Print Page - Calvinism--TULIP

Calvinism & Arminianism,
Neither Are In The Truth
July 2001

Calvinism is named after the French man John Calvin (1509-1564), and Arminianism is named after the Dutch man James (or Jacob) Arminius (1560-1609). There may be varying forms of Calvinism and Arminianism, and the differences between these two camps can become quite involved, depending on the advocates, but there are basically five points in which these systems of thought do not agree. Following the common Calvinistic acrostic "TULIP," the first point of contention is:

I. Total Depravity (or Free Will)
Calvinists contend,

. . . that man's natural state is a state of total depravity and therefore, there [is] a total inability on the part of man to gain, or contribute to, his own salvation. (The Five Points Of Calvinism, by W. J. Seaton, second printing, 1972, The Banner Of Truth Trust)

The classic Arminian position on this would concur with this statement (e.g. The Works of James Arminius, Vol. II, p. 192, VII), but would add that God, through his prevenient grace, has also given man the free will to choose to turn to God. Dr. Chris Jakway argues this from an Arminian perspective on the tape, Scriptural Response To Calvinism.

In book two, three five [of the Institutes of the Christian Religion], Calvin says, "Yet, so depraved in his nature that he can be moved or impelled only to evil." So Calvin says we can only do evil. Again, making it very clear, God has not enabled us with the free will to accept or reject him.

Contemporary Calvinists say the same thing often times. Dewayne Spencer in a book called TULIP makes this statement. "Point one, the Arminian says that man's will is free to choose either the word of God or the word of Satan. The Calvinist's response: that unregenerate man is in absolute bondage to Satan" (as if we don't believe that, as if we don't believe sinful by nature) "and wholly incapable of exercising free will to trust in Christ."

So the first thing we need to see from Scripture is that God has indeed enabled us, through this prevenient grace, to have free will. (side 1, from Evangelical Outreach, Box 265, Washington, PA 15301; www.evangelicaloutreach.org)

The Calvinist's idea of total depravity excludes the idea of God giving men the free will to accept or reject Him. The Arminian's idea of total depravity includes this free will choice and ability, understanding that it exists only by the grace of God. Now, what does the Lord say?

The Word teaches that it is indeed true that man, in his lost state, is totally depraved. That is, that he is dead in his trespasses and sins (Ephesians 2:1-3), does evil continually (Genesis 6:5, "only"; Psalm 53:1-3; Romans 3:10-18), and is unable to do good on his own, especially any good that would lead to his salvation (Psalm 58:3; Jeremiah 13:23; Isaiah 64:5:b; Romans 11:36). But, when someone is saved, this lost state is broken, and they have the freedom to live in righteousness, by the power of God (Romans 6:2, 7, 14, 17-18, 20, 22; Ephesians 2:8-10).

Yet, it should also be noted for clarity, that a lost man could, if and when God so determined (Psalm 16:2; Romans 11:36), perform that which is truly good, yet the man may never come to salvation. For example, Balaam, who was a false prophet in his lost state (2 Peter 2:15-16; Numbers 25:1-3; 31:16), performed that which is truly good. He spoke, without compromise, even in the face of opposition, the unadulterated word of God (Numbers 23:5-13). "God would not listen to Balaam, but the Lord your God turned the curse into a blessing" (Deuteronomy 23:5), and caused Balaam to do truly good (Romans 11:36).
Jehu is another example of a lost man doing good. Read 2 Kings 9:1-10:28 and you will see Jehu's "zeal for the Lord" (2 Kings 9:25-26; 36-37; 10:9-10; 10:16). At the end of this zeal, 2 Kings records,

However Jehu did not turn away from the sins of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, who had made Israel sin, that is, from the golden calves that were at Bethel and Dan. And the Lord said to Jehu, "Because you have done well in doing what is right in My sight, and have done to the house of Ahab all that was in My heart, your sons shall sit on the throne of Israel to the fourth generation." But Jehu took no heed to walk in the law of the Lord God of Israel with all his heart; for he did not depart from the sins of Jeroboam, who had made Israel sin. (2 Kings 10:29-31)

The Lord says Jehu did "well in doing what is right in My sight." This is not the same perspective as, "all our righteousnesses are like filthy rags" (Isaiah 64:6). Jehu did "all that was in [God's] heart" and what was right, so much so, that the Lord blesses him saying, "your sons shall sit on the throne of Israel to the fourth generation." Moreover, we know Jehu did all this in yet a lost state, because verse 29 above says, "Jehu did not turn away from the sins of Jeroboam . . . from the golden calves that were at Bethel and Dan." Jehu did good, truly good, but was still lost. This righteousness which he performed gave him nothing in regards to salvation.

Now, when it comes to free will, Scripture does teach that there is such a thing as free will (e.g. Exodus 35:29: 36:3; Leviticus 1:3; 19:5; 22:19, 29; Psalm 119:108). But, free will is under the same umbrella as the rest of the entire creation, that is, the umbrella of Romans 11:36.

For of Him and through Him and to Him are all things, to whom be glory forever. Amen.

Nothing happens apart from God causing it to happen (Isaiah 45:7; Lamentations 3:37-38; Amos 3:6). In fact, this is where Arminians (and some Calvinists) typically have trouble. They stumble over the reality of God being the cause of sin. Randolph Foster (an Arminian, 1820-1903) in objection to "God decreed whatsoever comes to pass" argues,

And, first, I object: it renders the conclusion inevitable that God is the author of sin. I employ the term author in the sense of originator or cause. (Objections to Calvinism as it is, p. 23, copyright 1998, Schmul Publishing Co., Salem, Ohio)

Foster objects to God being the cause of sin. If all things are "of Him through Him and to Him" (Romans 11:36), then indeed, God, who is nonetheless holy and righteous in all His ways (Psalm 99:3, 5, 9; 145:17), is the cause of all things, even sin. In fact, God Himself declares,

I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things. (Isaiah 45:7, KJV)

Who is he that saith, and it cometh to pass, when the Lord commandeth it not? Out of the mouth of the most High proceedeth not evil and good? (Lamentations 3:37-38, KJV)

Shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid? Shall there be evil in a city, and the Lord hath not done it? (Amos 3:6, KJV)

Some may argue against the KJV translation of these verses, but the translation is legitimate. The Hebrew words translated "evil" (ra, haraot, raah) can all be translated this way, as the KJV illustrates (note also the same Hebrew root in Exodus 32:12-14; Psalm 78:49; Jeremiah 18:8-11; 24:3, 8; 36:3; Ezekiel 6:10; and Micah 1:12 in the KJV). But, not to "strive about words" (2 Timothy 2:14), what does Isaiah ask?

O Lord, why have You made us stray from Your ways, and hardened our heart from Your fear? (Isaiah 63:17; see also 2 Samuel 12:11-12; Psalm 105:25)

Obviously, Isaiah, the prophet of God, the holy man of God who was moved by the Holy Spirit (2 Peter 1:21), believed that God caused the Israelites to sin ("You made us stray from Your ways"). Likewise, David prays,

Do not incline my heart to any evil thing, to practice wicked works with men who work iniquity; and do not let me eat of their delicacies. (Psalm 141:4)

pt two
David's words are not idle. David knew the Lord could incline his heart to do evil and "to practice wicked works." In fact, even though David prayed this, the Lord on at least one occasion did incline his heart to do evil.

Again the anger of the Lord was aroused against Israel, and He moved David against them to say, "Go, number Israel and Judah." (2 Samuel 24:1)

2 Samuel 24:10-17 records that David sinned by giving this order. David indeed sinned. Who caused David to sin? The Lord "moved David" (see also 1 Chronicles 21:1 for Satan's involvement).

