e v e
Full Member
Posts: 214
|
Post by e v e on Sept 18, 2022 16:20:47 GMT -8
because right now
most believers do not want to go home.
they believe this fallen earth is home
and that these corrupt fleshbodies
are His creation.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 19, 2022 7:10:22 GMT -8
Hmmmm.... I'm sort of with Doug on this one with a couple of exceptions. First, GotQuestions is NOT a Calvinist website. It's decidedly Dispensationalist and Arminian. The CEO of GotQuestions, S. Michael Houdmann, has Master's degrees from Calvary Theological Seminary and Dallas Theological Seminary. BOTH institutions are explicitly pre-trib, pre-mil and Arminian. The definition of "soteriology" also needs to be clarified because soteriology is not the study of doctrine, the study of doctrine of salvation. The "-ology" should not throw us off. When asking a pastor or elder of a specific congregation, or asking about a seminary's, sect's, or denomination's soteriology the answer is NOT how, how much, or whether they have studied. They are stating their doctrinal position. Soteriology is the doctrine of salvation and that doctrine varies from institution to institution. Hence the internet debate and bookstore  . This is important for another reason, one directly related to this thread and every other op in the vast majority of internet discussion board because posters are not studying when they come into these discussions/debates/arguments. They are asserting their already-decided points of view, and most with an intent to persuade everyone else to that point of view, NOT to study and learn. My point about " study" can be seen right here in this thread on the matter of OSAS. First, everyone should give that GotQuestions an attentive read because it does not actually come out in support of OSAS. It simply states the matter of assurance is " the most heart-wrenching fear" for some, and " the Bible speaks clearly about the eternality of our salvation and how we are preserved by the One who bought us with His blood." Monergists and synergists alike agree it is Jesus who preserves the saved. They interpret that statement differently. GotQuestions is a Dispensationalist Premillennial Arminian website but it does try to be balanced. The problem is no one can wholly shed their biases. Not Houdmann, not Sproul, not anyone. The fact of the matter is adherents of OSAS DO NOT find the matter " heart-wrenching." They find OSAS affirming AND wish that all Christians would experience the comfort found in the knowledge of God's sovereignty in the matter. Doug's observation about OSAS is sound but incomplete and anything that is incomplete is likely to also be incorrect. A very, very common lack of context often not considered in these kinds of questions is, " Where do I find this exemplified in scripture?" For example, where is the actual Christian who has actually fallen away reported in scripture? Because if there aren't any actual examples in scripture, we have reason to question our interpretation, no matter what that interpretation may be; the principle being we shouldn't be interpreting scripture in ways the scriptures themselves don't exemplify, or to which they do not provide a precedent. So.... in regards to the doctrine of soteriology, as scripture asserts it, I recommend starting with 1) the basics and that means 2) the explicit statements first. For example, I am often amazed how many Christians do not know the answer to " From what have we been saved?" or " From what are we being saved?" How can we discuss a doctrine of salvation if we do not know the answer to that question? I do not believe we can. Or, how about the question, " Who or what saves?" Put the two together and we have something like, " Who or what saves us from what?" Isn't that rock bottom? Isn't everything else built on that? It is noted this GotQuestions article says nothing about this and completely failed to address this. How can an article titled, " What is soteriology?" NOT address this most basic of matters pertaining to this subject? For my part, I will say it is God who saves, God alone who saves, and it is He alone who saves us from sin and wrath, the wrath being His wrath consequent to the just recompense of sin. This, of course, is going to beget other inquiries, such as, " What is sin?" to which I will answer " Sin is all unrighteousness, anything not done in faith, and any act of lawlessness." These are three of the definitions scripture explicitly provides, and thereby three of the things from which we are being saved by God, and God alone. Soteriology is the doctrine of God, the Creator, saving the sinful creature form the creature's sin and the wrath that follows. Much more can be said about that but that's the essence of soteriology. Happy to provide scriptures for any of that (but I assume this current set of posters knows exactly where I got those statements). Good morning everyone (or whatever time of day you might find yourselves ). |
|
slyzr
Full Member
Posts: 124
|
Post by slyzr on Sept 30, 2022 19:00:37 GMT -8
Hmmmm.... I'm sort of with Doug on this one with a couple of exceptions. First, GotQuestions is NOT a Calvinist website. It's decidedly Dispensationalist and Arminian. The CEO of GotQuestions, S. Michael Houdmann, has Master's degrees from Calvary Theological Seminary and Dallas Theological Seminary. BOTH institutions are explicitly pre-trib, pre-mil and Arminian. The definition of "soteriology" also needs to be clarified because soteriology is not the study of doctrine, the study of doctrine of salvation. The "-ology" should not throw us off. When asking a pastor or elder of a specific congregation, or asking about a seminary's, sect's, or denomination's soteriology the answer is NOT how, how much, or whether they have studied. They are stating their doctrinal position. Soteriology is the doctrine of salvation and that doctrine varies from institution to institution. Hence the internet debate and bookstore . This is important for another reason, one directly related to this thread and every other op in the vast majority of internet discussion board because posters are not studying when they come into these discussions/debates/arguments. They are asserting their already-decided points of view, and most with an intent to persuade everyone else to that point of view, NOT to study and learn. My point about " study" can be seen right here in this thread on the matter of OSAS. First, everyone should give that GotQuestions an attentive read because it does not actually come out in support of OSAS. It simply states the matter of assurance is " the most heart-wrenching fear" for some, and " the Bible speaks clearly about the eternality of our salvation and how we are preserved by the One who bought us with His blood." Monergists and synergists alike agree it is Jesus who preserves the saved. They interpret that statement differently. GotQuestions is a Dispensationalist