Jump to content
Online Baptist Community

Calvary

Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • Posts

    869
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

Posts posted by Calvary

  1. Deu_24:1  When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house.
    Deu_24:2  And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man's wife.
    Deu_24:3  And if the latter husband hate her, and write her a bill of divorcement, and giveth it in her hand, and sendeth her out of his house; or if the latter husband die, which took her to be his wife;
    Deu_24:4  Her former husband, which sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for that is abomination before the LORD: and thou shalt not cause the land to sin, which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance.

  2. '?do=embed' frameborder='0' data-embedContent>>

     

    Notice:

    Calvary and I will be representing the Pre-Tribulation Rapture position, which is also the official position of the Online Baptist Forum. There are a number of things that we agree with Pastor Totten on. We agree that there are good men who hold to both positions and that it is not necessary to separate over this issue. We also agree that the chief task given to us is to evangelize the lost world. Calvary, Pastor Totten, and I have agreed to keep this debate in a civilized manner. We have also agreed that when we get to a position where we must agree to disagree, the debate will be over. We agree that this is not about winning or losing, but about showing a clear presentation of when the rapture will occur.

     

    Thank you,

    Goodbye.

  3. I just re-read he OB doctrinal position -- so, which part of it is not accepted by a mod? Which mod?

     

    My son-in law graduated from PBI prior to '97 and doesn't have a newer copy of any textbooks. So, are you saying that no one can quote what another person wrote without managing to  ascertain as to whether a newer edition is out?

     

    It looks as if the works he re-quoted were PBI press -- so how is that talebearing? (remember that it is in print available for public purchase)

     

     

    In short -- Have a beef with him? Fine -- have at it BUT it definitely looks like you are out of line unless what is on screen and what you sought to convey didn't quite mesh.

     

     

    Old - You cant ascertain the context either, at least not on this post, I don´t know what youre bellyaching about.

     

    Calvinism is a rotten heresy and it's promoted here all the time.

     

    OB doctrinal statement includes a pre trib pre millenial position, MIke does not hold to it, though he is certainly free to choose his eschatology, this board has a stated position, so....

     

    Talebearing is repeating a lie told by someone else, it's also called gossip. Mike did not find those quotes himslef but relied upon a secondary source and fell into the trap of publickly stating a matter to be thus when it was not so, as any reading of the context of those quotes would have shown, IF HE HAD ACTUALLY READ THE MATERIAL instead of merely quoting a slanderer.

     

    I also know that Mike is not malicious about it, but I was simply making a point.

     

    God bless you Mike,

     

    calvary

  4. Mike, I have to concurr with Steve, he is spot on. I have the book you quoted, or should I say, requoted...

     

    Dr Ruckman has made clear time and time again in context exactly what he means when he uses the term "The Greek", it is a text that merely exists in the minds of Bible correcting fools as they can no more produce "The Greek" than you can. There is no such thing. If you actually read any of his books you would have known that. Stick to your own personal study and leave old Cloud out in the clouds Mike.

     

    So this is it?? No context whatsoever, no answer to me whatsoever and prOBably no apologies for slandering another Christian.

     

    Matt, this is why your site is dead. You allow blatant heretics to teach their rotten calvinism and to the praise of several here who should know better and you allow a mod to operate who does not accept the doctrinal position of this board. You either need to get a spine Matt or change the doctrinal statement.

     

    Thanks Steve, you hit right on the head.

     

    No need to find any context Mike, since that book you re quoted from someone else (which the BIble calls tale bearing or gossip) isn't available any more in that edition. That was 1970, and has since been edited down in 1997.

     

    Bye now - you stop telling lies Mike, you are a mod don't ya know!

  5. Let's first clarify which "KJV Only" meaning you have in mind:

     

    1: Ruckman-style, "the Bible was never perfect or complete until presented in the KJV 1611 version, which is perfect, and actually better than the autographs, as well as being inspired as a version. I am not of this mind. 

     

    2: Preservation KJV only: The KJV is the preserved Bible, coming directly down in a perfect manner from the inspried autographs. We don't look to the 'originals' because they no longer exist, but we believe God preserved it exactly as He would have it. I hold to this position.

     

    Why? As you said above, Jordan, one reason is the Wescott/Hort connection: a couple Anglicans who made plain that they didn't believe in the Bible, and held to many Roman Catholic doctrines, such as mariolatry.

     

    As well, there is still many unanswered questions concerning Von Tischendorf's finding of the Sinaiticus, and whether it was even an authentic ancient manuscript. Despite the arguments from a man who claimed to have personally written the so-called Sinaiticus, there qas never any testing done to dispute this. As well, the copy was badly damaged and burned, though many of the burns look very neat and orderly, almost as if done on purpose, to look like it had been cast into a fire, as the story goes. AND there are numerous scribal errors and alterations, which as any scribe would know, should disqualify it as a 'good' text.

     

    The Vaticanus manuscript, also supposedly 'discovered' by Von Tischendorf, was well-known by earlier translators and was rejected by them for its many deviations from the other extant manuscripts.   Yet, it was these two foundations of sand upon which W&H chose to build their Fawlty Towers of scripture.

     

    That's a start for now.

     

    Stop mischaracterizing Dr. Ruckman's position. I get so tired of uniformed people putting a doctrine in the mouth of a man. And it isn't just "Ruckman" he has earned his doctrates unlike many pulp mill professors in the IFB colleges.

     

    Can you please post the context of your information where, when and why he may have said the AV was better than the "originals" which no one here has ever seen yet seem to act like they exisit.....

     

    MIke, you started with " " on your opening statement, thereby atributting your statement to Dr Ruckman, I for one would like to see that direct quote from Dr Ruckman.

  6. We don't know how the population would have grown had Adam not sinned. We don't know what measures God would have employed to control (or not control) the population. We don't know any of that...because Adam did sin...and we are dealing with the results of that.

     

    What we do know is this...

     

    Isaiah 45:18
    For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else.

     

    As far as the whole session in general; I agree with a lot of what he teaches...I'm not "anti-dispensational". I've studied Dispensational Theology, and my beliefs line up with most of what I've studied...my main conflict is different methods of salvation for different dispensations.  