Similarly, Peter writes,

Therefore, to you who believe, He is precious; but to those who are disobedient, "The stone which the builders rejected has become the chief cornerstone." They stumble, being disobedient to the word, to which they also were appointed. (1 Peter 2:7-8)

They were appointed to sin (i.e. disobedience to the word). Appointed by whom? They were appointed by God (Romans 11:36). In fact, this is the case for all mankind before salvation. God "has committed them all to disobedience" (Romans 11:32), and "the Scripture has confined all under sin" (Galatians 3:22).
The Word says, "the wicked are estranged from the womb" (Psalm 58:3). Who has created them that way? Is it not the Lord (Colossians 1:16)? Yes, it is. Even though Scripture says, "that God made man upright" (Ecclesiastes 7:29), it also says,

The Lord has made all for Himself, yes, even the wicked for the day of doom. (Proverbs 16:4)

So, when it comes to free will, there is no free will apart from God causing the decision to either accept or reject Him. As it is written,

O Lord, I know the way of man is not in himself; it is not in man who walks to direct his own steps. (Jeremiah 10:23; see also Proverbs 16:9)

A man's steps are of the Lord; how then can a man understand his own way? (Proverbs 20:24)

He fashions their hearts individually; (Psalm 33:15; see also Jeremiah 17:9; Isaiah 26:12)

All things are of Him through Him and to Him (Romans 11:36). Therefore, this being understood, then there is free will under this canopy of God's control. His ways are past finding out (Romans 11:33), and this is one of His ways that is manifestly past finding out!

God deals with man as if he did have free will, and he does (Exodus 35:29: 36:3; Leviticus 1:3; 19:5; 22:19, 29; Psalm 119:108), that is, with the above truth still standing. God rightly holds man responsible for his actions.

Do not be deceived. God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, that he will also reap. For he who sows to his flesh will of the flesh reap corruption, but he who sows to the Spirit will of the Spirit reap everlasting life. (Galatians 6:7-8)

The judgment of God will be according to each one's work - "those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of condemnation" (John 5:29). People do indeed choose good (e.g. Joshua 24:22; Psalm 119:30; Isaiah 7:15-16; Luke 10:42) and evil (e.g. Judges 5:8; 10:14; Proverbs 1:29; Isaiah 56:4; 66:3), and the Lord will judge them accordingly (Romans 2:6-16).

Ecclesiastes 9:11 says,

The race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, nor bread to the wise, nor riches to men of understanding, nor favor to men of skill; but time and chance happen to them all.

Given different circumstances, there are people who would have chosen good rather than evil, and would have gone to heaven, rather than hell, because the influences in their lives would have encouraged them toward good rather than evil (e.g. 1 Corinthians 15:33). In other words, given a different time, or a different chance (set of circumstances), they would have chosen differently, and the result of this choosing would have eternal consequences.

For example, the Lord told Jeremiah concerning the false prophets of his day,

I have not sent these prophets, yet they ran. I have not spoken to them, yet they prophesied. But if they had stood in My counsel, and had caused My people to hear My words, then they would have turned them from their evil way and from the evil of their doings. (Jeremiah 23:21-22)

The Lord tells Jeremiah a profound truth. If the prophets had spoken the truth, rather than lies, the people would have repented and not perished! But, instead, the prophets tried to make the people forget His name (Jeremiah 23:27), and it worked; and the people perished (Jeremiah 27:9-10).

For another example, read Luke 10:13.

Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the mighty works which were done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago, sitting in sackcloth and ashes.

The people of Tyre and Sidon would have repented, had they had the same circumstances (mighty works) Chorazin and Bethsaida had. But, the Lord didn’t give them such a privilege, and they perished.

Knowing that certain circumstances can cause people to either accept or reject God, Jesus spoke in parables to ensure people would not accept Him. Jesus said to His disciples,

To you it has been given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God; but to those who are outside, all things come in parables, so that "Seeing they may see and not perceive, and hearing they may hear and not understand; lest they should turn, and their sins be forgiven them." (Mark 4:11-12)

Jesus lets his disciples know why he speaks to the people in parables, and the reason he gives is astounding! It is to prevent people from understanding His message and being saved ("lest they should turn, and their sins be forgiven them").

In another place we read that God made it impossible for people to accept Him. John 12:37-40 displays no free will, but rather, the exact opposite, a locked will incapable of faith, i.e. accepting God.

But although He had done so many signs before them, they did not believe in Him, that the word of Isaiah the prophet might be fulfilled, which he spoke: "Lord, who has believed our report? And to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?" Therefore they could not believe, because Isaiah said again: "He has blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts, lest they should see with their eyes, lest they should understand with their hearts and turn, so that I should heal them."

The Lord made it so that these people could not believe. In other words, it was impossible for them to believe. And how did He do this? He blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts. And Why? To make sure they did not understand, repent ("turn"), and receive forgiveness ("heal them"). To make sure they did not get saved!
This way of God is certainly unsearchable (Romans 11:33). He "desires all men to be saved" (1 Timothy 2:4), and "has committed them all to disobedience, that He might have mercy on all" (Romans 11:32), but He acts in ways that make sure people do not get saved! Deuteronomy beautifully illustrates this. In Deuteronomy 5:29 the Lord says,

Oh, that they had such a heart in them that they would fear Me and always keep all My commandments, that it might be well with them and with their children forever!

The Lord clearly desires that they would have "a heart in them that they would fear" Him. Yet, Moses later points out that God did not give them "such a heart" so they could.

Yet the Lord has not given you a heart to perceive and eyes to see and ears to hear, to this very day. (Deuteronomy 29:4)

So, to that very day, God had not given them the very thing they needed in order for them to do what He longed for.

Similarly, God commands all men everywhere to repent (Acts 17:30), and desires that they do (1 Timothy 2:4), yet they cannot repent unless God grants them repentance (2 Timothy 2:26; Romans 11:36); and this He only grants to a few (Matthew 7:13-14; Romans 9:27-29; 11:5).

So, in conclusion, it is evident, that Scripture teaches total depravity, free will, and no free will. Arminians are in error when they reject the absolute control that God has over His creation; that is, that all things are of Him through Him and to Him (Romans 11:36). Nothing happens but by God causing it to happen (e.g. Psalm 104; Proverbs 16:33), and this includes sin (e.g. Romans 1:28-31). Therefore, when Arminians maintain that God is not the cause of sin, and that man has the capability of either accepting or rejecting God apart from God causing the acceptance or rejection (Jeremiah 10:23; Romans 11:36), then they describe a god not of the Bible and a gospel not of holy writ.
for the rest of the article you can visit our web site.

al

Quote

True or False

“This effectual call is of God’s free and special grace alone, not from anything at all foreseen in man; who is altogether passive therein, until, being quickened and renewed by the Holy Spirit, he is thereby enabled to answer this call, and to embrace the grace offered and conveyed in it.” The Westminster Confession of Faith

I affirm the Westminster Confession of Faith as an accurate representation of Biblical truth.

Quote

If true, is this grace irresistable? Does the word "until" mean that once he is quickened he is no longer passive? And does this mean that renewal comes before faith?

Yes, the grace cannot be effectually resisted. Once a man is regenerated, he is no longer dead in sin (Eph 2:1) and can respond in faith, the gift of God (Eph 2:8). Renewal (regeneration) must necessarily come before faith, for dead men cannot choose to become alive. They must be made alive by God.

Quote

True or False

Mark 16:16
“The one having believed (pisteusas) and having been baptized will be saved (sōthēsetai); but the one not having believed (apistēsas) will be condemned to eternal death (katakpithēsetai)…o` pisteu,saj kai. baptisqei.j swqh,setai( o` de. avpisth,saj katakriqh,setaiÅ”

Time elements cannot be denied. Tense affirms both time and kind of action.

I don't know if you are familiar with Greek aorist participles, but that statement would indicate to the contrary. It is all about aspect, or time of action. And the aorist participles there are adjectival participles ( as opposed to adverbial) and do not have any time significance at all.

Quote

Further, pisteusas (will be saved) and apistēsas (not having believed) are words of the same tense, etc. Both are aorists, both are active; in both the person did something, one to be saved, and the other to be lost. Whether in belief or unbelief, the intellect, volition, and will are engaged. Likewise, the results of these attitudes affect the total person and destiny itself. The results of engagement are sōthēsetai (will be saved) and katakpithēsetai (will be condemned to eternal death). These terms are of exactly the same grammatical construction. Both are verbs in the active voice; both are revelatory of destiny based on the action of the person. Both reveal the response of God based on the action of the person. God never saved the believer apart from his action anymore than He damned the unbeliever apart from his action of unbelief. God saves because of action in which the will is engaged; God condemns eternally because of action in which the will is engaged. Thus, neither the saved nor the lost were irresistibly consigned to their state from eternity by God.