Premillennial Arminian website but it does try to be balanced. The problem is no one can wholly shed their biases. Not Houdmann, not Sproul, not anyone. The fact of the matter is adherents of OSAS DO NOT find the matter " heart-wrenching." They find OSAS affirming AND wish that all Christians would experience the comfort found in the knowledge of God's sovereignty in the matter. Doug's observation about OSAS is sound but incomplete and anything that is incomplete is likely to also be incorrect. A very, very common lack of context often not considered in these kinds of questions is, " Where do I find this exemplified in scripture?" For example, where is the actual Christian who has actually fallen away reported in scripture? Because if there aren't any actual examples in scripture, we have reason to question our interpretation, no matter what that interpretation may be; the principle being we shouldn't be interpreting scripture in ways the scriptures themselves don't exemplify, or to which they do not provide a precedent. So.... in regards to the doctrine of soteriology, as scripture asserts it, I recommend starting with 1) the basics and that means 2) the explicit statements first. For example, I am often amazed how many Christians do not know the answer to " From what have we been saved?" or " From what are we being saved?" How can we discuss a doctrine of salvation if we do not know the answer to that question? I do not believe we can. Or, how about the question, " Who or what saves?" Put the two together and we have something like, " Who or what saves us from what?" Isn't that rock bottom? Isn't everything else built on that? It is noted this GotQuestions article says nothing about this and completely failed to address this. How can an article titled, " What is soteriology?" NOT address this most basic of matters pertaining to this subject? For my part, I will say it is God who saves, God alone who saves, and it is He alone who saves us from sin and wrath, the wrath being His wrath consequent to the just recompense of sin. This, of course, is going to beget other inquiries, such as, " What is sin?" to which I will answer " Sin is all unrighteousness, anything not done in faith, and any act of lawlessness." These are three of the definitions scripture explicitly provides, and thereby three of the things from which we are being saved by God, and God alone. Soteriology is the doctrine of God, the Creator, saving the sinful creature form the creature's sin and the wrath that follows. Much more can be said about that but that's the essence of soteriology. Happy to provide scriptures for any of that (but I assume this current set of posters knows exactly where I got those statements). Good morning everyone (or whatever time of day you might find yourselves ). Ok ...... let's get into into it. This whole everything is sin for no one to ever be, makes little sense. Your turn. |
|
slyzr
Full Member
Posts: 124
|
Post by slyzr on Sept 30, 2022 19:35:41 GMT -8
because right now most believers do not want to go home. they believe this fallen earth is home and that these corrupt fleshbodies are His creation. Sigh ..... OK ...... Back to Eden. Tending the "Garden". HI, HO, it's off to work we go. Never to be until were free ... Hi ... HO .... HI HO. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 1, 2022 5:07:08 GMT -8
Hmmmm.... I'm sort of with Doug on this one with a couple of exceptions. First, GotQuestions is NOT a Calvinist website. It's decidedly Dispensationalist and Arminian. The CEO of GotQuestions, S. Michael Houdmann, has Master's degrees from Calvary Theological Seminary and Dallas Theological Seminary. BOTH institutions are explicitly pre-trib, pre-mil and Arminian. The definition of "soteriology" also needs to be clarified because soteriology is not the study of doctrine, the study of doctrine of salvation. The "-ology" should not throw us off. When asking a pastor or elder of a specific congregation, or asking about a seminary's, sect's, or denomination's soteriology the answer is NOT how, how much, or whether they have studied. They are stating their doctrinal position. Soteriology is the doctrine of salvation and that doctrine varies from institution to institution. Hence the internet debate and bookstore . This is important for another reason, one directly related to this thread and every other op in the vast majority of internet discussion board because posters are not studying when they come into these discussions/debates/arguments. They are asserting their already-decided points of view, and most with an intent to persuade everyone else to that point of view, NOT to study and learn. My point about " study" can be seen right here in this thread on the matter of OSAS. First, everyone should give that GotQuestions an attentive read because it does not actually come out in support of OSAS. It simply states the matter of assurance is " the most heart-wrenching fear" for some, and " the Bible speaks clearly about the eternality of our salvation and how we are preserved by the One who bought us with His blood." Monergists and synergists alike agree it is Jesus who preserves the saved. They interpret that statement differently. GotQuestions is a Dispensationalist Premillennial Arminian website but it does try to be balanced. The problem is no one can wholly shed their biases. Not Houdmann, not Sproul, not anyone. The fact of the matter is adherents of OSAS DO NOT find the matter " heart-wrenching." They find OSAS affirming AND wish that all Christians would experience the comfort found in the knowledge of God's sovereignty in the matter. Doug's observation about OSAS is sound but incomplete and anything that is incomplete is likely to also be incorrect. A very, very common lack of context often not considered in these kinds of questions is, " Where do I find this exemplified in scripture?" For example, where is the actual Christian who has actually fallen away reported in scripture? Because if there aren't any actual examples in scripture, we have reason to question our interpretation, no matter what that interpretation may be; the principle being we shouldn't be interpreting scripture in ways the scriptures themselves don't exemplify, or to which they do not provide a precedent. So.... in regards to the doctrine of soteriology, as scripture asserts it, I recommend starting with 1) the basics and that means 2) the explicit statements first. For example, I am often amazed how many Christians do not know the answer to " From what have we been saved?" or " From what are we being saved?" How can we discuss a doctrine of salvation if we do not know the answer to that question? I do not believe we can. Or, how about the question, " Who or what saves?" Put the two together and we have something like, " Who or what saves us from what?" Isn't that rock bottom? Isn't everything else built on that? It is noted this GotQuestions article says