     

    But that's me...

     

     

    I think the idea is form this, Isa 9:7  Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this.

    No end to it. To limit it to this earth alone is to limit the increase. That being said, Isaiah 45 would not be negated if other worlds were to be populated. The population of another planet does not necessaarily mean the disoccupation of earth.

     

    Besides, I know this man well, he would harldy have an issue with you if you disagreed with him on this extremely minor point.

     

    I will say this, I cannot imagine the Lord employing any means to control the population since his stated purpose to Adam was to be fruitful and multiply. It doesn´t seem to suggest anywhere in the Bible that Adam´s race should only multiply until such time as there is no room

     

    ?????

     

    God bless,

    calvary
     

  7. I don't mean any disrespect toward Mr. Blue, but he lost me (in the Kingdom of Heaven video) when he proclaimed that God's original plan was for man to populate the earth and then move into outer space.

     

    He simply is referring to the scope of the Kingdom through eternity - not too difficult. If the kingdom of Christ has no end as it says in Isaiah, where does that take you if Adam had not sinned and with the population never ceasing with there being no death? It´s not a convoluted idea..... and again, one line out of a 50 minute session  is not the foundational ground that it all stands or falls upon..... what about the entire session in general???

    So where would the population of earth ended if there had been no sin and no death coming into the world? after 6 or 7 thousand years we´d be piled up upon each other with no room at all.... sort of makes sense that God never intended to confine man to this earth alone.....

  8. For sure - another neat thing is that he was Calvary's pastor as well.  But I never knew Calvary (at least, I don't think I did...).  We were there in the church when Pastor Blue's kids were teens and younger. Blast from the past hearing him!  :clapping:

     

    I remember that chart, I used to drag it out every Thursday night and set it up with Dave Arnston - seeing that video was great and it all makes perfect sense to me, as that man was my mentor and trained me and sent me out to do the work of an evangelist in Mexico.

    Someone said he got Abraham origin wrong, but lots of preachers say a thing in passing and it is a simple mistake, Abraham´s origins are not foundational to what the teaching session was dealing with. He is simply saying that Goid is doing a whole lot more than just seeing folks get saved and in fact there are and were different dealings with different peoples at different times. Hebews 1 tells us that much.

    Amen Pastor Blue!! You were a great teacher of that book and I am glad that much of your talks are recorded for future students of God´s word.

    God bless,

    calvary

  9. Listen here.

     

    I listened to it several times after I heard it on Radio, & discussed it with the Premier Christian Radio presenters, who in a "Right to reply" feed-back programme agreed with my criticism. I've now found it & skipped through it. I shall listen again.

     

    The sermon is a strong exhortation to godly living (first 20 minutes);

    Lot as an example of becoming a disgrace to grace (next 20 minutes);

    And a final Gospel invitation/prayer, with an assurance that if you say the prayer sincerely you are eternally saved - by grace, not works, with the implication (from Lot) that one can live a rotten lifestyle & still be saved. But DON'T be a disgrace to grace.

     

    My concern is that he overplays Lot's spiritual decline;

    and that saying the "salvation prayer" falls far short of Biblical salvation - that demands repentance resulting in godly living.

     

    I NOT arguing "calvinism" nor teaching loss of salvation.

     

     

    I did not listen to the sermon - be that as it may, I have always enjoyed Adrian Rogers and his fine insightful outlines -

    So I am confused what you are compalining about,

     

    1. Adrain shouldn´t exhort pople to godly living?

    2. Adrian shouldn´t have used Lot as an example of abusing the grace of God?

    3. A preacher pleading with sinners to get saved??

     

    Wow, what a cad that Adrian Rogers was!!

     

    I think you´re sort of out in the weeds complaining about a sermon from a man who has a solid testimony of being a saved man, a man used of the Lord.

  10. I don't recall who, but I know some have put forth Piper links in the past.

     

    I did - in this thread in fact. Piper is absolutely main stream thought - he is in fact a TULIP based theologian, reformed theology most definitely. I quoted him as winman to demostrate that main stream calvisinm does in fact teach that the souls salvation by limited atonement

    Winman may not be my theology as far as his ideas about Christ go, but his conclusion on no one can know oif they are elect is in fact spot on.

     

    John 81, you are a fence sitter brother - always riding along in the middle, not making any waves.

    If you cannot speak conclusively to what calvinism teaches, in the main, then perhaps you should refrain from speaking about it all. Or educate your self and stand up and be counted on one side or the other. We are speaking to doctrine here. Not personal relations or experiences.

    Calvinsim - is it Biblical or not? A plain yes or no should suffice, and then present your evidence.

    I am convinced that this thread has demsotrated Calvinism in the main is a false and heretical teaching.

     

    God bless,

    calvary

  11. I make no recommendations, but I listen to music that I like.

    I like Phillips, Craig and Dean.

    I like Rend Collective.

    I like West Coast Baptist College Choir

    I like Jesús Adrian Romero.

    I like Los Voceros de Cristo.

    I like many blue grass artists.

  12. First of all, no one ordered you to do anything. An secondly, I wasn´t responding to any question form you. I was stating my opinion. And if you´re gonna get snippy about it, sounds like a personal prOBlem, not mine.

     

    And SFC, the disrespectful comment was about the last few personal jabs thrown out on the thread, learn to read with some contextual comprehension. Always with the myopic statements this one.

  13. The sin nature thread? Closed? Why?? If you ask me it was getting interesting and was no where near being finished.

    Chispas! I tell ya, some times you mods are too hasty.

    You´re only contribution is to come after a few days and not like the gist of it?? Really brother!!??

     

    Open it back up.

     

    No one was out of line, and if we can´t handle a poor doctrine we should close up shop. Some of us can´t answer every day, so every few weeks we come in and want to to say soemthing.

     

    If you ask me, it was John81 and NN that were getting silly and disrespectful. It wasn´t winman.

     

    God bless,

    calvary

  14. These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.
     

    This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners;

     

    He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son.
    And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.

     

    For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
    For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
    He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

     

    Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.