That last statement does not follow. It is an act of the will. But all our wills are in bondage to God--they cannot receive the things of God (1 Cor 2:14). So God must regenerate them first, so that they will respond with the will. And those that exercise that will are saved. If they can do it in and of themselves, then salvation is not wholly a work of God, but is partially a work of man, and man has something to brag about.

Quote

Both classes, the saved and lost, are thus because of the manner in which they responded to God.

Yes, but without the regenerating, effectual grace of the Holy Spirit, no one would respond positively to the gospel. All would reject. Thus God regenerates the elect.

Joel

I'll just say this about this topic. I've come to two scripturally undeniable truths:

1. GOD CHOSE ME.
2. I accepted His gift.

I've not elaborated on these two things, but if anyone wants me to, I'll be more than happy to! :D However, I feel that there's a potentially more helpful truth to relay at this point.

In my past 12 years as a saved man, I've encountered many "mysteries" or antinomies in God's Word. For one, this very topic! The Trinity and God's sovereignty are examples of a coulple of other such mysteries. Why are they mysterious in nature? Because they go beyond our capability of explaining them. Not that we don't try! And therein lies the truth I've come to understand. Why do we need to try? That is, when we face something we don't understand, we naturally feel that there is a potential contradiction that must be removed. No? Take the Trinity. Most here would agree that God is, in fact, one God, yet has three Persons. Then God is both one, and three. This appears to be contradictory; to the non-believer as fodder for their cannon, to the believer...a mystery. The problem arises when the believer attempts to take the fodder away from the non-believer! The point I'm trying to make is that we come to a decision: though a mystery, do I have faith in it, or do I attempt to explain it so that I can have faith in it?

This understanding was made most clear to me when reading John 6. Christ had just fed the thousands, had preached messages that had the crowds coming back for more, and had quite a following - until He preached one message. In this message, He relates how that God had supplied manna in the wilderness to His people, and how He (Christ) was the "bread of life." He even elaborated by saying that unless they ate His flesh and drank His blood that they could not have eternal life! This offended so many of them that they left.

Here's the proverbial rub: We understand that Jesus was speaking spiritually. In the Old Testament sacrifice at Passover, the Jewish family would offer a lamb. The greater portion of that lamb would be taken home to be eaten on the whole by the family. Christ was making a spiritual reference to a physical illustration as seen in reference to the manna and in practicality to the Passover. Why do we know this? Because we have the Gospels and Epistles to explain it to us, and the Holy Spirit to teach us. They didn't! What they then had...was a mystery. It is interesting then that many left but that a few remained. Why? Because the few chose to believe, and have faith in that which they did not understand. The message may have been confusing, but the Messenger had the understanding they needed.

We face issues just like this one, and either deny it because it doesn't fit our understanding, or because we feel we already have the understanding. In my life, I came to a realization that my understanding was faulty. In faith, I chose to seek the understanding that only comes from God.

This may not be of any help, but it is a lesson I feel that God would have me to share when we consider topics just like this one!

Allinall,
Perhaps yours is the best answer of all. There is a risk in quoting a lengthy passage of scripture because chances are that most will not read it. But for he that has an ear to hear...
1 Corinthians 2
1 And I, brethren, when I came to you, came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom, declaring unto you the testimony of God.
2 For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified. pretty simple, eh?
3 And I was with you in weakness, and in fear, and in much trembling.
4 And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power:
5 That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.
6 Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to nought:
7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, just like Allinall was saying even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory:
8 Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.
9 But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.
10 But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.
11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.
12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
14 But the natural man I wonder how many of us are living by the natural man?receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
15 But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.
16 For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? but we have the mind of Christ.

Thanks Allinall,

asaph

Greetings Everyone, it is good to have the site up and running again. It is ashame, there are those who would go around creating such chaos, but we know who is ultimately behind these types, I thank those who have worked diligently to provide thos eof us who engoy sharing the good word with the uncaring and the deceived of the world, trusting that somewhere al;ong the line, the sharing and discussing of God's truth will take seed in a dying world.

I see it didn't take long to bring up a controversial subject, but it doesn't have to be; most of my ideas and understandings of doctrines throughout my 20 some odd year walking with the Lord, have taught me to not trust unto my own wisdom or understanding, but to seek the wisdom necessary to understand the things which are not humanly understood with the wisdom this world supplies, and this is one reason why it has become controversial, simply because, members of the church allow themselves to be taught by wolves dressed in sheeps clothing.

When one reads, some of the responses herein, one who understands the doctrine, can see, why these would make such responses, seen they are not acquainted at all, with the meaning of the letters, nor the history of how this acronym, TULIP came to be.

But thank God, history is a good teacher and it together with the Word of God, can teach those who have misconceptions, and are ignorant of the teaching of Calvinism.

First of all, it would be good to review, the historical record of how the TULIP came to be.

Although many people attribute the TULIP to John Calvin, he wasn't the one who developed it.

Someone already has written herein, about John Calvin and Jacobos Arminius, it would be well to note that Arminius, was a student at the school, Calvin started at Geneva, where he taught Pastors.

And, above all else, that the teachings put forth by Arminius, where not new, but in fact a modified version of the teachings proposed in the early church around the 3rd century which were adjured "heretical"; and this is the place where I must also insert the fact that ArminianISM was also declared "heretical" at the Synod Council of the Cannons at Dort 1618, but as one can see, these heresies just as the false teachers who expound them are still in our midsts.

About a year after James Arminius died, his followers became concerned about some of the "harsh" doctrines coming from the Churches in Holland. So, on January 14, 1610, they presented their five main concerns to the States-General. This document was first known as the Remonstrance (protest) and later on became known as the Five Articles of Faith. The ideas in this document were not new, of course; they had been around for over a thousand years (as previously noted). The Five Articles of Faith, however, did consolidate these ideas into a format that was concise and understandable.

The Synod examined the articles and rejected them. They didn't, however, feel that a mere rejection was sufficient. As a result, they wrote a document (first known as the Counter-Remonstrance) that countered each of the five points. The five chapters they wrote embodied the Calvinistic position and later became know as the "Five Points of Calvinism." Later, the word TULIP was coined to quickly identify the Five Points of Calvinism.

The official and final response to the Armenian's Five Articles of Faith came from the Synod of Dordrecht (1618). The first month was spent on other issues, but the last 180 days were spent addressing the Five Articles of Faith. The Synod wrote what became known as the Cannons of Dordrecht, later shortened to Cannons of Dort.

Regardless of what some have written herein, these are the facts, of what the five points of Calvinisn, state;

T = When man fell, sin permeated his entire being. This fall was so complete that man had no desire for God and righteousness. Man is so totally enslaved by sin that he can only choose evil; he cannot chose good. He is incapable of choosing God and His salvation. Man in totally blind and deaf to the gospel. Apart from a supernatural intervention from God, the gospel message absolutely has no affect on a person. Total depravity is also called total inability.

U = God has chosen some people to go to Heaven and other people to go to Hell. This choice is not based on any qualities of the person being elected. This selection is not based on God's foreknowledge of who will "get saved" in the future.

L = God limited His atonement to only those who are elect. When Jesus died on the cross, He did not die for the sins of the whole world, He only died for those He wanted to go to Heaven.

I = The grace that God extends to the elect cannot be refused. God puts into the hearts of the elect an irresistible desire to turn to Him and accept His salvation. This desire is so overpowering that no one can refuse it.

P = Since God has determined who will get save and they cannot resist His call, they are unconditionally and eternally secure in that election. Therefore, those who have been chosen to be saved will always stay saved. They cannot resist or loose their salvation.

asaph's site which he posted, emphasizes what Calvinism claims AFTER we are saved, note the word AFTER, noone who understand's the teaching of the Calvinists, would make some of the outlandish claims Calvinism teaches, all these do is expose their ignorance of the true teachings.