nothing about this and completely failed to address this. How can an article titled, " What is soteriology?" NOT address this most basic of matters pertaining to this subject? For my part, I will say it is God who saves, God alone who saves, and it is He alone who saves us from sin and wrath, the wrath being His wrath consequent to the just recompense of sin. This, of course, is going to beget other inquiries, such as, " What is sin?" to which I will answer " Sin is all unrighteousness, anything not done in faith, and any act of lawlessness." These are three of the definitions scripture explicitly provides, and thereby three of the things from which we are being saved by God, and God alone. Soteriology is the doctrine of God, the Creator, saving the sinful creature form the creature's sin and the wrath that follows. Much more can be said about that but that's the essence of soteriology. Happy to provide scriptures for any of that (but I assume this current set of posters knows exactly where I got those statements). Good morning everyone (or whatever time of day you might find yourselves ). Ok ...... let's get into into it. This whole everything is sin for no one to ever be, makes little sense. Your turn. What makes no sense is that sentence. To begin with, the sentence contradicts itself. If no one ever be then sin could not and would not be, ether. Furthermore, my position is not, "the whole everything is sin." That's a straw man. Neither has anyone here ever said "the whole everything is sin for no one to ever be." That's a red herring. Then there is the appeal to it making sense. What others have posted may not make sense to you, but broad, over-generalized appeals to what makes sense are worthless until the lack of sense is demonstrated. Use proper punctuation. What you appear to emans to say is, "The whole, 'everything is sin,' for no one to ever be," is better but it's still a straw man. Neither I, nor anyone else in the entire thread has said any such thing. It's still a red herring. Your turn. |
|
|
|
Post by civic on Oct 1, 2022 5:21:32 GMT -8
Ok ...... let's get into into it. This whole everything is sin for no one to ever be, makes little sense. Your turn. What makes no sense is that sentence. To begin with, the sentence contradicts itself. If no one ever be then sin could not and would not be, ether. Furthermore, my position is not, "the whole everything is sin." That's a straw man. Neither has anyone here ever said "the whole everything is sin for no one to ever be." That's a red herring. Then there is the appeal to it making sense. What others have posted may not make sense to you, but broad, over-generalized appeals to what makes sense are worthless until the lack of sense is demonstrated. Use proper punctuation. What you appear to emans to say is, "The whole, 'everything is sin,' for no one to ever be," is better but it's still a straw man. Neither I, nor anyone else in the entire thread has said any such thing. It's still a red herring. Your turn. Since I have spent time with him over the years on carm he means by "to be" with calvinists are that those who were never predestined/chosen/elect are vessels of wrath/destruction that were never meant to be saved. So they were never meant " to be " or become saved, they never had a chance. hope this helps !!! |
|
|
|
Post by Redeemed on Oct 1, 2022 7:50:36 GMT -8
What makes no sense is that sentence. To begin with, the sentence contradicts itself. If no one ever be then sin could not and would not be, ether. Furthermore, my position is not, "the whole everything is sin." That's a straw man. Neither has anyone here ever said "the whole everything is sin for no one to ever be." That's a red herring. Then there is the appeal to it making sense. What others have posted may not make sense to you, but broad, over-generalized appeals to what makes sense are worthless until the lack of sense is demonstrated. Use proper punctuation. What you appear to emans to say is, "The whole, 'everything is sin,' for no one to ever be," is better but it's still a straw man. Neither I, nor anyone else in the entire thread has said any such thing. It's still a red herring. Your turn. Since I have spent time with him over the years on carm he means by "to be" with calvinists are that those who were never predestined/chosen/elect are vessels of wrath/destruction that were never meant to be saved. So they were never meant " to be " or become saved, they never had a chance. hope this helps !!! Now I'm really confused. lol |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 1, 2022 8:09:19 GMT -8
What makes no sense is that sentence. To begin with, the sentence contradicts itself. If no one ever be then sin could not and would not be, ether. Furthermore, my position is not, "the whole everything is sin." That's a straw man. Neither has anyone here ever said "the whole everything is sin for no one to ever be." That's a red herring. Then there is the appeal to it making sense. What others have posted may not make sense to you, but broad, over-generalized appeals to what makes sense are worthless until the lack of sense is demonstrated. Use proper punctuation. What you appear to emans to say is, "The whole, 'everything is sin,' for no one to ever be," is better but it's still a straw man. Neither I, nor anyone else in the entire thread has said any such thing. It's still a red herring. Your turn. Since I have spent time with him over the years on carm he means by "to be" with calvinists are that those who were never predestined/chosen/elect are vessels of wrath/destruction that were never meant to be saved. So they were never meant " to be " or become saved, they never had a chance. hope this helps !!! Great! That's still a twisting of Calvinism. Therefore, any argument against that twisted version of Calvinism would be a straw man argument. Since it is a straw man there's no need for me to entertain it, much less try to address it with any substance..... other than to note it for what it is = a completely fallacious straw man and move on. I will, however, make an attempt to correct the straw man so the correct view of Calvinist soteriology can be addressed. ALL have sinned and fal short of God's glory and are in need of salvation from the sin that has made them dead and enslaved and God did NOT make us that way!!! - God is not the author of sin.
- All have sinned.
- All sinned by the agency of their own volition and conduct. God did not make anyone sin.
- All are in need of salvation from the sin they committed, the effects of that sin, and the commensurate wrath due to sin.
- Because of the thoroughly incapacitating effect of sin no sinfully dead and enslaved sinner can come to God unaided by God, in his or her own might.
- Therefore, God and God alone must be the one acting to initiate and cause the conversion of the sinfully dead and enslaved sinner to a spiritually alive and righteously enslaved believer.