     

    For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

     

    But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost:
    In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.

     

    But God...

     

    But God...

     

    But God...

     

    God bless,

    calvary








     

  15. Hi Calvary. Since you say I haven't studied the writings of 'actual Calvinists' enough to understand their teachings, I'll lay out what I have done in the interests of sharing. About seven years ago, before I was saved, and when I first learned there was such a thing as Calvinism (the Baptist church I was being taken to by a friend was reformed and I did not know it until I read their declaration), I decided to read up on it. I found out about Institutes and knew that I would never get through it, so I did a bit of searching on the net for books that Calvinists themselves were recommending and the title that came up again and again was Loraine Boettner's 1932 book Reformed Doctrine of Predestination. So I bought it and I read it. And after I read it, I tested it by looking on the net to see what other Calvinists were saying about reformed theology and for the most part I found that the book agreed with what they were saying.
     
    I believe the way I summarised reformed teaching on free will in my earlier post is consistent with what Boettner says about it and what I've OBserved others who say they are Calvinist claim. Example from Boettner:
     
    "...we believe that, without destroying or impairing the free agency of men, God can exercise over them a particular providence and work in them through His Holy Spirit so that they will come to Christ and persevere in His service. We believe further that none have this will and desire except those whom God has previously made willing and desirous; and that He gives this will and desire to none but his own elect."
     
    Example from the Westminster Confession:
     
    "All those whom God hath predestinated unto life, and those only, He is pleased, in His appointed time, effectually to call, by His Word and Spirit, out of that state of sin and death, in which they are by nature to grace and salvation, by Jesus Christ; enlightening their minds spiritually and savingly to understand the things of God, taking away their heart of stone, and giving unto them an heart of flesh; renewing their wills, and, by His almighty power, determining them to that which is good, and effectually drawing them to Jesus Christ: yet so, as they come most freely, being made willing by His grace."
     
    Now I just googled the three paragraphs you quoted above and the first two contain within those same paragraphs an affirmation that man is brought to a state where he freely chooses God (and it is all from one writing). Here are the ends of the first two paragraphs you quoted:
     
    1. "He is not limited in His work of applying salvation by man's will, nor is He dependent upon man's cooperation for success. The Spirit graciously causes the elect sinner to cooperate, to believe, to repent, to come freely and willingly to Christ."
     
    2. "A dead person is lifeless and not able to do anything. If you wish to move a dead person without any assistance, from one end of a place to another you must drag him. That is exactly what the Holy Spirit has to do to sinners to bring them to salvation. The Holy Spirit regenerates the unregenerate by turning a spiritually dead will that is in rebellion against God to one that is spiritually alive and willingly accepts Jesus as Savior and Lord."
     
    So I think the way I've defined Calvinist teaching on free will is consistent with one of the major reformed confessions, with a work that Calvinists 'on the ground' recommend (example) as a staple on the subject, and with the source you yourself decided to use in this discussion.

    Following your OBservations, of a,b,and c, I am thinking you haven´t studied the writings of actual Calvinist sufficiently to suggest that I might be wrong on mine.

     

    That´s what I said, brother, I did not say that you don´t understand them on your own. I am stating that my understanding of classic reformed theoloigy is right on the money.

     

    You still seem to backpeddle a bit on what the true classic reformed doctrine teaches. Irresisitble grace is not a softening of the heart, a breaking down of the defenses of man´s free will - it is fact clearly believed by reformed theologians to be exactly what I presented it to be - a complete overpowering of the will, by a precursor regeneration that eeads to salvation - a process that the BIble nowhere teaches, niether by verse nor example.

     

    Let´s try John Piper -

    The doctrine of irresistible grace means that God is sovereign and can overcome all resistance when he wills. "He does according to his will in the host of heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth; and none can stay his hand!" (Daniel 4:35). "Our God is in the heavens; he does whatever he pleases" (Psalm 115:3). When God undertakes to fulfill his sovereign purpose, no one can successfully resist him.

     

    Thats exactñly what calvinism teaches. God´s grace is imposed upon the sinner as it is apparent that he has no free will to do the right thing, due to TOTAL DEPÄVITY. - in fact one cannot discuss the TULIP points or 5 pillars of reformed theology without crossing over the lines of each tenant as they all stand together or all fall by one being removed.

     

    Again, John Piper -

    Someone may say, "Yes, the Holy Spirit must draw us to God, but we can use our freedom to resist or accept that drawing." Our answer is: except for the continual exertion of saving grace, we will always use our freedom to resist God. That is what it means to be "unable to submit to God." If a person becomes humble enough to submit to God it is because God has given that person a new, humble nature [i.e born again]. If a person remains too hard hearted and proud to submit to God, it is because that person has not been given such a willing spirit. But to see this most persuasively we should look at the Scriptures

     

    He ends by tying the IG to PofS, as one tenant can never stand alone.

     

    John Piper understands classic calvinism perfectly and he presents the truest sense of the meaning of Irresistible grace - a grace that negates the free will of man, thereby requiring a "willing spirit" to be forced upon the unwilling reciepient of God´s grace. Irresisitible grace is only true if (and I say IF) Total depravity is true, as defined by calvinism.

     

    The previous aticle I quoted, (and there really is no need to quote endless sources, that site is succint in presenting the clearest definition of reformed doctrine) continues to say, -

     

    The Apostle John speaks of those for whom some would make the claim were drawn and yet refused this offer of grace. He says of them in 1 John 2:19, "They went out from us, but they were not really of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but they went out, so that it would be shown that they all are not of us." As this passage indicates, one can appear to be a Christian, to be "of us," and not actually be as he seems. What is the one thing we learn from this passage? It is that genuinely born again people, drawn to Christ by the Father, never fall away. They remain. But those who refuse God's grace by turning from Him, no matter how authentic they may have appeared, prove that they were never truly born again to begin with.

     

    Again, the IG cannot stand upon its own merits as it is dependent upon the "perserverance of the saints" (and that does not mean once saved always saved for a minute)

    Exactly as the TD must have IG to lean upon, the PofS must be an outcropping of the IG, and on it goes., The 5 pillars are inter dependent, take one away, it all crumbles as the man made doctrine it is.