Charles Spurgeon (a Calvinist) said;

"The system of truth revealed in the Scriptures is not simply one straightline, but two; and no man will ever get a right view of the Gospel until he knows how to look at the two lines at once."

Dr. H.A. Ironside, Pastor of D.L. Moody Memorial Chruch, at Chicago, Ill, While delivering a message on the Lord's Day on the subject of "Eternal Security" (which is what the ArminianCalvin positions are ultimately reduced to) said:

"Let me say that my object was not controversy nor the besting of an opponent but rather the edification and enlightment of the people of God, that thye knowledge of the truth might deliver from legality and give true libertuy." (April 24,1934)

Since how, one views these great truths ultimately determines his or hers position on "eternal security"; it would seem vital, that Christians should strive to learn the true teaching, of the two sides, in all my years of studying and sharing this subject whith the other side, I have yet to encounter anyone that believes in ArminianISM, who is shocked to find out, the protestant church has adjured the teaching "HERETICAL"; it would seem to me a Christian could be deceived about this teaching, and not know the history behind it, but another matter altogether to come to the truth of this fact, that the teaching was found to be "Heretical", and simply ignore this and discount it as nonsense; it is almost as thou it matters not to them, this is so.

ArminianISM, denies eternal security, and further goes on to teach the Christian must observe the law to continue on the road to salvation; the scriptures teach;

"Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them." (Gal3:10)

I find no need to go into the pro or cons for either teaching, it has been extensively discussed, and there is no lack of positions for or asgainst the points, and most all are the result of mis understandings or presuppositions, which amount to nonsense.

Blessings,

Petro

Quote from: Allinall on April 23, 2003, 01:40:17 AM

I debated on whether or not to pull out this soapbox...and decided it might be helpful. Hopefully I've exercised good discernment here.

First of all, thank you for your reply S4Ever! It gets me to thinking about that soapbox. I've come to an understanding concerning "teachings." If others were to put their opinion of which viewpoint I adhere to, I'm sure that the Calvinistic viewpoint would be cited, namely because of the posts I've given on the subject. While I agree with many of the tenants with acception of irresistable grace, I still do not consider myself a Calvinist. While I agree with the Armenian concept of free-will (per se), I don't consider myself a hybrid Calvarmenist ( ;D )! I rather consider myself a Biblicist. Here in is the problem with such a statement. Interpretation. My understanding of scripture doesn't necessarily agree with others, and runs the risk of offending them when I say "Thus has said the Lord." Why? Because what He said may not agree with their theology. But that's another soapbox :D...The thing I've come to realize, is that many of the "greats" we espouse, have this same understanding. Calvinistic in nature, biblical in application. Who? Spurgeon and Edwards to name a few!

The point I'm verbosely attempting to make is this: God said it. It cannot be explained adequately away with blanket statements concerning His love and death for all (which, I personally believe and agree whole heartedly with!). And yet, He grants me choice of obedience; a choice that does, in some inexplicable way, determine my eternal standing.

Greetings Allinall,

Not that it makes any difference, but aside from Spurgeon, & Edwards, the points are a summation poorly articulated of what John Calvin taught; then there is D.L. Moody, H.A. Ironsides, Tory, J. Vernon McGee, every great teacher of the Word of the 20th Century, except Billy Graham, I don't know what he really believes; since herein, he stated, man can be saved in a varity of different ways, I hope this is not true.

It's hard for me to believe this, but, he was a signor of the;

Evangelicals and Catholics Together; Christian Mission in the Third Millenium Contract dtd March 29, 1993

The issue is not the 5 points of Calvinism, its what did He (Calvin) teach.

Instead of looking to see, if the teachingfs, aligned themselves with Biblical teaching, "Liberals" argue against His teachings, based on the points.

Igtnorance is bliss....I guess..this proves it.

Blessings,

Petro

Quote

Well until I have some better experiences it remains unchanged. I still don't agree with them anyway, and that's not going to change. I'm not getting in to a huge debate because it proves fruitless time and again. I already seriously disagree with your entire stance of the bible and other such matters. We have gone at it before and I really don't feel like going at it again.

That's fine. You aren't obligated to debate or anything. Plus my time is a little limited at this forum these days anyways.
Hopefully you'll have some better experiences.

Quote

Not that I am trying to toss your age in to "disqualify" you or anything but 15-16 years is not so long and someday you just might find yourself changing the tune of "all my life". You haven't left home to be on your own and do other things yet so your "people" experience should grow greatly. I'm not saying this to be mean but rather when you see more you may not say the same thing.

No offense taken! Believe me, it can be hard for me to offer my opinion on these forums sometimes, especially when people know my age.
Let me say this, though. There are certainly some Calvinists that would fit your description. But such a description is not limited to Calvinists. There are Arminians, dispies, Pentecostals, OVers, etc with bad attitudes, unedifying mouths and the like. That I don't think you would disagree with.
However, I still do not think that it is right to generally classify Calvinists in this way. And that is not just based on my experience. It is also based on my mom's, my dad's, my present pastor's, my former pastor's, a host of other people I know's, and not to mention, a few guys my parents knew (Calvinists) were the humblest, nicest men you could ever meet. To name two--the late Greg Bahnsen, and Dr. Nigel Lee.
You are what, 26? If I am not mistaken, that is what I remember. My parents are closing in on 50, and their experience contradicts your's. But enough of this pointless debate.

Joel

God is sovereign, no one can defeat God's will. Thus God's will is always enforced in the course of human events.
If God's sovereignty always requires His will to be enforced, then humans do not have free choice. Thus everything is forced to conform to God's sovereign will. Example: A person might say, "It was God's will for an accident to occur on the Interstate. If I stop to administer first aide and thus keep a victim from bleeding to death, I have interfered with God's will for that person to die."

This conclusion is both illogical and not Biblical.

Another person might say, "God has predestined me to hell. Therefore, it is no use for me to pray, attend church, read my Bible, et cetera, because no matter how much I love and obey God, I can never achieve/receive salvation."

This conclusion is also illogical and not Biblical. It requires God to create evil, sin, and sinners, and arbitrarily force them to do His will. This is contrary to the Bible. In addition, John 3:16 states: "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life." The text does not say that "whoever is predestined to believe in him shall not perish but have eternal life." The ability to freely choose to believe in Christ, or to choose not to believe in Christ, is absolutely required by John 3:16.
Predestined, Predestination - The word "predestination" does not occur in the Bible. The compound Greek word "prohorizo" (derived from "pro" meaning "before" and "horizo" meaning "a boundary, limit") means "to limit or set boundaries beforehand." It does not mean to force against one's will. This word occurs only four times in two passages. Thus the entire doctrine of "Predestination" is built on four texts.
Do the Texts Say God Predestines Some to be Saved and Others to be Lost?

"For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers." -- Romans 8:29 (NIV)

"And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified." -- Rom 8:30 (NIV)

Consider the key phrases in these texts:

"Those he (God) foreknew" - God's foreknowledge does not cause us or force us to make choices against our free will. When the text speaks about those God foreknew, it is telling us God knew beforehand some people would exercise their free choice, accept Jesus Christ, and become Christians. God did not force them, He simply knew beforehand what they would freely chose to do.

"He also predestined" - God predestined, set certain boundaries and limits beforehand, for everyone who chooses to be saved through Jesus Christ. What were these boundaries, or limits that God predestined? Read the next phrase.

"To be conformed to the likeness of His son" - God did not predestine (limit beforehand) who would be saved. God did not arbitrarily choose some people beforehand to be saved against their own choice. But God did set certain boundaries or limits beforehand for everyone who has freely chosen to be saved: everyone must be "conformed to the likeness of" Jesus Christ. God has predetermined that Jesus would be our example. Everyone who chooses to follow Jesus is required to become "like" Him in all we do.

"Firstborn among many brothers" - The result of our being "conformed to the likeness of" Jesus Christ is that He becomes pre-eminent over all of us as His "brothers." Just as we sinners can only become like Him in the sense of our new character but not in our being, so the sinless Jesus can only be our "brother" in the sense of our humanity (through the Incarnation), but he cannot become our "brother" in sin.

