Jump to content
  • Welcome to Online Baptist

    Free to join.

DaveW

MacArthur

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, D-28 Player said:

And I would just as easily quote Revelation 21:8 to you and Orval and 1 Tim and DaveW

I will assume you're referring to us being liars...myself included.

Could you please point me to where I lied so that I can make it right between the Lord and yourself?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, No Nicolaitans said:

I will assume you're referring to us being liars...myself included.

Could you please point me to where I lied so that I can make it right between the Lord and yourself?

Yeah because you've been so conciliatory up to now 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, D-28 Player said:

Yeah because you've been so conciliatory up to now 

 

Let's just be clear though...

From all that I've read, you're the only one who has voluntarily told a falsehood. Orval may have innocently misinterpreted what you said, but you (in turn) lied about what you said. Since you refuse to show me where I have lied, I will assume that you were just lashing out. I completely understand. The flesh can make us do things that are contrary to what the indwelling Holy Spirit would have us do. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If D-28 is a product and example of the Calvinist system of religion...I don't know who would want it. The sarcasm he seethes is exactly what the world has to offer.

"He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings, Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself." 1 Timothy 6:4-5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, D-28 Player said:

And I would just as easily quote Revelation 21:8 to you and Orval and 1 Tim and DaveW

To the mods: My personal opinion is that with his current tirade of false accusations and petsonal attacks, it is time to grant his wish and get rid of him.

He is ramping up his attacks until you do just that, then he can brag to his friends how badly treated he has been.

Slandering Pastor Markle the way he has is totally unjustified, calling Orval a liar is unjust, and his general abusive nature is uncalled for.

And it is surely innappropriate to be copying posts (no doubt selectively) to use to make sport of anyone on other sites.

He has revealed his purpose and intent, and it is not to contribute in any way, but simply to cause strife. 

Pro 28:25 He that is of a proud heart stirreth up strife: but he that putteth his trust in the LORD shall be made fat.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, DaveW said:

calling Orval a liar is unjust, and his general abusive nature is uncalled for.

And it is surely innappropriate to be copying posts (no doubt selectively) to use to make sport of anyone on other sites.

He has revealed his purpose and intent, and it is not to contribute in any way, but simply to cause strife. 

Pro 28:25 He that is of a proud heart stirreth up strife: but he that putteth his trust in the LORD shall be made fat.

 

1 Actually Orval admitted that he lied and offered an apology 

2 If my intention was to "simply cause strife" then why did "The Real Bob Hutton" and I have a very nice conversation about history And why did I answer your question about Calvin's conversion in another thread even though I knew you weren't sincere Where was the "strife" when I was offering suggestions on a radio app or witnessing to Mormons

The only "strife" is by four specific posters in one thread and one poster in another thread who chose to stalk e to another thread and initiate an argument based on a book I said I was reading Not even a book I recommended or an author I recommended just a book I said I am reading  

The only "strife" isn't by e it's by you and three other posters because of your hatred of beliefs I hold to But you guys are so blinded by your hatred for Calvinists and Calvinism you didn't even attack a Calvinist You attacked somebody who has much in common with you who simply said "This isn't what Calvinism teaches"

My only sin here is believing that Calvinists are my brothers and sisters in Christ and not objects of contempt 

3 Are you equally outraged about the poster who stated outright that I am not saved siply because he believes I'm a Calvinist or the posters who have repeatedly labeled e a Calvinist even though I have explained several times that I am not or the poster who has repeatedly accused me of believing one must follow a "system" to be saved even though I've explained numerous ties that salvation is only by repentance and faith alone in Christ alone 

4 Nothing I've said on the Facebook group I've referred to has made you look bad They're reading the thread for themselves So it's your words they're shaking their heads at not merely what I tell them The only negative feedback I've gotten in that group is that I shouldn't have taken the bait and that I shouldn't have lost my temper when lied about repeatedly You guys on the other hand are not exactly doing yourselves any favors 

But don't worry I don't blame the rest of the posters on the board for the behavior of your four 

5 You say I'm proud and I am If I wasn't a sinner I wouldn't need a Savior But I have to ask who's ore proud: the man who admits he is powerless to save himself and must rely on the Lord to reach out to Hi or the an who says he can decided to be saved 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, D-28 Player said:

1 Actually Orval admitted that he lied and offered an apology 

2 If my intention was to "simply cause strife" then why did "The Real Bob Hutton" and I have a very nice conversation about history And why did I answer your question about Calvin's conversion in another thread even though I knew you weren't sincere Where was the "strife" when I was offering suggestions on a radio app or witnessing to Mormons

The only "strife" is by four specific posters in one thread and one poster in another thread who chose to stalk e to another thread and initiate an argument based on a book I said I was reading Not even a book I recommended or an author I recommended just a book I said I am reading  

The only "strife" isn't by e it's by you and three other posters because of your hatred of beliefs I hold to But you guys are so blinded by your hatred for Calvinists and Calvinism you didn't even attack a Calvinist You attacked somebody who has much in common with you who simply said "This isn't what Calvinism teaches"