     

    Your further quote of a source I presented does nothing to diminish the reality of the theological clap trap that the reformed doctrines comprise. It solidifies the nonsense.

     

    God bless,

    calvary

     

    That my frind is pure theological hogwash.

  16.  
    Sorry this has taken so long, Calvary.
     
    I wasn't actually trying to explain my own beliefs at all. I was trying to point out what I see as potential prOBlems/inconsistencies with what follows from your claims, while at the same time trying not to put words in your mouth. :-)
     
    I'll try to explain again:
     
    1. As far as I can tell from reading what they write, Calvinists claim that God gets elect folk to respond to the Gospel by changing their inclinations/character/desire/constitution (or whatever you want to call it), which in turn determines what choices those folk make for themselves. Same as how, all things being equal, I'll never choose to jump off a cliff.
     
    2. You claim that Calvinism is a system whereby God 'overcomes' folks' free will, which I interpret as meaning they end up with no free will to respond to the Gospel.

    Now it seems to me that what I've described in (1) isn't a scenario whereby anyone's free will is taken away. But you are saying that under Calvinism, the free will to choose is indeed taken away. Therefore, either:

    a] I've interpreted what Calvinism says about free will correctly and you haven't, or

    b] You've interpreted what Calvinism says about free will correctly and I haven't, or

    c] We've both interpreted what Calvinism says about free will correctly, because having an inclination to chose a certain way is the same thing as having no free will.

    If you think is true then fair enough and we must agree to differ unless we want to go further and start quoting from treatises etc. But if you think [c] then in my opinion that leads to the following prOBlems:

    • If 'free will' can only exist provided one doesn't have prior inclinations, then what is left to determine what we choose except randominity? But that conflicts with our own experience.
    It renders historical examples such as Moses choice to follow God in Heb 11:25-27 as not a free will choice after all, since the Bible clearly states that Moses was motivated to make the choice. We would have to say that Moses inclination to esteem the reproach of Christ 'overcame' his free will to choose Egypt.

    I'm going for [a], of course. ;-)

     

    The external call (which is made to all without distinction) can be -- and often is -- rejected; whereas the internal call (which is made only to the elect) cannot be rejected; it always results in conversion. By means of this special call, the Spirit irresistibly draws sinners to Christ. He is not limited in His work of applying salvation by man's will, nor is He dependent upon man's cooperation for success.

     

    God's call to salvation is unlimited but His redemption is limited to those who believe. (Matthew 22:14) The Holy Spirit's conviction and drawing is what drags us to God. We do not come by our own will, which is utterly depraved and naturally hostile toward God.

     

    In John 6:44 Jesus said, "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day." Clearly those who do come, come because they have been enabled to do so. Furthermore, Jesus continues in this verse to affirm that, He "will raise him up on the last day." There is no room in this passage to allow for the possibility that all who are enabled will make a decision to refuse the offer. Jesus has made that clear with His pronouncement in the second half of this verse. Moreover, to suggest that at this point those who are enabled to come can decide not to, is to destroy the natural reading of this verse. No, all those who come, are indeed only those who have been enabled to do so. And all those who are enabled to do so, are saved. That is grace with power to save; grace that is irresistible!

     

    ("enabled" here is to be understood as regenerated - in other words, born again yet not saved)

     

    The bold above are just a few quotations from real life Calvinism on the will of man. It´s often called irresistible grace, the “I” in TULIP.

     

    Following your OBservations, of a,b,and c, I am thinking you haven´t studied the writings of actual Calvinist sufficiently to suggest that I might be wrong on mine.

    Irresistible grace denies man’s free will as it is attached to the total depravity of man.

    Sadly, many Baptists are confused as to what the reformed doctrines actually teach. They are glossed over with false definitions.

    For example, you seem to indicate that this Irresistible grace is merely a yielding to the goodness of God and eventually through God´s grace and mercy on the sinner, he (the sinner) succumbs to the call of the Holy Spirit. To which I would say, yes, that is how it really works.

    Unfortunately that is far from what the actual doctrine teaches.

    Follow me here. According to the reformed doctrines:

    1. The sinner is so totally depraved in nature, will and disposition that man is UNABLE to respond to the gospel call.
    Therefore, God overpowers man´s will as the Holy Spirit draws the sinner to saving grace. In order to do that, the sinner is regenerated by the Holy Spirit, PRIOR to being saved. Thereby making salvation in reality a 2 step process instead of an instantaneous moment.

    I am not misrepresenting anyone.

    That´s why I tried to demonstrate the weakness of such a position by showing Moses as an example of man´s free will in his choice to serve or not.

     

    I´m still not sure of what you are trying to say about man´s free will. But I am sure of this, there is no inconsistency in my understanding of the false teaching of reformed theology. Perhaps now, you can see why I posited Moses as an example to show the folly of the calvinsts position on man’s free will in salvation.

    I think your option “a” is the correct scenario.

     

    God bless,

    calvary

  17. Every explanation I've ever read of Calvinism specifically addresses this OBjection and says that what happens is that a man's inclinations are changed so that he freely chooses Christ and has no desire to do otherwise, not that his free will is removed.

     

    Now it could be argued that this is a distinction without a difference since if man's decision-making is the result of something, such as his desires and inclinations, then that is not free will. But for me, this begs the question, if that isn't free will, then what is? To qualify as 'free will', does the decision have to have no basis at all? And then wouldn't that make it random?

     

    The Heb 11:25-27 verse describes Moses making a decision based on an inclination he has: "Esteeming the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures in Egypt..."

     

    Why would Moses hold the reproach of Christ in higher regard than the treasues in Egypt while the next man wouldn't? I don't think we're given an answer to that, whereas Calvinists think we are. However, showing examples of people making decisions doesn't refute Calvinism, in m.o, since the system doesn't deny that people make them.

     

    Sorry "Fed", but I´m not following you too well.

     

    I think you sort of say 2 things that are opposing each other.