"Those He predestined" - This refers back to the people mentioned previously: every person who has chosen to accept Jesus Christ, and who now has the requirement to "be conformed to the likeness of His son."

"He also called" - Every person who ever chose to accept Jesus Christ has been called ("invited") to "be conformed to the likeness of His son."

"He also justified" - Every person who ever chose to accept Jesus Christ has not only been invited to "be conformed to the likeness of His son," but God has also declared that person to be conformed to the likeness of His son. In other words, God has made each Christian into the "likeness of His son." If we have chosen Jesus as our Savior and Lord, then we have been "called" to be conformed into the likeness of Jesus Christ. More than that, God legally declares us to have been conformed into that likeness. Thus, once a person accepts Christ, the result (conforming to the likeness of Christ) is certain (predetermined).

"He also glorified" - The final result of our free choice to accept Jesus as our Savior and Lord is that we are "called," "justified," and finally "glorified" (meaning: "rendered glorious, worthy of glory/praise").

Summary of Romans 8:29-30

Rather than telling us that God forces people to be saved or lost, these texts give us the glorious promise that God will carry our free choice right on through to completion: "Being confident of this, that he who began a good work in you will carry it on to completion until the day of Christ Jesus." -- Philippians 1:6 (NIV)

asaph

asaph,

I am glad you posted this, as it gives readers an opportunity to little by little, unravel for you, your misunderstanding of Gods word.

Quote

posted by asaph reply #34
God is sovereign, no one can defeat God's will. Thus God's will is always enforced in the course of human events.

While the statements you have made above are, true, your following statement, is Not ; it is only half true.

[quoted by asaph]
If God's sovereignty always requires His will to be enforced, then humans do not have free choice.
[ end of quote]

I am glad also, you recognize that there may be a difference between "free will" and "free choice", the natural man since he is dead in sin and tresspass, has no "free will", he is under the will of the god of this earth (2Cor 4:3) and sins because he can't help it.

It is a distortion to say, that God forces his will upon people, nothing could be further from the truth.

The best known verse, itself disproves your viewpoint, here it is;

2 Pet 3
9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

Please Note; the last portion of this verse, this is the reason men perish....becuase they refuse to repent.;God commands all men everywhere to repent (acts 17:30)

In this verse it is evident, God is "not willing that any should perish", and yet when one reads the scriptures, many perish, read towards the end of Revelation 16;

10 And the fifth angel poured out his vial upon the seat of the beast; and his kingdom was full of darkness; and they gnawed their tongues for pain,
11 And blasphemed the God of heaven because of their pains and their sores, and repented not of their deeds.

Look at; Revelation 20

11 And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them.
12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.
13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.

Using your logic, which you would have us to believe is logical, you go on to state;

Quote

Thus everything is forced to conform to God's sovereign will.

My friend, your statements lack wisdom and are " ILLOGICAL" and "UNBIBLICAL", simply because you have a distorted understanding of the Word of God.

God knows that the [/b]natural man (1Cor2:14) is outside of his will, and HEdoes nothing absolutely, nothing to thwart the will of this man, other than to send someone preach the gospel of salvation which commands him to repent.

The "natural man"does not possess a "free will", at best this man is able to chose good, which is right, but even that is unable to save him, what is able to lead him to salvation , is his desire to know more of the conviction of sin which is the work of the Holy Spirit is doing in sinners hearts, and conviction of the coming judgment and righteousness.

This is what Peter speaks of, when he says, that we who have come to the faith;

"....have purified your souls in obeying the truth.... (1Pet 1:18-22);

What is the Truth??

Rom 3
23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:
25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;

1Cor 15
3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to
the scriptures:

1Pet1
18 ......that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things...
19 But with the precious blood of Christ,
21 Who by him do believe in God, that raised him up from the dead, and gave him glory; that your faith and hope might be in God.

Please note, these verses have nothing to do with their free will, free choicedeeds or works, and everything to do with FAITH, which is a gift of the GRACE of God, since it is the Word that tells us; That FAITH; "............ is a gift of God, lest any man should boast." (Eph 2:9-8)

They perish for this reason;

2Th2
8 And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:
9 Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,
10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.

Lets, say it, exactly the way it truly is, sinners will perish because they have no interest in the truth, nor the commandment to repent, this is not Gods will, but their own, free choice to not believenor obey thye commandment, they have no interest in believing the truth, those who chose to repentare the ones who do the will of God, and, in the end everyone gets what they want.

All those who desire to have their sins forgiven are forgiven, and those who do not, are not forgiven.

So where is the problem, with Gods plan, in the end as we understand it, those who are forgiven are MANIFESTED as sons of God and of Abrahams seed, the true Israel of God, precious and elect to God, having been predestinated to adoption of sons.

Continued--------------

The word "Predestinated" is only used twice in the NT, both in the past tense, speaking of those who are presently "in Christ Jesus"(Eph 1:5,11); while the word "Predestinate" is used twice in the Book of Romans, in the future tense, concerning those whom God "did foreknow" (Rom 8:29,30)

I always here this very same argument, concerning this word, man reasoning in his mind and reaching a conclusion, that if God, predestinated to save those whom he did foreknow, then He predestinated those He did not foreknow to destruction.

While this is true, it is made known to us, after the fact; for no one would know he was chosen in Christ from before the foundation of the world, had he not chosen Christ, and Gods choice, then is become mans choice, thereby fulfilling the will of God. (Eph 1:5,11) ".....according to the good pleasure of His will. and, ....after the counsel of His own will."

And I might add, it had nothing to do with foreknowledge either, since Grace itself, refutes this idea and or teaching of it..

My answer to all those who would rail at God, to call him unrighteous because He choses whom He will, is this; PREDESTINATION, has nothing to do with man, and everything to do with God, just because, you don't understand the end from the beginning, and you are not God, and it pleases God not to give you wisdom and insight and peace about this matter, why do you argue against His word, seeing that Predestination has to with His promises to the seed of the Promise;

Rom 9
6 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:
7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.
8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.
9 For this is the word of promise, At this time will I come, and Sarah shall have a son.
10 And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac;
11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;)
12 It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.
13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.
14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.
15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.
16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy.
17 For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might show my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.
18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.
19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?
20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?
21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?
22 What if God, willing to show his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:
23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,

Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world. And He chooses what He will reveal, and the rest is sealed up, some Christians rest on his word by faith, while others keep kicking at the pricks, and can't accept His word as it is written, so they wrest (twist) it to their destruction. (2Pet3:16)

I say if you don't understand his word or can't accept it, Pray for wisdom and understanding that you might understand and believe.

We who are saved have been called to preach the Gospel to those that perish,

"............ if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth;
And that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will." (2Tim2:25-26)

If the devil can take them captive at "his will", what free will, are you and all others refering to??

People that perish and remain in the sin of unbelief, possess "free choice", NOT "free will".

And IF they chose to believe in the way and the truth, and the result is, they are giveneternal life.

Blessings

Petro

Petro,
I think you misunderstand my post. I happen to agree with your rebuttle for the most part. (I take it, you are not a 5 point Calvinist.) Let me quote you:

"I am glad you posted this, as it gives readers an opportunity to little by little, unravel for you, your misunderstanding of Gods word.
Quote:
posted by asaph reply #34
God is sovereign, no one can defeat God's will. Thus God's will is always enforced in the course of human events.
While the statements you have made above are, true, your following statement, is Not ; it is only half true.
[quoted by asaph]
If God's sovereignty always requires His will to be enforced, then humans do not have free choice.
[ end of quote]
I am glad also, you recognize that there may be a difference between "free will" and "free choice", the natural man since he is dead in sin and tresspass, has no "free will", he is under the will of the god of this earth (2Cor 4:3) and sins because he can't help it.
It is a distortion to say, that God forces his will upon people, nothing could be further from the truth."

Petro, when I say God forces his will upon people I mean this: God has a universal will that none perish, but that all come to repentance. That is His general will. However he moves toward that general will with mans freedom of choice in mind. Now let me explain how He forces His will on all.

