MacArthur

[Orval]

21 minutes ago, weary warrior said:

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 8:29-39. 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.

 

Weary Warrior,

How one would explain election, predestination etc. to a non-Calvinist group would not be an acceptable presentation to those of a Reformed mind set.  I spent many hours trying to use common sense in refuting Calvinism to a rather large group of Calvinists on another web site.  It is they who take the long route in discussion constantly probing for an error or misstatement they can jump on and this is exactly the method I am using in the discussion with Brother Scott.  I have learned that you have to ask small independent questions from Calvinists in order to establish exactly what they believe before you can actually refute what they believe.  You must be able to take away their primary weapon which is the claim that you do not understand.  If you notice Brother Scott kept asking D-28 to verify that Brother Scott did indeed understand Calvinism.  Once this point is established then one will be able to challenge the pillars of their belief system knowing they cannot say "you don't understand". 

Thanks for your insight. 

[weary warrior]

2 minutes ago, Orval said:

Weary Warrior,

How one would explain election, predestination etc. to a non-Calvinist group would not be an acceptable presentation to those of a Reformed mind set.  I spent many hours trying to use common sense in refuting Calvinism to a rather large group of Calvinists on another web site.  It is they who take the long route in discussion constantly probing for an error or misstatement they can jump on and this is exactly the method I am using in the discussion with Brother Scott.  I have learned that you have to ask small independent questions from Calvinists in order to establish exactly what they believe before you can actually refute what they believe.  You must be able to take away their primary weapon which is the claim that you do not understand.  If you notice Brother Scott kept asking D-28 to verify that Brother Scott did indeed understand Calvinism.  Once this point is established then one will be able to challenge the pillars of their belief system knowing they cannot say "you don't understand". 

Thanks for your insight. 

I understand your point, and certainly do not disagree. But where do we draw the line in getting drawn into a debate with the willingly ignorant regarding doctrine? The Calvinist who is at the level that you fellows are contending with are there because they choose to be. I too have dealt them over the years, and simply don't anymore. "They that are whole need not a physician" refers in context to those who hold false religion on purpose. Romans 1:29 has that terrible "catalog of sins", and debate is listed right there in the middle. These guys live for debate, and we feed it. Paul talked 2000 years ago about those who had the exact same problem as today's educated Calvinist. "...As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction." As preachers, I just think we are called to preach and teach and minister to "those that are sick" and to preach the simple truths of God to the simple. There are so many needy people that are searching for truth, how much time and energy do we really want to spend on those who refuse that truth? 

I'm not correcting or arguing, Brother, I'm just presenting another view. "Iron sharpening iron" is one thing, "casting our pearls before the swine" is something else altogether.

[Orval]

1 hour ago, weary warrior said:

I understand your point, and certainly do not disagree. But where do we draw the line in getting drawn into a debate with the willingly ignorant regarding doctrine? The Calvinist who is at the level that you fellows are contending with are there because they choose to be. I too have dealt them over the years, and simply don't anymore. "They that are whole need not a physician" refers in context to those who hold false religion on purpose. Romans 1:29 has that terrible "catalog of sins", and debate is listed right there in the middle. These guys live for debate, and we feed it. Paul talked 2000 years ago about those who had the exact same problem as today's educated Calvinist. "...As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction." As preachers, I just think we are called to preach and teach and minister to "those that are sick" and to preach the simple truths of God to the simple. There are so many needy people that are searching for truth, how much time and energy do we really want to spend on those who refuse that truth? 

I'm not correcting or arguing, Brother, I'm just presenting another view. "Iron sharpening iron" is one thing, "casting our pearls before the swine" is something else altogether.

I agree with you 100% Weary! 

But the fact remains that the influx of Calvinism into SBC churches and now IB churches is because those who are on the pastoral selection boards have no idea what questions to ask to protect their flocks.  I am convinced that 99% of our members will not enter into discussions with those in a Reformed position.  But the inroads of Calvinism into our churches is not coming via membership but directly into the leadership roles within our churches.  Because of their education the Calvinists are slipping past the membership level and going directly into leadership roles within the body.  I remember distinctly talking with a Calvinist pastor of a decent sized Baptist church and I asked him this question "did you tell the selection board you were Calvinist?" he told me "no", and when I asked why he did not tell them he told me "they did not ask".   Five years ago a pastor who is IB hired a music leader who was actually Reformed in his doctrine, two years later this man split that pastors church and took a good portion of the congregation with him to start a Reformed church. 