- God makes His choice based solely on His will and His purpose and not ANYTHING the sinfully enslaved sinner does or has. The only thing the sinner brings to his or her salvation is the sin from which s/he is being saved.
- It is only after the dead slave to sin has been regenerated or born anew from above - brought from death to life - that the now living convert can apply any faith, choice, or conduct to his conversion for the purpose of his or her salvation. Both grace and faith are gifts from God, not conditions the dead slave to sin possesses in any soteriologically meritorious way.
- What God has ordained did not do violence to the human will or the contingency of secondary causes. Human volition, the agency of that volition, and the influence and/or effect of the world's conditions are asserted, not denied, in Calvinism.
- Because many are called but few are chosen most are not saved but it was not God who caused their lack of salvation. EVERYONE once stood in a state of death, slavery, and condemnation they cannot escape in their own might and it is only Gid initiating a response to that condition through His grace, His calling, His choosing, His making Himself known salvifically, His gifting of faith, His doing a bunch of stuff (often unawares to the sinner being saved) that anyone would ever be saved and all of it is done based solely on God's will and purpose.
- Because the conversion event is solely God's doing and God is always and everywhere almighty and never fruitless or incapable of accomplishing His purpose, the convert can have confidence or assurance the work of God will be completed even where the sinner proves weak and incapable. There are many poseurs, people falsely believing they are saved when they are not or those willfully deceptive about their claim of salvation but while it may be impossible for another human to tell the difference God knows who He knows because He's the one who did the converting.
And although the analogy isn't perfect, a fair analogy for understanding the monergistic perspective is this:
Suppose I am walking along a beach, and I happen upon a person who has been submerged under the water too long, lost conscious awareness of their condition, and is on the verge of dying. I did not cause the condition, nor need I do anything about the condition (the paradoxically named "good Samaritan laws" allow me to do nothing without being immoral). I can, however, if I choose to act and make an attempt to revive the person. I yell to the person, "Hey, are you alright? Wake up! Can you hear me? Can you move?" The words come out of my mouth and the sound waves travel through the air and enter the person's auditory receptors known as ears. The brain may even register the sound but because of the loss of consciousness, because of the drowning condition the person is unresponsive. They CANNOT respond even though in their otherwise normal God-given capacities they would ordinarily do so. The drwoning expereicne, the effects of having been submersed in water and drowning has incapacitated the person laying on the beach. I shake the person, continuing to speak to them, to stimulate them any diverse ways to arouse them from their incapacitated condition. If I do not act they will eventually die and if the corpse isn't removed from the beach, there is will lay and eventually rot and decay into nothing. Having the knowledge and power to perform lifesaving measures I do so by my own will and purpose and NOTHING whatsoever to do with the unconscious person lying on the sand. They could be a Nobel Peace Laureate or a mass murderer for all I know (God, of course does know*) but neither has anything to do with my choice to act for the purpose of their resuscitation. I perform the rescue breathing portion of CPR, turning the individual on his or her side so they don't choke on any water being expelled, and the person become revived. I the person that would surely have died as a consequence of their action had I not acted is now restored to life and function and they did nothing to choose or will their own recovery.
Depending on a number of factors, that person may be well enough to continue on in life with very little further assistance, but they are counseled to go to the hospital to get themselves check out, to collaborate with the doctor's recommendations for their continued recovery and they are free to tell me, " Screw off, I'm not getting in any ambulance, I'm not going to get checked out, I'm not going to see any doctor, and I'm not going to do anything anyone asks, I'm going to go back into the water that might kill me," but they have been revived and nothing will change that fact. They may have suffered physical injury in the waves and be aware of it and ignore it or be unaware of it and continue living in ignorance. They may have suffered neurological damage aware or unaware and either seek out or ignore further restoration. They may or may not have suffered trauma on a soulful level aware or unaware and choose to seek help or not. All of this would be irrelevant if they'd never been revived. No amount of knowledge, understanding, will, or action would be remotely possible in the unconscious or barely conscious state, and it is only after having been revived that any of the previously near-death person can do anything. Similarly, I have choices, too. I can do a medical and psychological examination, diagnose the problem and treat any injuries according to my abilities. I can provide encouragement, exhortation, and inspiration to aid the person in their choices and their actions, I can ride with them in the ambulance or give them transportation in my own car. Stay with them throughout the process and give aid as needed and desired and I am free to make my choices and act as I choose regardless of the character of the one now revived and in need of ongoing care. Calvinism does not deny human faculty. It simply teaches the creature has been so compromised by sin that s/he is need of action s/he cannot choose or perform by her/himself, and it is only after s/he has been revived that any of the God-given faculties can have any value. Just as Pelagianism is a perversion of Arminianism, so too is determinism a perversion of Calvinism. God did not cause the drowning individual to drown. The creature did that on his own. God and God alone has complete liberty to let the sinner drown or save the otherwise dying and helpless sinner. While the analogy is not a perfect representation of Calvinism, it is much more accurate than anything the critics have posted. All the straw men are straw men, and as such they do not require any response. They are, ironically, part of the problem to be solved: living falsely versus truthfully. Get Calvinism correct and then criticize the correct version (if possible) but do NOT criticize things Calvinism does not teach and falsely pretend something of truth, reason, and merit has been done. *God does know. He knows none of the drowning victims are Nobel Laureates. He knows, left to their own devices, every single one of the drowning victims is a God-denying, hostile, fuitly-thinking, heart-darkened fool who cannot understand and will never please God or come to God for change. . |
|
|
|
Post by civic on Oct 1, 2022 8:12:52 GMT -8
Since I have spent time with him over the years on carm he means by "to be" with calvinists are that those who were never predestined/chosen/elect are vessels of wrath/destruction that were never meant to be saved. So they were never meant " to be " or become saved, they never had a chance. hope this helps !!! Great! That's still a twisting of Calvinism. Therefore, any argument against that twisted version of Calvinism would be a straw man argument. Since it is a straw man there's no need for me to entertain it, much less try to address it with any substance..... other than to note it for what it is = a completely fallacious straw man and move on. I will, however, make an attempt to correct the straw man so the correct view of Calvinist soteriology can be addressed. ALL have sinned and fal short of God's glory and are in need of salvation from the sin that has made them dead and enslaved and God did NOT make us that way!!! - God is not the author of sin.