     

    Now it could be argued that this is a distinction without a difference since if man's decision-making is the result of something, such as his desires and inclinations, then that is not free will. But for me, this begs the question, if that isn't free will, then what is? To qualify as 'free will', does the decision have to have no basis at all? And then wouldn't that make it random?

     

    ?? Sorry but you´re not making sense. Maybe if you try again. What I am hearing you say is that free will is absed upon a man´s "inclinaitons", therefore it´s npot free will, then you say it´s really random, therefore there is no basis of free will.... ???????? Ya lost me bro.

     

    Then you say that we really don´t know what Moses´inclinations were so we can´t say why my post refutes calvinism.

     

    I think I was merely demostrating that men, the example is Moses, have a free will to chose what they deem fit, be it for good, or be it for bad. Moses chose his course, and he chose to follw God and it had nothing whatsoever to do with being over powered by the Holy Spirit thereby negating man´s choice in slavation. Which is exactly the foolish position of calvinism.

     

    I stand by my post as being fairly simple to get.

     

    God bless,

    calvary

  18. Typically the calvinist position is that man cannot use his free will to come to the Lord. That through "Irristible grace" a mans free will is over come, thereby the "drawing process" of the Lord is the base factor in the salvation of the soul and not the will of man who is in need of relief from the penalty of sin.

    There are so many Bible examples of men doing what they seemed right in their own eyes, both good and bad that even entertaining this silly doctrine goes against all logic any man possesses. One has to set aside his own common sense to accept this non sense and unbiblical doctrine in order to comply with the false and heretical sytem known as calvinism.

     

    Here, let me give you 2.

     

    .    Moses' Good Decision

    "Choosing rather to suffer affliction with the people of God, than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season; (25)

     Esteeming the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures in Egypt: for he had respect unto the recompense of the reward. (26)

     By faith he forsook Egypt, not fearing the wrath of the king: for he endured, as seeing him who is invisible."  - Heb_11:25-27

    Here we find Moses making a good choice out of his own free will.  These verses state that Moses explicitly chose for himself as for a result of his own reasoning and analysis of the situation.  He made his own decision to suffer affliction with God's people, Israel, rather than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season.  It was Moses' responsibility and decision to do that.  We also stand responsible for our decisions.
     

     

    2.    Moses' Bad Decision

    "For he supposed his brethren would have understood how that God by his (Moses') hand would deliver them (Israel): but they understood not."- Act_7:25

    God had called Moses to deliver the nation of Israel out of bondage from the nation of Egypt after 400+ years.  The circumstances relating to Moses' disOBedience of that calling and his spending 40 years on the back side of the desert in wasted time is recorded in Exo_2:1-25; Exo_3:1-22.  Now, notice Act_7:29-30 :

    "Then fled Moses at this saying, and was a stranger in the land of Midian, where he begat two sons. And when forty years were expired, there appeared to him in the wilderness of Mount Sina an angel of the Lord in a flame of fire in a bush."

    You see Moses wasted 40 years by willfully disOBeying God's will for him to lead the children of Israel out of bondage.  After 40 years on the back side of the desert, Exo_3:1-22 reveals to us that the Angel of the Lord appeared unto Moses in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush.  After dealing with Moses in this manner, Exo_3:10 enlightens us that God again seeks to have Moses OBey His will as He commands him again to go unto Pharaoh.  My question is, "Would God ask Moses to lead the children of Israel and then put it into Moses' mind to be disOBedient to God's command?"  This would be unbelievable!  We do find, though, that Moses out of his own free will chose to disOBey God.  God did not over-ride the free will of Moses.  Forty years later God dealt with Moses again and this time Moses chose to OBey.
     

     

    Same man, same free will.

     

    God bless,

    calvary

  19. A few comments:

    Everybody can give something for missions - God can take the little we have and multiply it many times over to meet somebody's needs.  Many giving $10 a month to missions does not seem like much, but God does not count the number behind the dollar sign - He looks to see if you gave what you could give to HIS WORK.

    Thus, I always encourage our people to pray about what God would have them to give, and then give according to what God has given them, regardless of the dollar amount.  And there is absolutely no pressure whatsoever - no emotionalism - no "pledges" - it is between them and the Lord.

     

    The high-handed emotionalism that goes into many missions conferences is rather sickening.  Why must men resort to worldly emotional and psychological manipulation in order to get "results?"  Why does these men not rely upon the power of the Holy Spirit to work on people's hearts through the preaching of the word?  Those who walk with the Lord KNOW what God wants them to do - they do not need somebody else taking advantage of the opportunity to twist their arms into doing something.   I say that a preacher should preach the word, and leave the results up to the Lord!

     

    I agree with Dave - we should try to do more along the way of encouraging our missionaries through letters and gifts.  It lets them know we genuinely care for them. 

     

    The largest prOBlem I see with modern missionaries is that many of them are not truly Biblical missionaries.  They don't want to work in the secular world.  They want to be "full time" in the ministry, so they find some kooky "field" to be a "missionary" to.  Further, many of these "missionaries" are not doing the Biblical jOB of training the natives to take care of their own churches.  So much of what passes off as "missions" is junk.  Our pastors need to do a better jOB of "weeding" the charlatans out.  Our pastors and schools need to do a better jOB of teaching what Biblical missions is all about.  And our pastors and schools need to stop making "the ministry" out to be something glamorous.  Some of these kids coming out of school think that if they cannot be "full time in the ministry" that they will just sit and do nothing....like a spoiled brat who doesn't get his way!

     

    More OBservations from the semi-arid plains of the Texas Panhandle!

     

    In Chrst

     

    Having served in Mexico for 15 years and by God´s grace started 7 different churches and trained about a dozen men in full time service, we had to come home to care for my wife´s mother. We have plans on starting a spanish speaking church in Corona, Ca, where there are 43% latino.

    If I need to get a jOB, I will. Whatever it takes to keep serving the Lord.

     

    Many missionaries are in reality just pastors serving in a foreign field.

    They do not train men to take their place, they do not plan on ever leaving their flock, they do not do the work of an evangelist.

     

    Thank God for them, they win souls to our Saviour, but they are not missionaries.