It is Gods will that people find Life only in Jesus. There is no other way to have it. He forces this will upon mankind. But that is only one side of the coin. On the other side you find that it is Gods will that only death and eternal loss is found outside of Jesus. This also he forces upon mankind. God does not force His general will on anyone. He is willing that none perish but knows that not all will exercise this freedom to choose. But He does not give them an alternative to Life. In this way He forces His specific will on people but not His general will.
One can't say, "I'm going to do it MY way; I don't like Gods way!" and expect to live forever. God's will for that person, who shuns God's love is that he perish. God is not going to back up and say: "Oh, it's OK, you don't have to recieve the free gift, I'll let you live anyway." No, God enforces His will of salvation only through His Son Jesus.
The people outside of Christ are experiencing death, this is Gods will. The people in Christ are experiencing Life, this also is Gods will. Overall, God's will is that all be in Christ, but He does not force them to come to Jesus. God teaches them and He draws them, but they must make the choice.

John 6
39 And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.
40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.
45 It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.

2 Cor 5
17 Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.
18 And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation;
19 To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.
20 Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God.

asaph

I believe in corporate election, not particular election. The theme of the Romans 9 is corporate election.
Romans 9:
6 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:
Notice that Israel is a corporate term.

7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.

Notice God is beginning to define more narrowly His plan for a corporate election. First Israel , now a seed within Israel.

8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.

We know that the seed refers to Christ, as Paul says to the Galatians: Gal. 3:16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.
While we know that Christ is a particular individual, we also know that He is a corporate body. Gal 3:29 And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
This speaks of us in union with Christ as the seed. (Corporate union)

9 For this is the word of promise, At this time will I come, and Sarah shall have a son.
10 And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac;
11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;)
12 It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.
13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.

Here we have two particular individuals, Jacob and Esau. They are mentioned here, not to establish a particular election doctrine, but a corporate election doctrine. (Jacob later became Israel corporately and Esau became Edom corporately.) The purpose of God was to establish a lineage to bring Christ into the world to be His elect body; as Isaiah says: Isa.42:1 Behold my servant, whom I uphold; mine elect, in whom my soul delighteth; I have put my spirit upon him: he shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles. And Peter says in 1 Peter 2:6 Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.

14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.
Now that God has established a line within Israel to bring about the Elect Son is there unrighteousness in Him for doing so? Why can't I just be a descendant of Abraham and be accepted of God? That is the question the Jews were asking. Some did not like Pauls answer that you have to believe in the One Elect to participate in the blessing of Abraham. You have to be the Corporate Elect Body. Entry into this blessing is by spititual new birth.

15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.
16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.

God will have mercy on those who choose Christ as their Savior therebye being baptized into the Elect Corporate Body.
Of course they will be taught and drawn by the Father in order that they might choose. But they are not under compulsion to choose, as Jesus says in John 6:45 It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.

17 For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.
18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.

God did not harden Pharoahs heart to establish partular election of some to Life and others to damnation. You can only read that into the passage. Again Gods purpose was to deliver Israel in order to keep the lineage going to bring the promised seed into the world. He showed His power to do so by hardening Pharaohs heart, and in so doing God introduced His way of deliverance through blood atonement. This blood atonement, typified by the lamb, was fulfilled in the Elect Christ. To establish a docctrine of particular election by this passage steals from the very purpose of Paul in writing in the first place, as Paul says in Romans 11:32 For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.
God's desire is for all to come to Christ that He might have mercy on all.
We are such an individulistic society that we have a hard time with corporate election. All we can see is the individual. This is why the Body of Christ in the west is so fragmented. If any man be in Christ he is a new creation [corporately]. This is a hard saying who can bear it?

asaph

Quote

Reply #39 posted by asaph

I believe in corporate election, not particular election.

This speaks of us in union with Christ as the seed. (Corporate union)

9 For this is the word of promise, At this time will I come, and Sarah shall have a son.
10 And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac;
11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;)
12 It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.
13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.

Here we have two particular individuals, Jacob and Esau. They are mentioned here, not to establish a particular election doctrine, but a corporate election doctrine. (Jacob later became Israel corporately and Esau became Edom corporately.) The purpose of God was to establish a lineage to bring Christ into the world to be His elect body; as Isaiah says: Isa.42:1 Behold my servant, whom I uphold; mine elect, in whom my soul delighteth; I have put my spirit upon him: he shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles. And Peter says in 1 Peter 2:6 Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.

asaph,

Sometimes we think we are so smart, we inadvertently inject little bits and pieces of our own doctrines into, what the word teaches, and this why we cannot agree on anything, it seems to me.

First of all "election" is Gods business, it makes no difference who trys to summarize how God defines "election", or how He executes it, all explanations will fall short of the act and or definition itself.

I believe that in trying to corner the type of election, people, muddy the water up trying to insert their brand of teaching on the subject and the result is, it becomes difficult to see, anything clearly concerning the teaching of it.

In Election, we clearly see both particular and corporate.

The scriptures, teach both, we read in (1 Pet 1:2), of particular election; in the verse above Jacob was chosen over Esau, this is particular; Jesus himself elected or chose the twelve, over many others who had an interest in Him, this is particular.

All whom the father give me, is not this particular??

In Jhn 10:3, we are told Jesus calls his own sheep by name, when Lazarus died, He specifically called to Lazarus, a picture of spiritual salvation of those dead in sin and tresspass.

I am afraid you can't have one without the other, and yet, you say, I don't believe in the one??

I don't know what, you actually believe or think.

All I know is, we know we are sinners, and will be till the last breath leaves our bodies, and yet knowing this, we prefer to preach on the sovereignty of man, as opposed in the Sovereignty of a Just and Faithfull God.

This is the reason why, we really have these conversations, to give men credit for coming to Christ.

Thank you, but No Thank You..

I don't ever want to say to anyone, nor give anyone the impression, I believed in my own strength, I know God saved me from the pit, but He brought me kicking and screaming and arguing with his Word, to the truth that I was a sinner, needing to repent. He didn't force to repent, and all because

He elected me, and I think He made a good choice, and thank Him for it.

As I see, it had it not been for Him drawing me to Himself, beforehand, I would never have been able to come to repentance, much less believe by faith to the saving of my soul.

Others see their salvation differently, and do so to give themselves credit, because they really don't want God to get all of the credit.

Blessings to you,

Petro

Asaph. with reagrds to your reply #38

I have a problem with your choice of words, the word 'commands" as opposed to the word "forces" give two very distinct, meanings to what the Sovereign God has done;

Although, when used as a transative verb, "commands" does have a very close definition as "force"; "to have power to control by position"]/b] as opposed to; "power to control" not necessarily because of position, but by brute force.

"...He commands all men everywhere to repent" Acts 17:30; and he doesn't force them, those that do repent, He enables or empowers to come to Christ, that they might be saved.

"All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out." (Jhn 6:37) Not one will be missing...at the end..

In this day and age, one must be very precise in the use of words;since words Christians use, do not mean the same thing to all people, or faiths, if, your familiar with the "Evangelicals and Catholics Together" contract which was signed by visible fundamental Christians, considered to be good teachers , pastors and evangalists, such as Billy Graham, John Mc Arthur, Charles Colson, they assumed when signing that, Rome defined words such as; Righteousness, Salvation, Justification, in the same way the apostles did which agree with the totality of scripture.

Which to their dismay, since, have realized, Romes does not define them to mean the same, as understaood by Christians.

Why use the word force, when it would be more precise to say, "commands"

For this reason, I disagree with you, and would reject any notion, that a Sovereign God, forces anyone to do anything against his (mans) will. Men will continue to perish, because they willing refuse to obey the word of God.

But thank you for explaining, anyhow.