- All have sinned.
- All sinned by the agency of their own volition and conduct. God did not make anyone sin.
- All are in need of salvation from the sin they committed, the effects of that sin, and the commensurate wrath due to sin.
- Because of the thoroughly incapacitating effect of sin no sinfully dead and enslaved sinner can come to God unaided by God, in his or her own might.
- Therefore, God and God alone must be the one acting to initiate and cause the conversion of the sinfully dead and enslaved sinner to a spiritually alive and righteously enslaved believer.
- God makes His choice based solely on His will and His purpose and not ANYTHING the sinfully enslaved sinner does or has. The only thing the sinner brings to his or her salvation is the sin from which s/he is being saved.
- It is only after the dead slave to sin has been regenerated or born anew from above - brought from death to life - that the now living convert can apply any faith, choice, or conduct to his conversion for the purpose of his or her salvation. Both grace and faith are gifts from God, not conditions the dead slave to sin possesses in any soteriologically meritorious way.
- What God has ordained did not do violence to the human will or the contingency of secondary causes. Human volition, the agency of that volition, and the influence and/or effect of the world's conditions are asserted, not denied, in Calvinism.
- Because many are called but few are chosen most are not saved but it was not God who caused their lack of salvation. EVERYONE once stood in a state of death, slavery, and condemnation they cannot escape in their own might and it is only Gid initiating a response to that condition through His grace, His calling, His choosing, His making Himself known salvifically, His gifting of faith, His doing a bunch of stuff (often unawares to the sinner being saved) that anyone would ever be saved and all of it is done based solely on God's will and purpose.
- Because the conversion event is solely God's doing and God is always and everywhere almighty and never fruitless or incapable of accomplishing His purpose, the convert can have confidence or assurance the work of God will be completed even where the sinner proves weak and incapable. There are many poseurs, people falsely believing they are saved when they are not or those willfully deceptive about their claim of salvation but while it may be impossible for another human to tell the difference God knows who He knows because He's the one who did the converting.
And although the analogy isn't perfect, a fair analogy for understanding the monergistic perspective is this:
Suppose I am walking along a beach, and I happen upon a person who has been submerged under the water too long, lost conscious awareness of their condition, and is on the verge of dying. I did not cause the condition, nor need I do anything about the condition (the paradoxically named "good Samaritan laws" allow me to do nothing without being immoral). I can, however, if I choose to act and make an attempt to revive the person. I yell to the person, "Hey, are you alright? Wake up! Can you hear me? Can you move?" The words come out of my mouth and the sound waves travel through the air and enter the person's auditory receptors known as ears. The brain may even register the sound but because of the loss of consciousness, because of the drowning condition the person is unresponsive. They CANNOT respond even though in their otherwise normal God-given capacities they would ordinarily do so. The drwoning expereicne, the effects of having been submersed in water and drowning has incapacitated the person laying on the beach. I shake the person, continuing to speak to them, to stimulate them any diverse ways to arouse them from their incapacitated condition. If I do not act they will eventually die and if the corpse isn't removed from the beach, there is will lay and eventually rot and decay into nothing. Having the knowledge and power to perform lifesaving measures I do so by my own will and purpose and NOTHING whatsoever to do with the unconscious person lying on the sand. They could be a Nobel Peace Laureate or a mass murderer for all I know (God, of course does know*) but neither has anything to do with my choice to act for the purpose of their resuscitation. I perform the rescue breathing portion of CPR, turning the individual on his or her side so they don't choke on any water being expelled, and the person become revived. I the person that would surely have died as a consequence of their action had I not acted is now restored to life and function and they did nothing to choose or will their own recovery.