     

    Just asking for some prayer for us as we are looking at a new start in September, Lord willing. We have lost support just by way of returning tot he states, but we are trusting the Lord to provide. He has never let us down.

     

    God bless,

    calvary

  20. Were Abraham & his descendants chosen by God?

     

    Deut. 7:For thou art an holy people unto the Lord thy God: the Lord thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto himself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth.

    The Lord did not set his love upon you, nor choose you, because ye were more in number than any people; for ye were the fewest of all people:

    But because the Lord loved you, and because he would keep the oath which he had sworn unto your fathers, hath the Lord brought you out with a mighty hand, and redeemed you out of the house of bondmen, from the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt.

     

    Neh. 9:Thou art the Lord the God, who didst choose Abram, and broughtest him forth out of Ur of the Chaldees, and gavest him the name of Abraham;

    And foundest his heart faithful before thee, and madest a covenant with him to give the land of the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Amorites, and the Perizzites, and the Jebusites, and the Girgashites, to give it, I say, to his seed, and hast performed thy words; for thou art righteous:

     

    But is even that choosing selective?

     

    1 Kings 19:18 Yet I have left me seven thousand in Israel, all the knees which have not bowed unto Baal, and every mouth which hath not kissed him.

     

    Romans 11:1 I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.

    God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew. Wot ye not what the scripture saith of Elias? how he maketh intercession to God against Israel saying,

    Lord, they have killed thy prophets, and digged down thine altars; and I am left alone, and they seek my life.

    But what saith the answer of God unto him? I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal.

    Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.

     

    Let’s answer the question, which is posited innocently enough. The poster then gives us Deut. 7 which states plainly enough that they were in fact chosen. But the verse concludes that the purpose of said choosing was to guarantee possession of a land.

     

    The poster then gives Kings, where God says he has 7,000 chosen,  then the argument is sealed with the tried and true Romans 9.

     

    So here is the chain of logic.

    God has chosen, he has chosen some, therefore he has chosen so that his eternal decrees can stand pat.

     

    CLAP TRAP – PURE NONSENSICAL CLAP TRAP

     

    What does Deut 7 say about God choosing Abraham and his dependents? I t says in plain old 6th grade English that He chose them through an oath that was given to Abraham.

    Nehemiah also speaks of the oath. It enlarges the information as it states plainly that the oath finds it´s fulfillment in the possession of a piece of land.

    1 Kings 19? Well, as true as it is that God has reserved unto himself some 7000, what that has to do with the fulfilling of the oath sworn unto to Abraham is a mystery. The connection is only inferred by the poster, yet he fails to exegete the connection which only exists in his twisted view of the scriptures.

    There is no cross reference between 1 Kings and Nehemiah 9.

    So what are we to do with all this nonsense? Ignoring it would be good?

    Answer the question and you´ll get 10 more pages of confusion that ignore the information given in the response.

    All Calvinists, reformed theology, call it whatever you want all start with Romans 9 in mind. It is the lens through which they view scripture, so sooner or later, all application returns to God having elected some and you dare not question it because in electing sinners to Hell He has somehow demonstrated Hid glory. So there.

    PrOBlem is this. Deut 7 said that God had chosen Israel to give them the benefits of an oath that was sworn to Abraham. Nehemiah said that the oath is fulfilled in possessing of a land that belonged to Canaan and others. 1 Kings 19…. Uhmm…. No connection at all to the 2 previous passages. It only serves to make a bridge to the already preconceived conclusion that all election is too mystical for us to understand, do not question it, God said He is glorified.

    So to answer your question, yes, Abraham and his dependents were chosen. But by not telling us why, you are allowed to foist a foolish and unlearned prattle upon the simple. Both passages you started with stated in 6th grade English why. To fulfill and oath, an oath that was given to Abraham, an oath that deals with a tract of land.

     

    What about that oath???

     

    Luk 1:67  And his father Zacharias was filled with the Holy Ghost, and prophesied, saying,

    Luk 1:68  Blessed be the Lord God of Israel; for he hath visited and redeemed his people,

    Luk 1:69  And hath raised up an horn of salvation for us in the house of his servant David;

    Luk 1:70  As he spake by the mouth of his holy prophets, which have been since the world began:

    Luk 1:71  That we should be saved from our enemies, and from the hand of all that hate us;

    Luk 1:72  To perform the mercy promised to our fathers, and to remember his holy covenant;

    Luk 1:73  The oath which he sware to our father Abraham,

    Luk 1:74  That he would grant unto us, that we being delivered out of the hand of our enemies might serve him without fear,

    Luk 1:75  In holiness and righteousness before him, all the days of our life.

     

    Wow, what a novel concept!! Compare scripture with the right scripture to come to a

    Biblical and correct conclusion.

     

     

    Were not Abraham and his descendants chosen?

     

    They sure were. Anyone here want to tell us why?

     

    God bless,

    calvary

  21. I don't disagree with your general premise of this post, but I have never made that accusation.

    If I may explain my position - I believe that anyone who holds to Calvinism as Calvin intended is not trusting in the shed blood of Christ for salvation - their salvation is based on the choice of God. This is unbiblical, for the Bible never says that we are saved by God's choice, but it constantly says we are saved by the precious blood of the Lamb of God.

    However, I believe many people who "align with Calvin" do not really understand what Calvin believed and taught. These people might be saved because they believe the surface words without understanding the depth of Calvinism.

    I think that there are people in various false churches who are saved in spite of what their church teaches, not because of it.

    I have known people who defend Calvin who I would think are saved (I can not know another man's heart for certain), in spite of their defence of the system which teaches salvation not by faith, but by God's choice.
    I have also known people who defend Calvin who, by their actions and attitudes, I would think are definitely not saved (again, I can not know another man's heart but the indicators??????? ).

    But I have met many people who claim the name of Christ who appear by their life and actions to not know the Saviour.
    That is not the exclusive domain of Calvin.

     

    I for one cannot suffer the utterly false system of doctrine known as Calvinism. I personally believe that its´s adherents are unsaved. You can argue that all you want.