Blessings,

Petro

Quote from: asaph on April 29, 2003, 04:13:36 PM

Petro,
It is good to hear your responses because, it's like iron sharpening iron. Back to particular election. I know that God deals with us as particular individuals, for we are one body yet many members. In Christ each one of us is elect. But outside of Him no one is elect. If one says he is elected before being in Christ then being in Christ is a moot point and being in Him plays second fiddle to election. But is this arguement really important? Probably not. I am in Him and you are in Him and that's what matters. Reality is what has meaning, not doctrine. I own a car. I know a few things about my car. But that car is useless to me unless I drive it. If everytime I got in the car with my wife, I start telling her the wonders of hoe this machine works, our relationship would get pretty scary. But if I enjoy her fellowship and she mine while in the car together, being in the car takes on meaning.

asaph

asaph,

Exactly, I agree with what you've posted.

Look, I never talk about election, predestination, or foreknowledg with an unsaved person, when sharing the Gospel; these doctrines should only be discussed between, mature, solid food, meat eating Christians, some who still suckle, think they know all about them, and try to put their two cents worth into these threads , I have been studying these for 20 years or so, and sometimes I wonder, if I understand the doctrines at all, In answering myself, I would have to be honest, and say I don't completely.

But there are things that I understand perfectly, which have helped me to keep on track, and mindful of, and that is God does all things perfectly, and that He is a righteous judge, these two principles, are most important, which if one keeps at the forefront when trying to work thru these, doctrines, will lead to and pin down the truth

In the first place I will never give opportunity for the flesh, to enter into the picture and gain a toe hold, in these docrines; the way some Christians explain these, you would think man is equal in sovereignty to God, and that God cannot work without their cooperation, and I suspect this is where you see the "force" of God being applied. I reject this outta hand, and I'll explain why.

The Sovereign God the creator of all the earth, is a just God.

"Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?? (Gen 18:25) Abraham said.

And as judge, He is only obliged to execute JUST judgement in righteousness.
And, not obliged to force himself on sinners, as many believe.

But, just because God has chosen for himself a people to save, those who do not understand the righteousness of God, take issue, that He is unjust because He saves whom He wills, and does not lift a hand to do anything for others who perish, because of their sin. They say, naaaww, that is not the way God works, and then go about explaining there version of how God works out His plan, imagine that...

Understanding this, I think is key to understanding all other issues, in fact when one sees it in the light of what the scriptures teach, all other doctrines taught in this light, fall into place, with regard to Foreknowledge, Predestination and Election of God.

Blessings

Petro

Ollie,

Thanks for your post, they support exactly what I have been saying.

I have stated; That God as Creator of all things;

And as judge, He is only obliged to execute JUST judgement in righteousness.
And, not obliged to force himself on sinners, as many believe.

But, just because God has chosen for himself a people to save, those who do not understand the righteousness of God, take issue, that He is unjust because He saves whom He wills, and does not lift a hand to do anything for others who perish, because of their sin.

The natural man, who is unable to receive, know or understand the things of God, can only excercise his will in the context of doing good or bad, he can chose, to obey the law of man, or not; on the other hand, since we live in the age of grace, and even before this age, the obedience to the law of God, only brought a person to Christ, it was never given that by keeping it, anyone could be saved.

A since all men are under the condemnation of sin, every man is in bondage to sin, and is unable to do anything but serve sin, it is only by Gods grace in drwaing those whom he has chosen to come to the knowledge of the truth, from this vast see of human flesh which perishes, that some are saved, we don't know who they are, this is why, the task of the church is not to buiuld buildings, but to preach the unsearchable riches of Christ, that all may here, and those who have been ordained to eternal life, will respond to the Gospel, because he has ordained such to be.

The evil one knows that there is a Godly seed, but he is in the dark as to who they are, just like us, this is why, his goal to deceive, devour, kill, and murder, pillage rape, and what ever, in hopes of frusterating Gods Plan, if he can cause the death of just one of the elect, whom God has chosen from before the foundations of the world, then he can thwart the Plan of God.

Kind of like uprooting a wheat plant, prematurely, because it looks like a tare, the seed of the evil one.

Many Christians before they were saved lived, lives of the basest debauchery, and if this person, who will be saved in the future is an elect of God, chosen from before the foundations of the world, then it makes sense the Gods Holy Spirit will sanctify (set apart) this individual to bring him, to salvation, otherwise, if the evil one has his way, and takes that life, then he will have succeeded in thawrting Gods plan.

As for Justin Martyr, taking a paragraph and determining the mind of this man, when writing what he did,is hard to ascertain the total substance of exactly what the point is he is trying to make.

On the surface, I would have to disagree, with this statement he makes, based on the scriptures and my understanding of them,

Quote

110-165AD Justin Martyr ;

"For neither would a man be worthy of reward or praise if he did not of himself choose the good, but was merely created for that end. Likewise, if a man were evil, he would not deserve punishment, since he was not evil of himself, being unable to do anything else than what he was made for."

Gods grace is not a reward for the good men do (Eph 2:8-9), this is clear; and they are ulitmately judged by their works (Rev 20:12-13)

Faith to believe God, is a free gift to those that perish whom God has chosen.. it simply offered by the His Grace, freely.

It is his work not mans..

Blessings,

Petro

All people are born in sin. We are full of evil lust and inclinations from our mothers' wombs and are unable by nature to have true fear of God and true faith in God. Moreover, this inborn sickness and hereditary sin is truly sin and condemns to the eternal wrath of God all those who are not born again through Baptism and the Holy Spirit.

We cannot obtain forgiveness of sin and righteousness before God by our own merits, works, or satisfactions, but we receive forgiveness of sin and become righteous before God by grace, for Christ's sake, through faith, when we believe that Christ suffered for us and that for his sake our sin is forgiven and righteousness and eternal life are given to us.

To obtain such faith God instituted the office of the ministry, that is, provided the Gospel and the sacraments. Through these, as through means, God gives the Holy Spirit, who works faith, when and where she pleases, in those who hear the Gospel.

Grace is a relationship. To impose a relationship of love and
forgiveness is impossible. God does not overpower us, but reaches out to us even before we are able to respond. Remember: "If you accept Jesus as your Lord and Saviour, then God will save you," is Law, not Gospel. The Law cannot save us so this message cannot save us. "Because of what God has done in Christ, therefore your destiny is good," is Gospel and hearing this message does save us.

The "flip side" of grace is faith. Faith is the presence of Christ by the Holy Spirit. We are saved by grace through faith - i.e., God saves us graciously by sending Christ to be present in us by the Holy Spirit in, with, and under Word and Sacrament. Christ present in us responds to God's grace by trusting that what the Word (in words, water, and bread and wine) promises is given to us in the disciple community.

God is graciously offering Christ by the Spirit to everyone who hears the Gospel (Hearing the Gospel is an event of salvation!). Some of us, unfortunately, decide to let our free will kick in and we reject the Good News. We make a free choice and decide that we can just as well save ourselves, that we can do what is required for salvation. Even if what is required is as little as "choose Jesus," it is still a rejection of the Gospel. Thus, the argument for free will is not an argument in defense of the Gospel, it is a direct attack on the Gospel.

The problem is in assuming that, after the fall, we really have a totally free will. Even apart from a theology of the will, how free are we? Did you choose your own parents? Did you choose when or where to be born? Did you design your own genetic makeup? Given how significant these are to our
lives, free will as a concept seems to be rather superficial. Its function is to make us good capitalists and consumers and it enables us to blame the poor for their condition rather than see the flaws in the economic system.

We have limited areas in which we can make choices. We can choose, for example, to be good citizens or good workers or good parents. What we cannot do is choose to save ourselves. "I am in bondage to sin and cannot save myself." The will, left to its own devices, always turns in on itself and
chooses works rather than grace through faith. As we get further and further into ourselves we end up either in despair or self-righteousness.

I probably tend toward being agnostic. That is, if justification is by grace alone, we can't possibly know who is saved and who is not. More importantly, if justification is by grace through faith, God has already taken care of the problem of salvation. It is not one we need to worry about - either our own salvation or others. Our call is not to decide who is saved and who is not, but to communicate the Gospel far
and wide and to work for the health and well-being of our communities.