Depending on a number of factors, that person may be well enough to continue on in life with very little further assistance, but they are counseled to go to the hospital to get themselves check out, to collaborate with the doctor's recommendations for their continued recovery and they are free to tell me, " Screw off, I'm not getting in any ambulance, I'm not going to get checked out, I'm not going to see any doctor, and I'm not going to do anything anyone asks, I'm going to go back into the water that might kill me," but they have been revived and nothing will change that fact. They may have suffered physical injury in the waves and be aware of it and ignore it or be unaware of it and continue living in ignorance. They may have suffered neurological damage aware or unaware and either seek out or ignore further restoration. They may or may not have suffered trauma on a soulful level aware or unaware and choose to seek help or not. All of this would be irrelevant if they'd never been revived. No amount of knowledge, understanding, will, or action would be remotely possible in the unconscious or barely conscious state, and it is only after having been revived that any of the previously near-death person can do anything. Similarly, I have choices, too. I can do a medical and psychological examination, diagnose the problem and treat any injuries according to my abilities. I can provide encouragement, exhortation, and inspiration to aid the person in their choices and their actions, I can ride with them in the ambulance or give them transportation in my own car. Stay with them throughout the process and give aid as needed and desired and I am free to make my choices and act as I choose regardless of the character of the one now revived and in need of ongoing care. Calvinism does not deny human faculty. It simply teaches the creature has been so compromised by sin that s/he is need of action s/he cannot choose or perform by her/himself, and it is only after s/he has been revived that any of the God-given faculties can have any value. Just as Pelagianism is a perversion of Arminianism, so too is determinism a perversion of Calvinism. God did not cause the drowning individual to drown. The creature did that on his own. God and God alone has complete liberty to let the sinner drown or save the otherwise dying and helpless sinner. While the analogy is not a perfect representation of Calvinism, it is much more accurate than anything the critics have posted. All the straw men are straw men, and as such they do not require any response. They are, ironically, part of the problem to be solved: living falsely versus truthfully. Get Calvinism correct and then criticize the correct version (if possible) but do NOT criticize things Calvinism does not teach and falsely pretend something of truth, reason, and merit has been done. *God does know. He knows none of the drowning victims are Nobel Laureates. He knows, left to their own devices, every single one of the drowning victims is a God-denying, hostile, fuitly-thinking, heart-darkened fool who cannot understand and will never please God or come to God for change. . I was just trying to help you understand what he meant by " to be " is all.  |
|
|
|
Post by makesends on Oct 1, 2022 9:59:13 GMT -8
What makes no sense is that sentence. To begin with, the sentence contradicts itself. If no one ever be then sin could not and would not be, ether. Furthermore, my position is not, "the whole everything is sin." That's a straw man. Neither has anyone here ever said "the whole everything is sin for no one to ever be." That's a red herring. Then there is the appeal to it making sense. What others have posted may not make sense to you, but broad, over-generalized appeals to what makes sense are worthless until the lack of sense is demonstrated. Use proper punctuation. What you appear to emans to say is, "The whole, 'everything is sin,' for no one to ever be," is better but it's still a straw man. Neither I, nor anyone else in the entire thread has said any such thing. It's still a red herring. Your turn. Since I have spent time with him over the years on carm he means by "to be" with calvinists are that those who were never predestined/chosen/elect are vessels of wrath/destruction that were never meant to be saved. So they were never meant " to be " or become saved, they never had a chance. hope this helps !!! Can you rewrite that? Jk. I think I understand what you are saying. If he is asserting what you translated him to say, it is a bogus argument. I restate it here: "That 'they were never meant to be saved' means 'they never had a chance to be saved'". That statement is a misapplication of the principle. There is no actual such thing as chance, but even if we were to change in your statement, "chance", to "opportunity", it still argued from a false assumption. They have all sorts of opportunity, but WILL not to. Whether they are actually able to do so is irrelevant. They CHOOSE not to. It's like I have said elsewhere about freewill. The observable fact that only one thing ever actually happens when a person chooses between mutually exclusive options —that is to say, that only the one option is ever chosen— serves as 'empirical proof' that nothing else but what they actually choose can ever be chosen. Sure, the Bible has plenty instances where one is given choices, but that doesn't mean that their choices are not predestined. As is observable every day, what anyone chooses, they freely chose, and that, always according to their own inclinations, if only for that instant. The fact that God himself presents people with the options and even says that IF they had chosen (or will choose) according to his command/warning that such and such would have happened, does not show that it was actually possible to choose that option.
This has been argued at length with some calling this point of view, "fatalism", and others, "madness", or "unbiblical" —even "heretical". But nobody I have seen try to do so, has been able to demonstrate how it is illogical. Nor, as far as I know, have they shown it to be unbiblical. The fact it doesn't sit well with one's worldview or how one has always used Scripture, is irrelevant as to the facts. But I would caution those who would discard the above concept wholesale because of some supposed implication. So far as I have seen, EVERY 'implication' that has been brought up as an objection to the above has been false, and usually itself also due to other false presuppositions. The claim that the very meaning of "choice" necessarily implies that all the options one chooses from are actually possible, is false, as is the notion that predestination precludes real choice.
So it is with choosing not to be saved. But I think it worthwhile to point out also, that the choice not to be saved, often, if not usually or always, is not made as "a choice not to be saved" but rather a choice to not yield to God, or many other such ways to put what happens in the so-called 'salvation decision'.
There is, of course, a whole lot more to be said about just what the 'salvation decision' really is, but that's probably for another thread. I argue here as if the term was valid. |
|
|
|
Post by makesends on Oct 1, 2022 11:08:26 GMT -8
because right now most believers do not want to go home. they believe this fallen earth is home and that these corrupt fleshbodies are His creation. I have noticed that there are many, like myself, who are not looking forward to the process of death, except maybe in an experiential-therefore-intellectual way, as in learning more about how God does things, and perhaps even in the joy of 'participating in his sufferings'. It is obviously not the dying that I look forward to, but rather, in this body being dead, and this temporal suffering being ended. Or better, it is in the resurrection and transformation of this body, and this temporal being "swallowed up" in the eternal. It is in seeing him as he is, and perhaps as much if not more, the looking forward to God's satisfaction in one of his works completed, and even more in the whole of his work completed, that I am looking forward to. It is not my own joy that I pursue, even for that joy in Heaven, but HIS joy that I look forward to seeing. THERE is my satisfaction, my joy, my work and my rest. (Saying that brought to mind what a dear friend once said: I had told him of singing (my singing voice is not particularly, uh, "presentable"...) while driving alone to help stay awake. I had been singing, uninhibited, from the heart, and it didn't sound good to me, but I said to my friend that I wondered what it sounded like to God. My friend said, "Can you imagine what God singing would sound like?") But what came to mind on first reading of what you said, was something I noticed some years back. My parents, second-generation missionaries who both have known and loved and served God since before they could remember, when they were old, enjoyed an Alaska scenic cruise that we kids sent them on, more, I think, than they would have when they were young. And that is, rather obviously, not because their eyesight or ability to participate in activities, (or to run to the other side of the boat in time to see the whale), were better than when they were young, nor particularly because of the enjoyment of life for its own sake, as is common in youth, but because of enjoying what God is seeing and doing. I think that enjoyment of the cruise says something about God, more than about them. |
|
e v e
Full Member
Posts: 214
|
Post by e v e on Oct 1, 2022 18:16:43 GMT -8
makesends It’s difficult to see how to hit reply with a quote here . At the change His 144k won’t have any pain or physically die but as our lovely paul says we will be changed… … it’s just coming from me… but i don’t see that He ever causes suffering or pain to us His ones but only that comes from His enemy that wars us to prevent His Victory and …who caused us to be upon this earth and in the corrupt perishable body situation because of adam that is so lovely about your singing and that’s what will happen soon for us it will be very pretty all of us … singing our love for Him and expressing our joy to be restored Him when He gives us our Change and we leave behind this fallen earth and your parents too ..feeling close to Him… and listening Him
|
|
e v e
Full Member
Posts: 214
|
Post by e v e on Oct 1, 2022 18:22:54 GMT -8
it’s the fleshbody
that hates God…
and that oppresses and imprisons the soul
and this flesh
cannot enter paradise
…ever
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 2, 2022 8:16:14 GMT -8
That's still a twisting of Calvinism. Therefore, any argument against that twisted version of Calvinism would be a straw man argument. Since it is a straw man there's no need for me to entertain it, much less try to address it with any substance..... other than to note it for what it is = a completely fallacious straw man and move on. I will, however, make an attempt to correct the straw man so the correct view of Calvinist soteriology can be addressed. ALL have sinned and fal short of God's glory and are in need of salvation from the sin that has made them dead and enslaved and God did NOT make us that way!!! - God is not the author of sin.