     

    I´m trusting Christ and His finished work on Calvary. I have never trusted in any election to be saved. The Bible never asked me to put my faith in any election, be it foreknown or predestined.

     

    That is what I said, it is clearly my opinion, but I conclude that because I´m thinking along the lines of Dave W. I have found that in dealing with classic calvinistic theologians, they present their salvation more as a conclusion to the OBvious end of their theological system. Sure, when cornered, they claim the finished work of Jesus on Calvary, yet always lurking under the surface is their belief they are the elect, chosen in Christ since the foundation of the world. My KJB never asks me to trust in any eternal decrees, but rather to trust in the finished work of Christ who made an end to all my sin.

     

    God bless,

    calvary

  22. Simple, scriptural and I am not looking for responses, although feel free to write whatever you want, I am not debating, I am posting scriptural truth.

     

    The posts stand on their merit.

    Calvin´s Institutes are no more inspired than Max Younce

     

    Reformed theology ( another unbiblical term), Calvinism, ( another unbiblical term), I see you had no qualms about the long cut and paste from Invicta which was OBviously form a non inspired source.

     

    Typical -

     

    God bless,

    calvary

  23. CHAPTER TWO
    EXAMINING VERSES USED TO SUPPORT ELECTION

    We are going to examine some of the verses that are used to endorse the doctrine of election to salvation.  It is amazing how some will pull verses out of context that clearly have to do with service and God's provision for His saints and attempt to apply these to salvation.  It is unbelievable to what extremes men will go in an attempt to prove this doctrine.  They extract a line or verse from the context and apply it to support their particular false teaching.
     

     

        Luk_4:25-29 - A Widow & A King, Chosen To Sustain A Prophet & Show God's Power

    “But I tell you of a truth, many widows were in Israel in the days of Elias, when the heaven was shut up three years and six months, when great famine was throughout all the land. (25)

    But unto none of them was Elias sent, save unto Sarepta, a city of Sidon, unto a woman that was a widow. (26)

    And many lepers were in Israel in the time of Eliseus the prophet; and none of them was cleansed, saving Naaman the Syrian. (27)
                   

    And all they in the synagogue, when they heard these things, were filled with wrath. (28)

    And rose up, and thrust him out of the city, and led him unto the brow of the hill whereon their city was built, that they might cast him down headlong.” Luk_4:25-29

    Christ made these statements while speaking in the synagogue as an illustration.  Now Mr. Nettleton gives his statement concerning these verses on page 26 of his book, Chosen to Salvation:

    “One out of many widows was chosen, and one out of many lepers was cleansed. The result of such teaching was anger. Special mercy was shown to the widow and to the leper.”

    We are going to examine the Old Testament account more thoroughly and see what the real purpose of God was in directing Elijah to the widow's house.  The record of Elijah going to the widow's home is found in 1Ki_17:9.  When we begin with the 17th Chapter of 1 Kings, we find that there had been a famine in the land and that Elijah had been by the brook, Cherith, that is the brook before Jordan.  We find out here that Elijah had been fed by the ravens, but when the brook dried up God then directed him to go to this woman's house.  We are going to find out the purpose for this as it is a far cry from electing this woman, and then using this as an illustration for salvation as Nettleton has done. 

    It is hard for me to believe that someone would do this, when in reality, the Scriptures teach that God had a purpose for sending Elijah to this widow woman.  This purpose is found in 1Ki_17:9 :

    “Arise, get thee to Zarephath, which belongeth to Zidon, and dwell there: behold, I have commanded a widow woman there to sustain thee.”

    The reason for this sustenance was that the brook had dried up.  You will notice that in 1Ki_17:7 of this same chapter:

    “And it came to pass after a while, that the brook dried up, because there had been no rain in the land.”

    Therefore, God had directed Elijah to go to this particular town where the widow woman lived.  She was to sustain him, feed him and to water him, as this was the purpose of God.  For one to apply this to salvation is unbelievable!

    Let us continue to read the entire story as found in 1 Kings, Chapter 17.  We find that after the widow had fed Elijah and given him water, he stayed for a time.  Now we pick up the story in 1Ki_17:17,

    “And it came to pass after these things, that the son of the woman, the mistress of the house, fell sick; and his sickness was so sore, that there was no breath left in him. (17)

    And she said unto Elijah, what have I to do with thee, O thou man of God? Art thou come unto me to call my sin to remembrance, and to slay my son?” (18)

    Perhaps the woman thought her son had been slain because of some past sin that she had committed.  We do not know for sure as this is all that is given.  But we find out that Elijah had prayed to God for life to be restored to her son.  God had seen fit to honor Elijah's prayer as God had a purpose in restoring his life again.  He, evidently, had been dead for just a short period of time.  Now, the record is found in 1Ki_17:22-24 :

    “And the Lord heard the voice of Elijah; and the soul of the child came into him again, and he revived. (22).

    And Elijah took the child, and brought him down out of the chamber into the house, and delivered him unto his mother: and Elijah said, See, thy son liveth. (23).

    And the woman said to Elijah, now by this I know that thou art a man of God, and that the word of the Lord in thy mouth is truth.” (24).

    There was a twofold reason for God's directing Elijah to this woman's house.  The first reason, of course, being that God had spoken to this woman to care for Elijah.  We find this in 1Ki_17:9, in the last part of the verse:

    “…behold, I have commanded a widow woman there to sustain thee.”

    So we see the first purpose of sending Elijah to the widow woman was to have her sustain Elijah.  Could the Lord have stated it any clearer?

    Nettleton cites this case as evidence and leverage to support his contention that some are elected to salvation.  It would have been nice of Nettleton to have informed his readers of GOD'S PURPOSE for using the widow woman in sustaining Elijah.  She could have been the only available person in the vicinity that was saved, we do not really know.  Nevertheless, in spite of God's stating His purpose, Nettleton chose to use this event to support his own purpose of endorsing election to salvation.  He, himself, is proof of the freewill of man.  It would be inconceivable that God would direct someone to use Scripture and apply it contrary to the purpose clearly stated in His word.