I am not a special man with special talents , but I have seen this time coming over the last two decades and have been warning my pastor to keep his eyes open concerning reformed doctrine in our church.  We (IB and IFB) can no longer just assume our members will say no to false doctrine.  Calvinism is extremely dangerous in that it lives off proselytizing and grow by the same.  When a Calvinist takes over a body of believers those that leave are identified as belonging to the classification 1 John 2:19 their concern for the lost is not as important as proclaiming their doctrine is the right doctrine.

 Regardless that they present themselves as being evangelists those would be evangelists in their midst are of smallest of percentages of the whole of Calvinism.

I agree with you that we are here to minister to those who are hurting and those who need Christ but at the same time we cannot be ignorant of what is happening around us.  If there are wolves in sheep clothing then they need to be identified and pointed out.  Even as Paul pointed out Gnosticism we must also point out the Gnostics of our day as well, we cannot remain ignorant of the devices employed by Calvinists to change the long held doctrine that whosever may come. 

I appreciate your view and hold it highly I also believe we must know false doctrine and how it gets into our churches.

 

Orval

  

    

Edited April 8, 2017 by Orval

[Pastor Scott Markle]

Speaking as Pastor Scott Markle, the opponent of Calvinism,

In the last fifteen years, I myself have observed Calvinistic doctrine "take over" a number of good Independent Baptist churches in our area.  Indeed, I could list at least four churches within a 30 minute radius, wherein Calvinistic doctrine either has already done its damage or is in the process of doing its damage.  These were churches with which I would have been willing to fellowship just twenty years ago.  So what happened?  I believe that few, if any, (including the church leadership) had the Biblical ability to combat the false doctrine of Calvinism with the true doctrine of God's Word.  According to Titus 1:9, one of the very qualifications of a godly pastor is that he can hold fast "the faithful word as he hath been taught," specifically in order that "he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers."  Indeed, the reason for the need of this very qualification is then given in Titus 1:10-11 -- "For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision: whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre's sake."  Even so, this is equally as much a requirement of faithfulness unto our Lord as is the requirement to "shun profane and vain babblings" and to avoid "foolish and unlearned questions." (See 2 Timothy 2:16, 23)

Concerning the "simplicity of the gospel" -- God's Word also declares that it teaches "some things hard to be understood," and that it is these very things "which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction." (See 2 Peter 3:16)  So then, what should we do in relation to such individuals?  In some cases we should separate ourselves wholly from them.  Yet in other cases we should, as commanded by God's own Word, "in meekness" be "instructing those that oppose themselves, if God peradventure will give them repentance unto the acknowledging of the truth; and that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will."  Furthermore, although some things in God's Word are (according to God's own Word) "hard to be understood," they are still all "profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works." (see 2 Timothy 3:16-17)  Indeed, if they are revealed in God's Holy Word, then they DO belong unto us and unto our children forever, that we may walk in righteousness and true holiness before the Lord our God. (see Deuteronomy 29:29)  As such, they ARE a part of those things that we are to study in order to show ourselves "approved unto God," as workmen that do not need to be ashamed, "rightly dividing the word of truth." (see 2 Timothy 2:15) 

Now, (as an example) one of the key passages of the Calvinist is Ephesians 1:3-14.  In the original Greek this passage is a single sentence.  Certainly, a single sentence that long must have many, many, many intricate grammatical details.  (And I am still bitter about it, because my father required me to diagram that entire sentence when I was in high school - specifically in order that I might understand it better to combat the false doctrine of Calvinism.)  So, if God the Holy Spirit inspired such a long sentence with so many intricate grammatical details, did he intend that we should both study and understand those intricate details?  I believe that Deuteronomy 29:29 and 2 Timothy 2:15 provide me with a clear Biblical answer - Yes, most certainly He DID.

[weary warrior]

4 minutes ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Speaking as Pastor Scott Markle, the opponent of Calvinism,

In the last fifteen years, I myself have observed Calvinistic doctrine "take over" a number of good Independent Baptist churches in our area.  Indeed, I could list at least four churches within a 30 minute radius, wherein Calvinistic doctrine either has already done its damage or is in the process of doing its damage.  These were churches with which I would have been willing to fellowship just twenty years ago.  So what happened?  I believe that few, if any, (including the church leadership) had the Biblical ability to combat the false doctrine of Calvinism with the true doctrine of God's Word.  According to Titus 1:9, one of the very qualifications of a godly pastor is that he can hold fast "the faithful word as he hath been taught," specifically in order that "he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers."  Indeed, the reason for the need of this very qualification is then given in Titus 1:10-11 -- "For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision: whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre's sake."  Even so, this is equally as much a requirement of faithfulness unto our Lord as is the requirement to "shun profane and vain babblings" and to avoid "foolish and unlearned questions." (See 2 Timothy 2:16, 23)