- All have sinned.
- All sinned by the agency of their own volition and conduct. God did not make anyone sin.
- All are in need of salvation from the sin they committed, the effects of that sin, and the commensurate wrath due to sin.
- Because of the thoroughly incapacitating effect of sin no sinfully dead and enslaved sinner can come to God unaided by God, in his or her own might.
- Therefore, God and God alone must be the one acting to initiate and cause the conversion of the sinfully dead and enslaved sinner to a spiritually alive and righteously enslaved believer.
- God makes His choice based solely on His will and His purpose and not ANYTHING the sinfully enslaved sinner does or has. The only thing the sinner brings to his or her salvation is the sin from which s/he is being saved.
- It is only after the dead slave to sin has been regenerated or born anew from above - brought from death to life - that the now living convert can apply any faith, choice, or conduct to his conversion for the purpose of his or her salvation. Both grace and faith are gifts from God, not conditions the dead slave to sin possesses in any soteriologically meritorious way.
- What God has ordained did not do violence to the human will or the contingency of secondary causes. Human volition, the agency of that volition, and the influence and/or effect of the world's conditions are asserted, not denied, in Calvinism.
- Because many are called but few are chosen most are not saved but it was not God who caused their lack of salvation. EVERYONE once stood in a state of death, slavery, and condemnation they cannot escape in their own might and it is only Gid initiating a response to that condition through His grace, His calling, His choosing, His making Himself known salvifically, His gifting of faith, His doing a bunch of stuff (often unawares to the sinner being saved) that anyone would ever be saved and all of it is done based solely on God's will and purpose.
- Because the conversion event is solely God's doing and God is always and everywhere almighty and never fruitless or incapable of accomplishing His purpose, the convert can have confidence or assurance the work of God will be completed even where the sinner proves weak and incapable. There are many poseurs, people falsely believing they are saved when they are not or those willfully deceptive about their claim of salvation but while it may be impossible for another human to tell the difference God knows who He knows because He's the one who did the converting.
And although the analogy isn't perfect, a fair analogy for understanding the monergistic perspective is this:
Suppose I am walking along a beach, and I happen upon a person who has been submerged under the water too long, lost conscious awareness of their condition, and is on the verge of dying. I did not cause the condition, nor need I do anything about the condition (the paradoxically named "good Samaritan laws" allow me to do nothing without being immoral). I can, however, if I choose to act and make an attempt to revive the person. I yell to the person, "Hey, are you alright? Wake up! Can you hear me? Can you move?" The words come out of my mouth and the sound waves travel through the air and enter the person's auditory receptors known as ears. The brain may even register the sound but because of the loss of consciousness, because of the drowning condition the person is unresponsive. They CANNOT respond even though in their otherwise normal God-given capacities they would ordinarily do so. The drwoning expereicne, the effects of having been submersed in water and drowning has incapacitated the person laying on the beach. I shake the person, continuing to speak to them, to stimulate them any diverse ways to arouse them from their incapacitated condition. If I do not act they will eventually die and if the corpse isn't removed from the beach, there is will lay and eventually rot and decay into nothing. Having the knowledge and power to perform lifesaving measures I do so by my own will and purpose and NOTHING whatsoever to do with the unconscious person lying on the sand. They could be a Nobel Peace Laureate or a mass murderer for all I know (God, of course does know*) but neither has anything to do with my choice to act for the purpose of their resuscitation. I perform the rescue breathing portion of CPR, turning the individual on his or her side so they don't choke on any water being expelled, and the person become revived. I the person that would surely have died as a consequence of their action had I not acted is now restored to life and function and they did nothing to choose or will their own recovery.
