foreknew who would have faith is to speak informationally.  The context of Romans 8:29-30 is NOT speaking informationally.  Rather, it is speaking relationally.  The Lord our God simply chose in eternity past by His sovereign will to bestow His grace and mercy upon certain individuals and therein to place His relationship of love upon them regardless of any condition in them or decision by them.  In the context of Romans 8:29-30 the matter of faith is NOT at all relevant to God's decision of foreknowledge (before love).

I see that you are acting merely as a objective advocate or lawyer for calvin followers so I am addressing you in that way.

Counselor and if it please the jury: The foreknowledge discussed in the Romans 8 should be interpreted as both informational and relational. God informatively foreknew all who would believe in Him. This type of true heart Belief in Him produces a relationship with Him as clearly demonstrated throughout the NT. If it does not produce this relationship than the belief was not from the heart which always produces action toward God via regeneration.

This passage as with all other passages that your "clients" confuse themselves with are never referring to a hand picking selection of who will force-ably believe.

Prosecution concludes their opening statement.

[Orval]

1 hour ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

So then, NO - I (as the "Calvinism advocate" only) do NOT believe "Romans 8:29-30 teaches the meaning of the word 'foreknowledge' as 'that God before chose to have a relationship” with only those who he foreknew would have faith."  For I would have disagreement with the addition of that portion which I have emboldened in your quotation.  To say that God foreknew who would have faith is to speak informationally.  The context of Romans 8:29-30 is NOT speaking informationally.  Rather, it is speaking relationally.  The Lord our God simply chose in eternity past by His sovereign will to bestow His grace and mercy upon certain individuals and therein to place His relationship of love upon them regardless of any condition in them or decision by them.  In the context of Romans 8:29-30 the matter of faith is NOT at all relevant to God's decision of foreknowledge (before love).

ok brother, at this point I am excluding Faith from argument though I will refer to it later.   Therefore, I conclude you believe that foreknowledge in verse 29 is based on God’s election first (a presupposition) and then God’s love is extended only to those who were elected. 

Or that God’s love was the criterion for God’s election, those he loved he elected.  Which is it that you believe.

[Orval]

Brother Scott,

One of the differences between what we are doing and what most (not all) Calvinist's would do in a discussion is that you will not pull the, wounded quail maneuver, and strive to move the discussion of point to include so many fronts a persons focus is disrupted.      

[weary warrior]

When I teach against Calvinism, one of the things I strive most to do is to simplify. I have been reading the posts above, and though there is much that I agree with, it comes across sometimes as extremely minutely detailed and complex. This, I have found, adds to the confusion for the average Joe in the pew, and makes my head hurt too, if I wrap it up too tight. The truth of Christ was first entrusted to "ignorant and unlearned men", and is only as complex as we strive to make it. I think Baptist preachers are often so overweight because we tend to swallow so many camels.

When asked to explain predestination as it is in the Bible, and to refute Calvinism, I use Romans 8:29-30. I explain it like this. I take an empty shoe box and dropped it on the floor in front of the congregation. I tell them that this little box represents time. Time had a beginning and an end. I tell them that I, representing God, stand outside the confines of time, and that I can see into the box from all angles, I see all that will happen before it has happened as though it had already happened. Because I am God. I am omnipotent. Thus, I have "foreknowledge", perfect knowledge before hand, regarding all of the decisions and choices that every human being in their free will are ever going to make. I know beforehand who will accept Christ and who will reject Him. Armed with this foreknowledge of mine, I "pre-chose the destiny"  of those whom I knew would choose to receive Me as the Christ. It simply means that I worked out in advance, before time began, the end result of their personal free-will decision that I observed them make from my omnipotent perch outside of the confines of time. "Those I foreknew, I predestinated". As for "knowing" being relational, I've not studied it out, but the only relationships I'm aware of in the Bible off the top of my head that are referred to in that manner are all talking about sex. I'll need to dig deeper, I guess.

I have never had one person walk away from this simple teaching confused, and unable to understand  and simply defend their own position to someone else.

 

Edited April 8, 2017 by weary warrior