Concerning the "simplicity of the gospel" -- God's Word also declares that it teaches "some things hard to be understood," and that it is these very things "which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction." (See 2 Peter 3:16)  So then, what should we do in relation to such individuals?  In some cases we should separate ourselves wholly from them.  Yet in other cases we should, as commanded by God's own Word, "in meekness" be "instructing those that oppose themselves, if God peradventure will give them repentance unto the acknowledging of the truth; and that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will."  Furthermore, although some things in God's Word are (according to God's own Word) "hard to be understood," they are still all "profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works." (see 2 Timothy 3:16-17)  Indeed, if they are revealed in God's Holy Word, then they DO belong unto us and unto our children forever, that we may walk in righteousness and true holiness before the Lord our God. (see Deuteronomy 29:29)  As such, they ARE a part of those things that we are to study in order to show ourselves "approved unto God," as workmen that do not need to be ashamed, "rightly dividing the word of truth." (see 2 Timothy 2:15) 

Now, (as an example) one of the key passages of the Calvinist is Ephesians 1:3-14.  In the original Greek this passage is a single sentence.  Certainly, a single sentence that long must have many, many, many intricate grammatical details.  (And I am still bitter about it, because my father required me to diagram that entire sentence when I was in high school - specifically in order that I might understand it better to combat the false doctrine of Calvinism.)  So, if God the Holy Spirit inspired such a long sentence with so many intricate grammatical details, did he intend that we should both study and understand those intricate details?  I believe that Deuteronomy 29:29 and 2 Timothy 2:15 provide me with a clear Biblical answer - Yes, most certainly He DID.

All very true, when salted with a good dose of 1Co 2:1. "For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God." I believe that the true man of God must be able to discern in his spirit when the Spirit of God is revealing to a person the things of God that we are trying to teach to that person. No matter how much we study, learn and try to teach, if the Spirit does not open the hearts and discernment of the listener, we are striving for naught. I will start teaching a truth, but I can tell when it's not getting through. When it's hitting that intellectual wall. I can't do my work and God's work too. So I'll gently leave off the teaching for a while, and work with the one who IS being given discernment. 

All that you guys are saying is true, on it's side of the line. But there is the other side of the line as well. That's all I'm pointing out. Balance. Scholarship, study, diligence and intelligent apologetics are necessary and effective in their place when coupled with the work of the Holy Spirit. I came from a long line of farmers, and they didn't use a crowbar to try and deliberately sow seed on rock. Sow it where the spirit has already prepared the ground. Or be the plow preparing the ground, but are we still not guilty at times of using scholarship as a crowbar to farm rock?

And much of what has been discussed in this particular thread has not been the warning of the saints in church against false doctrine, but the stubborn arguing against the deliberate false doctrine of a willing apostate. It was answering a fool according to his folly. And what was gained? He revealed who he was from the beginning, and his agenda was clear from the start. You guys are the real deal, your doctrine is straight and your abilities are vast. Use them wisely. When you take what you know and use it to argue with someone like D-28 on here, you're like Pavarotti using his voice to bark out his window at the neighbor's dogs who howl at the moon. It's such a waste! If I had the Bible knowledge and intellectual abilities that God has given you ....

[Pastor Scott Markle]

20 minutes ago, weary warrior said:

All very true, when salted with a good dose of 1Co 2:1. "For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God." I believe that the true man of God must be able to discern in his spirit when the Spirit of God is revealing to a person the things of God that we are trying to teach to that person. No matter how much we study, learn and try to teach, if the Spirit does not open the hearts and discernment of the listener, we are striving for naught. I will start teaching a truth, but I can tell when it's not getting through. When it's hitting that intellectual wall. I can't do my work and God's work too. So I'll gently leave off the teaching for a while, and work with the one who IS being given discernment. 

All that you guys are saying is true, on it's side of the line. But there is the other side of the line as well. That's all I'm pointing out. Balance. Scholarship, study, diligence and intelligent apologetics are necessary and effective in their place when coupled with the work of the Holy Spirit. I came from a long line of farmers, and they didn't use a crowbar to try and deliberately sow seed on rock. Sow it where the spirit has already prepared the ground. Or be the plow preparing the ground, but are we still not guilty at times of using scholarship as a crowbar to farm rock?