Depending on a number of factors, that person may be well enough to continue on in life with very little further assistance, but they are counseled to go to the hospital to get themselves check out, to collaborate with the doctor's recommendations for their continued recovery and they are free to tell me, " Screw off, I'm not getting in any ambulance, I'm not going to get checked out, I'm not going to see any doctor, and I'm not going to do anything anyone asks, I'm going to go back into the water that might kill me," but they have been revived and nothing will change that fact. They may have suffered physical injury in the waves and be aware of it and ignore it or be unaware of it and continue living in ignorance. They may have suffered neurological damage aware or unaware and either seek out or ignore further restoration. They may or may not have suffered trauma on a soulful level aware or unaware and choose to seek help or not. All of this would be irrelevant if they'd never been revived. No amount of knowledge, understanding, will, or action would be remotely possible in the unconscious or barely conscious state, and it is only after having been revived that any of the previously near-death person can do anything. Similarly, I have choices, too. I can do a medical and psychological examination, diagnose the problem and treat any injuries according to my abilities. I can provide encouragement, exhortation, and inspiration to aid the person in their choices and their actions, I can ride with them in the ambulance or give them transportation in my own car. Stay with them throughout the process and give aid as needed and desired and I am free to make my choices and act as I choose regardless of the character of the one now revived and in need of ongoing care. Calvinism does not deny human faculty. It simply teaches the creature has been so compromised by sin that s/he is need of action s/he cannot choose or perform by her/himself, and it is only after s/he has been revived that any of the God-given faculties can have any value. Just as Pelagianism is a perversion of Arminianism, so too is determinism a perversion of Calvinism. God did not cause the drowning individual to drown. The creature did that on his own. God and God alone has complete liberty to let the sinner drown or save the otherwise dying and helpless sinner. While the analogy is not a perfect representation of Calvinism, it is much more accurate than anything the critics have posted. All the straw men are straw men, and as such they do not require any response. They are, ironically, part of the problem to be solved: living falsely versus truthfully. Get Calvinism correct and then criticize the correct version (if possible) but do NOT criticize things Calvinism does not teach and falsely pretend something of truth, reason, and merit has been done. *God does know. He knows none of the drowning victims are Nobel Laureates. He knows, left to their own devices, every single one of the drowning victims is a God-denying, hostile, fuitly-thinking, heart-darkened fool who cannot understand and will never please God or come to God for change. . Let me add to the anaology. Suppose, instead of one person lying on the beach barely conscious and headed for death unless I act to resuscitate the person, now imagine the beach is covered with people in this state. As far as I can see in the surf, up the slop of the beach and down the coast as far as eye can see, there are uncountable numbers of people who are conscious in the sense sound waves travel through their ears into their brain, but they are unable to respond because of the otherwise unconscious state. They are physically alive, but unresponsive to any stimulation I might assert. I clearly would like to save all of them but that is not the way resuscitation of the unresponsive works. I must intervene one person at a time. I must choose which one to save after the first one, call that person, shake that person, breath into that person, and rid them of that which keeps them from returning to fuller consciousness and responsiveness - I must breathe into them and somehow expel the water that will otherwise suffocate them. Going from person to person I choose the next person based solely on my choice, my will, my purpose and not on the attributes of any individual. When God "walked" into Eden after Genesis 3:6-7 he did so with a pair of dead-in-sin people living there. He had made them good, unashamed, and sinless but they were no longer any of those things. They were not-good, ashamed, and sinful, dead in their transgression, and although the text of the Bible does not specify it, they had denied the tree of life from which they had been instructed they could eat. God in His providence then acted to prevent them from eating from that tree. From the divine, eternal perspective of the externally-existing Creator, what God saw was not merely two now-dead people. God understood, as we now do due to His revelation, that it wasn't just Adam and Eve who were dead, but all their progeny would also be dead in sin simply because two corrupted imperfect creatures do not beget perfect progeny. In other words, Adam and Eve did not render only themselves dead in sin and in need of a savior, they rendered all humanity dead in sin. God walked into Eden and saw the entire timeline of human history covered with sin-drowning near-death bodies unaware of their condition, unable to change their plight in their own might, and all of them destined to die already dead in sin unless God acted. Blessedly, God had already acted. Before a single act of disobedience had ever killed anyone Christ was foreknown as the perfect sacrifice who would take away the sins of the world. |
|
|
|
Post by Bible Highlighter on Oct 25, 2022 7:04:51 GMT -8
As for the reference of Eternal Security mentioned in this thread:
Well, no offense, but I believe Eternal Security is simply not in the Bible if one reads the Bible and believes it at face value. Jesus warned us about how certain sins can destroy our souls (See: Matthew 5:22, Matthew 5:28-30, Matthew 6:15, Matthew 12:37, Matthew 25:31-46, Luke 9:62). Even the apostle Paul (talking to believers) warned that the unrighteous will not inherit the Kingdom (Galatians 5:19-21), and this is why we are told to Walk after the Spirit so as not to fulfill the lusts of the flesh (Galatians 5:16). This is why Paul basically says we are to sow to the Spirit (i.e. in well doing) in order reap life to life everlasting; For we will reap if we faint not (See: Galatians 6:8-9). In fact, Paul also says that if one does not provide for his own (Especially his own household) they have denied the faith and they are worse than an infidel (i.e. unbeliever) (See: 1 Timothy 5:8). Those who believe in Eternal Security will say that 1 Timothy 5:8 is in reference to only the born again believer. But this interpretation does not work because it is referring to how the saint can be worse than an unbeliever because an unbeliever (a fake unborn believer) cannot be worse than unbeliever because they are already one to begin with. Names can be blotted out of the book of life (Revelation 3:5), and the last chapter in Revelation says:
“Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city. For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie.” (Revelation 22:14-15).
|
|
. This is important for another reason, one directly related to this thread and every other op in the vast majority of internet discussion board because posters are not studying when they come into these discussions/debates/arguments. They are asserting their already-decided points of view, and most with an intent to persuade everyone else to that point of view, NOT to study and learn. 