    Again, He used the widow woman to sustain His servant, Elijah.  He could have chosen anyone, but He happened to choose this woman--NOT TO SALVATION--as this has nothing to do with salvation at all.

    The second purpose was to prove to this woman, by the raising of her son from the dead, that Elijah was truly God's prophet.  There were many miracles done in the Old and New Testaments, but this had absolutely nothing to do with salvation.  Remember, the purpose of the miracle was to convince the woman that Elijah was a true prophet.

    Nettleton also uses Luk_4:27 as support of his doctrine of election:

    “And many lepers were in Israel in the time of Eliseus the prophet; and none of them was cleansed, saving Naaman the Syrian.”

    Let us notice the record of this that Christ quoted is found in the Old Testament in 2Ki_5:3-15.  One should take time and read the whole account for themselves.  In essence, we find that Naaman was a Syrian and he was a captain of the host of the king of Syria.  He was a great man with his master, honorable, and a mighty man in valor but he was a leper, as recorded in 2Ki_5:1.  We find out how this whole situation took place, how God worked and the reason for all of this concerning Naaman, the leper. 

    God's purpose for healing him was to prove that there was a true God in Israel!  God performed this miracle in healing the leper, to prove to all the company that was with him at that time, that only the true God of Israel could do such a thing.  This He did by the prophet, Elisha.

    Again we emphasize that this had nothing to do with salvation whatsoever!  God performed this miracle to substantiate the fact that there was only one God and that was Israel's JEHOVAH.  This was the purpose of God.

    We find when we read on in the story and let the Scriptures speak for themselves, the purpose of God is made known.  In 2Ki_5:2 we find that the Syrians had gone out by companies and had brought away captive out of the land of Israel a little maid who waited on Naaman's wife.  He had taken the girl into his home and she was the maid of the house.  She knew that her master was a leper and she told her mistress how he could be cured. The record is found in 2Ki_5:3 :

    “….Would God my lord were with the prophet that is in Samaria! for he would recover him of his leprosy.”

    This information came to the king of Syria, who sent a letter to the king of Israel, who at that time was Jehoram.  When Jehoram got the letter he made the statement, “I'm not God!”  It is recorded in 2Ki_5:7 :

    “And it came to  pass when the king of Israel had read the letter, that he rent his clothes and said, Am I God, to kill and to make alive, that this man doth send unto me to recover a man of his leprosy.  Wherefore consider, I pray you…”

    Now when Elisha heard of this he said, “Send the man unto me,” and this is exactly what happened.  We are told that Naaman came unto the house of Elisha who gave him instructions to follow so his leprosy would be cured.  Here is the record found in 2Ki_5:9-10 :

    “So Naaman came with his horses and his chariot, and stood at the door of the house of Elisha.

    And Elisha sent a message unto him, saying, Go and wash in Jordan seven times, and thy flesh shall come again to thee, and thou shalt be clean.”

    When Naaman heard this he became very angry because he thought Elisha would just come out of the house and put his hand over him and he would be healed.  That is not the way God chose to do it.  Notice 2Ki_5:13 :

    “And his servants came near, and spake unto him, and said, my father, if the prophet had bid thee to do some great thing, wouldest thou not have done it? How much rather then, when he saith to thee, wash and be clean?”

    They talked him into it and he went down and dipped himself seven times in the Jordan River.  The last part of 2Ki_5:14 tells us that he was cleansed.  Then in 2Ki_5:15 the REASON for this is stated:

    “And he returned to the man of God, he and all his company, and came, and stood before him: and he said, Behold, now I know that there is no God in all the earth, but in Israel: now, therefore, I pray thee, take a blessing of thy servant.”

    This was the purpose of God in sending Naaman to his prophet, Elisha.  It was to be a testimony by the healing of this man, that God was truly the God of Israel.  No idolistic gods could do what the true God had just done.

    It taxes my imagination to see someone use these Scriptures to support a false doctrine of electing some to be saved and others to be lost.  Again, allow me to quote Nettleton's statement after using these verses in support of his doctrine. (Chosen to Salvation, page 26.)

    “One out of many widows was chosen, and one out of many lepers was cleansed. The result of such teaching was anger. Special mercy was shown to the widow and to the leper.”

    Also quoting, page 13 and 14 of Chosen to Salvation.

    “There are two things man will never understand this side of Heaven: how God could elect to save some sinners and not others…”

    How important it is to study the Scriptures for your-self.  How contradictory Nettleton's applications are to the clear purpose of God as stated in His word.  Allow me to summarize briefly the purpose of God in each event:

    A.    Elijah sent to the widow's house. 
        PURPOSE—“I have commanded a widow woman there to sustain thee.” - 1Ki_17:9

    B.    Elijah restores life to the widow's son.
    PURPOSE—“Now by this I know that thou art a man of God, and that the word of the Lord in thy mouth is truth.” - 1Ki_17:24

    C.    Elisha directs Naaman who is healed of leprosy.
        PURPOSE—“...Behold, now I (Naaman) know that there is no God in all the earth, but in Israel…” - 2Ki_5:15

    The over-all scene is clearly pictured in Luk_4:14-29.  Christ was raised in Nazareth as a child (Luk_2:39-40).  In His ministry, He returned to Nazareth and preached in the synagogue (Luk_4:16).  He is telling the Jews that he was anointed to heal the brokenhearted, preach deliverance to the captives and open the eyes of the blind (18).  They ask Him to do the same miracles here in Nazareth that they heard He had done in Capernaum.  Christ knew they would not believe Him, even if He did them; therefore He stated that “…No prophet is accepted in his own country (Luk_4:23-24)." To substantiate this, He uses two Old Testament illustrations, one of Elisha and the other concerning Elijah (Luk_4:25-27). In other words, the same principle was true in Old Testament times as it was in Jesus' day.

    “For Jesus himself testified, that a prophet hath no honour in his own country.” - Joh_4:44.

    To extract theses two illustrations used by Christ and attempt to make them support the doctrine of election to salvation is asinine!  May we always take time to examine the Scriptures for ourselves. Max Younce

     

    God bless,

    calvary
     

×
×
  • Create New...