And much of what has been discussed in this particular thread has not been the warning of the saints in church against false doctrine, but the stubborn arguing against the deliberate false doctrine of a willing apostate. It was answering a fool according to his folly. And what was gained? He revealed who he was from the beginning, and his agenda was clear from the start. You guys are the real deal, your doctrine is straight and your abilities are vast. Use them wisely. When you take what you know and use it to argue with someone like D-28 on here, you're like Pavarotti using his voice to bark out his window at the neighbor's dogs who howl at the moon. It's such a waste! If I had the Bible knowledge and intellectual abilities that God has given you ....

Speaking as Pastor Scott Markle, the opponent of Calvinism,

Brother "Weary Warrior,"

I wholeheartedly acknowledge the need for balance.  In fact, that was also the underlying thrust of my above post -- that we cannot simply dwell upon the "simple" things of God's Word, but must also study the "hard" things of God's Word; and also that we cannot simply focus upon the "easy" learners, but must also deal with the "difficult" gainsayers.

As far as arguing with Brother "D-28 Player," when I FIRST asked my first question of him, I did NOT know of what spirit he was.  I could not know that until I had somewhat engaged with him.  Furthermore, I believe that Brother "D-28 Player" is indeed a brother in Christ; therefore, I believe that it was right for me to grant brotherly grace in the discussion.  Finally, I did NOT actually argue Calvinistic doctrine with him overmuch.  The most that I was able to do was to have him acknowledge that I DID understand Calvinistic doctrine. 

However, what I am doing now as the "Calvinism advocate" has nothing to do with Brother "D-28 Player" (since he has already been banned from the forum).  Rather, it has something to do with "sharpening" the Bible study and Bible doctrine skills of my fellow non-Calvinists (Brother Orval in particular, and others if they choose to join with us).  Since Brother Orval appears quite interested in this form of study, then I actually am engaging with one who desires to learn and grow in Bible doctrine.  Indeed, thus I am being "apt to teach" and am engaging in Biblical exhortation.

[weary warrior]

1 minute ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Speaking as Pastor Scott Markle, the opponent of Calvinism,

Brother "Weary Warrior,"

I wholeheartedly acknowledge the need for balance.  In fact, that was also the underlying thrust of my above post -- that we cannot simply dwell upon the "simple" things of God's Word, but must also study the "hard" things of God's Word; and also that we cannot simply focus upon the "easy" learners, but must also deal with the "difficult" gainsayers.

As far as arguing with Brother "D-28 Player," when I FIRST asked my first question of him, I did NOT know of what spirit he was.  I could not know that until I had somewhat engaged with him.  Furthermore, I believe that Brother "D-28 Player" is indeed a brother in Christ; therefore, I believe that it was right for me to grant brotherly grace in the discussion.  Finally, I did NOT actually argue Calvinistic doctrine with him overmuch.  The most that I was able to do was to have him acknowledge that I DID understand Calvinistic doctrine. 

However, what I am doing now as the "Calvinism advocate" has nothing to do with Brother "D-28 Player" (since he has already been banned from the forum).  Rather, it has something to do with "sharpening" the Bible study and Bible doctrine skills of my fellow non-Calvinists (Brother Orval in particular, and others if they choose to join with us).  Since Brother Orval appears quite interested in this form of study, then I actually am engaging with one who desires to learn and grow in Bible doctrine.  Indeed, thus I am being "apt to teach" and am engaging in Biblical exhortation.

That much I do see, understand and support. Iron sharpening iron among ourselves is of utmost importance. And the continued study between Bro Orval and yourself I completely support, and will read and learn from myself. It is all good. 

[DaveW]

Hey Orval, another story to add to your collection:

Not long after I took over as Pastor at a small church  (my first - of two) I was asked if I would have a young man for a fixed time as assistant. The guy's father was the asker. This young guy was brought up in a non-calvinist home, but went away for Bible college and whilst away became convinced of Calvinism.

He hadn't even told his Father, which is why his father asked me. His father apologised to me when it all came out.

At that stage I knew very little about Calvinism, but this guy every now and then preached things that didn't sit well with me.

He was very subtle with his introduction of these doctrines, but over time grew more bold.

I put a stop to it before anyone at church really noticed, but I didn't realise that whilst he tempered his preaching publicly, he ramped it up in personal conversations.