My only sin here is believing that Calvinists are my brothers and sisters in Christ and not objects of contempt 

3 Are you equally outraged about the poster who stated outright that I am not saved siply because he believes I'm a Calvinist or the posters who have repeatedly labeled e a Calvinist even though I have explained several times that I am not or the poster who has repeatedly accused me of believing one must follow a "system" to be saved even though I've explained numerous ties that salvation is only by repentance and faith alone in Christ alone 

4 Nothing I've said on the Facebook group I've referred to has made you look bad They're reading the thread for themselves So it's your words they're shaking their heads at not merely what I tell them The only negative feedback I've gotten in that group is that I shouldn't have taken the bait and that I shouldn't have lost my temper when lied about repeatedly You guys on the other hand are not exactly doing yourselves any favors 

But don't worry I don't blame the rest of the posters on the board for the behavior of your four 

5 You say I'm proud and I am If I wasn't a sinner I wouldn't need a Savior But I have to ask who's ore proud: the man who admits he is powerless to save himself and must rely on the Lord to reach out to Hi or the an who says he can decided to be saved 

Quoting it before he changes it as he has done with many of his posts, deleting the worst of the false accusations and abusive comments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 04/04/2017 at 5:59 AM, D-28 Player said:

I really hope you're not implying that Calvinists don't believe salvation is by grace through faith in Christ because, if you are, that would be bearing false witness. 

 

On 04/04/2017 at 6:25 AM, DaveW said:

I really hope you have not joined this forum to call a member a liar - because that would be bearing false witness..... among other things.

 

On 04/04/2017 at 6:35 AM, D-28 Player said:

I didn't call you a liar. I said that implying that Calvinists do not believe or preach salvation is by grace through faith in Christ would be bearing false witness as they absolutely do believe and clearly preach that salvation is by grace through faith in Christ. 

This was our first discourse of this thread.

You resurrected a thread that had been dead for over a month for the express purpose of accusing me of bearing false witness. That is the way that you meant it, for when I COPIED YOUR WORDING, you immediately protested my post. Even though ti was your wording with the "implied accusation" changed.

As you can see, your first post in this thread, which had run its course until you brought it back, was to attack me and accuse me of lying - which is what false witness is - let's not make bones about it.

 

So there is no way that you can "Take the high moral ground" in this when you attacked first and then protested my use of your own phrasing turned back on you.

And then to accuse me as you have about my other thread, in which I was entirely civil - AS YOU ADMITTED - and then proceeded to accuse my motives WITHOUT KNOWLEDGE, making this an entirely UNFOUNDED accusation or should I say "False witness" against me, is the height of Pharisaical hypocrisy.

Then to attack time and again Pastor Markle, after first ignoring his posts entirely, until you were pressed, is entirely unjustified, and nothing if not a false witness against him.

Then to accuse Orval for what he admitted was a mistake, not a deliberate misrepresentation is simply mean spirited, and also bearing false witness.

Accusing various others here of being liars in their statements here, is once again bearing false witness by your slander.

And associating Rev 21:8 with myself and others here is simply abhorrent.

You sir, as noted in this post, are absolutely bearing false witness in multiple ways and on multiple occasions, and have absolutely condemned yourself by your own accusations and words.

You have consistently either refused to answer questions at all, or given evasive answers, and used belittling language and sarcasm in response to questions INSTEAD of answering them.

You are not here to defend your system of belief, or else you would do that. Instead you are here to cause strife, to cause division, and to cause trouble.

This is evidenced by your own words, and particularly by the fact that you post (as you originally said) or at least refer others (as you changed your statement) to this thread FOR THE PURPOSES OF RIDICULE.

This then is your purpose in being here - not the reasons you stated.

 

I will ask you directly, and would be exceptionally surprised if you answer - WHAT WAS YOUR PREVIOUS USERNAME ON THIS SITE?

If you have indeed been registered on this site before and been banned for just this sort of activity, then that makes you also guilty of deceit, to add to the rest.

I am done now, apologies to the Mods for the rant, no apologies to D-28 who has set out to offend and cause division in any way that he can, as evidenced by his actions and statements in this thread in particular, as outlined above. These are no shallow accusations but evidenced statements.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. :15_1_63:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by No Nicolaitans
spelling

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by Pastor Scott Markle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by Orval

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think simply, does that make me simple minded? :laugh:

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by Pastor Scott Markle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jim_Alaska said:

I think simply, does that make me simple minded? :laugh:

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 by Pastor Scott Markle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.      

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by weary warrior

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Who's Online   0 Members, 0 Anonymous, 759 Guests (See full list)

    There are no registered users currently online

Article Categories

About Us

Since 2001, Online Baptist has been an Independent Baptist website, and we exclusively use the King James Version of the Bible. We pride ourselves on a community that uplifts the Lord.

Contact Us

You can contact us using the following link. Contact Us or for questions regarding this website please contact @pastormatt or email James Foley at jfoley@sisqtel.net

Android App

Online Baptist has a custom App for all android users. You can download it from the Google Play store or click the following icon.

×
×
  • Create New...