This led to a faithful young man eventually losing his faith, becoming convinced that his struggles with sin were evidence that he was not elect. This young man, in private counselling, directly attributed Calvinism for his certainty of this thought, and has been many years since out of church altogether because of it. "Why should I  bother, since I am obviously not one of God's elect?" Is his reasoning. I was not able to convince him otherwise. 

The young preacher certainly did not tell me of his doctrinal position, in spite of knowing that the church was not calvinistic, and didn't even tell his own parents in spite of knowing that they were solidly not calvinistic.

In the years since, I have never had a single calvinist introduce himself including that information. 

I have had several try to infiltrate our church, and it is always deceitfully, never openly.

 

I should add that this my personal experience and cannot rightly say that it is ALWAYS thus, but I can say it is always thus in my personal experience.

Edited April 8, 2017 by DaveW
Added last paragraph.

[Alan]

1 hour ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

According to Titus 1:9, one of the very qualifications of a godly pastor is that he can hold fast "the faithful word as he hath been taught," specifically in order that "he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers."  Indeed, the reason for the need of this very qualification is then given in Titus 1:10-11 -- "For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision: whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre's sake."  Even so, this is equally as much a requirement of faithfulness unto our Lord as is the requirement to "shun profane and vain babblings" and to avoid "foolish and unlearned questions." (See 2 Timothy 2:16, 23)

 

The false error of Calvinism must be stopped (either by an intellectual exercise as Pastor Markle points out, or by simple illustration as Weary Warrior points out).

The false errors of Calvinism within any IFB will eventually destroy the effectiveness of that church for the cause of the Lord Jesus. The false errors of Calvinism will also destroy OnLine Baptist if they continue to be accepted within the ranks.

Since almost all Calvinists do not win souls (I have never personally met a strong Calvinist win souls or go out soul winning), it is my thoughts that the Calvinist deliberately get into the leadership positions of the church in order to change the doctrine of the church.  The Calvinists are very subtle. In my estimation, D-28 player deliberately tried to push Calvinism, disrupt the fellowship, slander, and cause problems within the brethren here on OnLine Baptist. A typical Calvinist.

Alan

 

[Orval]

I personally appreciate all the comments and observations of the posters on this thread. Pastor Scott is very knowledgeable and willing to play the devils advocate so to speak and I am thankful for the opportunity to refute his position.   Brother Scott there have been a few posts since but thought I would remind you I left you with a choice between of which belief you cling to.  That election precedes God's love toward man or that election is the result of God's love toward man.

   

[Pastor Scott Markle]

6 hours ago, Orval said:

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.

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,

Since within the Holy Spirit inspired sequence of Romans 8:29-30 the foreknowing of God precedes the predestinating work of God, I am compelled to hold that God's "before-love" (foreknowledge) is the "criterion" for His work of election.  Indeed, those whom He chose to love, He then predestinated.

________________________________

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

Not many Calvinists would be so quick to admit that God's foreknowledge (before-love) is the CRITERION for His work of predestination.  It is likely that most of them would seek after a different parsing of words in order to avoid such an admission.  The reason that they would do so is because the word "criterion" is a synonym for the word "condition."  As such, it would now be possible for the non-Calvinist to point this out and to argue that there is indeed (by the Calvinist's own admission) a "criterion" (or, condition) for God's work of predestination-election.  My problem herein is that my central thinking process is NOT that of a Calvinist; therefore, I do NOT actually know what method of "parsing" they would use to avoid this admission.  However, I do know that the Calvinist will contend strongly that God's foreknowledge is a pre-CHOICE by God of certain individuals without any consideration of any condition or decision on their part.

On the other hand, in dealing with Calvinist's about Romans 8:29-30 and the doctrine of "unconditional election," I myself strongly push this point anyway -- that God's own Word places a condition upon God's Work of predestination by placing His foreknowledge before it as a foundation for it.  I do this in order to focus the discussion-argument upon the real premise of conflict, regardless of the Calvinist's admission.  For I believe that the real premise of conflict in this matter is two-fold: (1) the Calvinist's definition of God's sovereignty (which has not yet been brought forward in our "mock" discussion) and (2) the Calvinist's definition of "foreknowledge" in Romans 8:29-30.  In essence, the Calvinist will push his "relational" definition for the word "foreknowledge" in order to use the word "foreknow" as a different form of "pre-choice" on God's part.  Although most Calvinist's will NOT likely parse it in the following manner, I myself would parse the Calvinist's viewpoint concerning foreknowledge and predestination in Romans 8:29-30 as follows:

1.  God's foreknowledge concerning salvation is His relational "pre-choice" of a lost sinner.
2.  God's predestination concerning salvation is His destinational "pre-choice" of a lost sinner.

Now, for my own part, I do NOT believe that ANY New Testament usage of "foreknowledge" (Greek verb - "proginosko;" Greek noun - "prognosis") is employed in the relational "pre-choice" manner, but that they are ALL employed in the informational (knowing information before in time) manner.  The passages of the Greek verb are as follows: Acts 26:5; Romans 8:29; Romans 11:2; 1 Peter 1:20; 2 Peter 3:17.  The passage of the Greek noun are as follows: Acts 2:23; 1 Peter 1:2.  I will leave these for you to engage in a bit of consideration.  At least two of these passage the Calvinist will "push hard" - Acts 2:23 & 1 Peter 1:20.  How we understand and deal with these passages can make a difference in our discussion with a Calvinist, or at least with those who are "searching out" the Calvinistic system. 

Edited April 9, 2017 by Pastor Scott Markle

[Pastor Scott Markle]

44 minutes ago, Alan said:

In my estimation, D-28 player deliberately tried to push Calvinism, disrupt the fellowship, slander, and cause problems within the brethren here on OnLine Baptist. A typical Calvinist.

Alan

By the way, an interesting thing happened to me this afternoon, after Brother "D-28 Player" was banned from the forum.  I have a Facebook page for my publishing ministry, Shepherding the Flock Ministries.  It is not the same as most people's "personal-type" page, but is a "cause-type" page.  This afternoon an individual by the name of Mike Dunkling found the post concerning my book, "God's Wisdom for Marriage & The Home," and posted the following:

"If this is the same guy who posts on OnlineBaptist I can't imagine what would make me recommend this book."

Now, I do NOT post this in order to open the door for any bashing of Brother "D-28 Player" (if, in fact, Mike Dunkling is the same individual).  Rather, I post this as a warning concerning all of our attitude when we engage in doctrinal disagreement.  It is quite easy for us to behave in the flesh and with the attitudes of the flesh at such times.  God forbid that we should!  Yet we are prone to wander.  Even so, let us not only take heed unto the doctrine; but let us also take heed unto ourselves (unto our own character and unto our own attitude).  A sinful attitude and spirit is still SIN against the Lord our God, and it still breaks our precious fellowship with Him - even if our doctrinal position is sound.  Indeed, even as I write this my heart is burdened with the cry - Oh, Lord my God, let me NOT wander from you in this way!!!  Please, guard me from my own fleshliness!

Edited April 9, 2017 by Pastor Scott Markle

[Orval]

1 hour ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Now, for my own part, I do NOT believe that ANY New Testament usage of "foreknowledge" (Greek verb - "proginosko;" Greek noun - "prognosis") are employed in the relational "pre-choice" manner, but that they are ALL employed in the informational (knowing information before in time) manner.  The passages of the Greek verb are as follows: Acts 26:5; Romans 8:29; Romans 11:2; 1 Peter 1:20; 2 Peter 3:17.  The passage of the Greek noun are as follows: Acts 2:23; 1 Peter 1:2.  I will leave these for you to engage in a bit of consideration.  At least two of these passage the Calvinist will "push hard" - Acts 2:23 & 1 Peter 1:20.  How we understand and deal with these passages can make a difference in our discussion with a Calvinist, or at least with those who are "searching out" the Calvinistic system. 

Brother Scott,

You have anticipated my next approach in our discussion as I shall indeed go to 1 Peter 1 but before hand I will also introduce a couple of your apologists and their claims concerning foreknowledge and predestination. My wife is wondering why I am locked into my PC the last few days.  lol

Edited April 9, 2017 by Orval

[Pastor Scott Markle]

2 minutes ago, Orval said:

Brother Scott,

My wife is wondering why I am locked into my PC the last few days.  lol

Yeah, about 15 minutes ago my wife made a questioning comment about Online Baptist as well.

[Orval]

1 hour ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Brother Orval,

Since within the Holy Spirit inspired sequence of Romans 8:29-30 the foreknowing of God precedes the predestinating work of God, I am compelled to hold that God's "before-love" (foreknowledge) is the "criterion" for His work of election.  Indeed, those whom He chose to love, He then predestinated.

Thank you for your answer sir,

Forgive me for asking another question but clarification that I understand your definitions is important to our discussion.

In Romans 8:29-30 do you believe the biblical terms foreknowledge and predestination are equal to election and interchangeable i.e. hold the same meaning in the context of salvation, that all refer to Unconditional Election”?