Shalom

Ollie:

The narrative begins at Mark 10.13 with the remark that "they" (perhaps parents) were bringing young children, that he might touch them. But the disciples scolded or rebuked those bringing the children. This may reflect a typical ancient attitude that young children were less important than adults, and that important teachers shouldn't be bothered by them. There are early Jewish texts which stress the immaturity of children. The disciples' action causes Jesus to be indignant with them, and in essence he rebukes the rebukers. They had not remembered the lesson about receiving the little ones in Jesus' name (Mark 9.36-37). He says, "Permit the young children to come to me and od not hinder them, for of such is the dominion of God." With an authority such as only God can claim, he promises the Kingdom to those whose faith resembles the empty hand of a beggar. Notice that Jesus says nothing about building or accomplishing the dominion or making it happen, but only of receiving and entering it. Jesus is not romanticizing children or childhood as a time of innocence. His point is that children are content to receive something as a gift, and this is the proper way all persons should receive the dominion or divine saving activity of God.

After this saying, there is appended an additional word of Jesus which says, "Amen I say to you, unless you receive the dominion as a child, you shall not enter it." Notice the way this saying suggests there is both a present ("receive") and a future dimension ("enter") to God's dominion. It is unlikely that this means "unless you receive it during childhood," but it is just possible that what is meant is receiving the dominion in like fashion to which one should receive a little child - unconditionally and with open arms, as Jesus did. Notice that Jesus gives a warm embrace to children in both 9.36 and 10.16. This novel suggestion intimates that we are to treat the dominion as if it were a child.

The usual reading of the aphorism, however, is that Jesus means we should receive the dominion in the same fashion that children receive it, a more probable reading in view of 10.13-14, and 16, which recounts how Jesus received children, texts which speak to the issue of the place of children in the dominion. The point, then, is that the dominion is made up of children and those like them, not that the dominion is like a child in some manner. Thus those commended become role models, while those corrected become warnings. Perhaps making the child's behavior a model for adult behavior was so counterintuitive in Jesus' setting that the strong assertion of Jesus' personal authority ("Amen, I say to you...") was required to back it up. In context there is a notable contrast between the ease with which children enter the dominion of God and the difficulty with which rich adults do so.

The pericope closes in v.16 with an action of Jesus which indicates clear acceptance of the children and of the intentions of those who brought them. Jesus goes beyond touching the children to hugging them. Thus it can be said: Jesus uses the smallest member of the physical family as a model for members of the family of faith and gives children a place in the Kingdom. The evidence of Jesus' positive attitude toward children, their place in the Kingdom, and how they might serve as models for disciples and be served by disciples seems to imply a positive estimation of a woman's role as child-bearer and mother (as well as a positive estimation of a father's role). Of course, this text is also a parade example demonstrating Jesus' great concern for and compassion on the weak and most vulnerable members of society.

Why should not the child represent an actual class of exploited persons, as does every other subject of Jesus' advocacy in Mark? Mark is concerned to unmask the realities of domination within community and even within kindred relationships. Indeed, from the narrative world of Mark we have cause to suspect that all is not well for the child in first-century Palestinian society. For where do we meet children in the Gospel? In every case, it is in situations of sickness and oppression: the synagogue ruler's daughter (5.21ff.), the Syrophoenician's daughter (7.24ff.), the deaf dumb son (9.14ff.).... The social signification of such consistent narrative portrait suggests that Mark understands the child as victim.

Indeed, the previous two passages show Jesus to be the protector of both women and children, the most vulnerable members of society. In the first instance he protects women by forbidding divorce, thus giving them more social and economic security. In the second instance he protects children by showing them to be valid and valuable members of God's domain who should be welcomed with open arms.

The text says nothing about children's sinlessness, innocence, purity. It talks about receiving the kingdom like a child who accepts a gift without question, who receives God's grace without trying to earn it. "'Let the little children come to me; do not stop them; for it is to such as these that the kingdom of God belongs. Truly I tell you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God as a little child will never enter it.' And he took them up in his arms, laid his hands on them, and blessed them."

Shalom

Calvinism is a pernicious, unbiblical doctrine. It was never held by anyone in the church (except for some Calvinistic leanings in St. Augustine) until the Reformation. That in itself is a mark against it.

However, the biggest problems I have with Calvinism are the way it distorts scripture and the fact that it makes God the author and agent of evil. The former is evidently clear, as when Petro takes the verses that state God is not willing for any to perish to mean he is not willing to let those he's elected perish. The clearest, most simple interpretation of that passage flies in the face of Calvinist teachings. In fact, it would attempt to have it mean something diametrically opposed to it; God is very willing to let people perish. Also, Petro states specifically that Christ did not die for the whole world, even though the Bible clearly teaches He did. Once again, we are left with a convoluted reinterpretation of scripture to let it meet the demands of Calvinist doctrine. There are many other examples.

Now, for the latter. Calvinism requires that God is exhaustively sovereign over every element of creation. The rain, the sea, erosion, the sun, etc, etc. But it also requires that God be in utter control of our every action as well, including sin. Every sin, every evil deed, thought or desire is the direct result of God's intent per Calvinist doctrine. And this is a blasphemous, morally repugnant thing to believe.

Calvinism is also logically inconsistent. To get around my points above, it had to create a doctrine that absolved God of evil but did not impugn his sovereignty. So it came up with the idea that man is free to do exactly what he wants, but all the wants to do in his fallen state is sin (an obvious contradiction of Romans 7). Therefore, God is still able to predestine people to heaven and hell, while still retaining his sovereignty, and yet is not evil because man has freedom. A nicy tidy little package, until you get to the first 3 chapters of Genesis. Adam and Eve were not fallen, so they were pure, they were holy, they had only good intentions and desires (which is all they were capable of since they did not have a fallen nature). So why did they sin? Either it is because God forced them to or they had the freedom to choose to disobey God. The former makes God a monster and the original author of sin. And the latter means that the unfallen nature is not entirely good. If the unfallen nature is not entirely good, since it chose to sin knowing full well it was against God's wishes, then neither can the fallen nature be entirely bad. Hence, the Calvinistic system falls apart.

On a side note, I find it quite humorous that you are a Calvinist, Petro. After you rail against Orthodox Christians for believing in the "traditions of men," it is very humorous to find you believe something that is so contrary to scripture, and is truly a recent and very human tradition.

Quote from: pnotc on June 07, 2003, 02:25:48 PM

Calvinism is a pernicious, unbiblical doctrine. It was never held by anyone in the church (except for some Calvinistic leanings in St. Augustine) until the Reformation. That in itself is a mark against it.

However, the biggest problems I have with Calvinism are the way it distorts scripture and the fact that it makes God the author and agent of evil. The former is evidently clear, as when Petro takes the verses that state God is not willing for any to perish to mean he is not willing to let those he's elected perish. The clearest, most simple interpretation of that passage flies in the face of Calvinist teachings. In fact, it would attempt to have it mean something diametrically opposed to it; God is very willing to let people perish. Also, Petro states specifically that Christ did not die for the whole world, even though the Bible clearly teaches He did. Once again, we are left with a convoluted reinterpretation of scripture to let it meet the demands of Calvinist doctrine. There are many other examples.

Now, for the latter. Calvinism requires that God is exhaustively sovereign over every element of creation. The rain, the sea, erosion, the sun, etc, etc.
. And this is a blasphemous, morally repugnant thing to believe.

Calvinism is also logically inconsistent. To get around my points above, it had to create a doctrine that absolved God of evil but did not impugn his sovereignty. So it came up with the idea that man is free to do exactly what he wants, but all the wants to do in his fallen state is sin (an obvious contradiction of Romans 7). Therefore, God is still able to predestine people to heaven and hell, while still retaining his sovereignty, and yet is not evil because man has freedom. A nicy tidy little package, until you get to the first 3 chapters of Genesis. Adam and Eve were not fallen, so they were pure, they were holy, they had only good intentions and desires (which is all they were capable of since they did not have a fallen nature). So why did they sin? Either it is because God forced them to or they had the freedom to choose to disobey God. The former makes God a monster and the original author of sin. And the latter means that the unfallen nature is not entirely good. If the unfallen nature is not entirely good, since it chose to sin knowing full well it was against God's wishes, then neither can the fallen nature be entirely bad. Hence, the Calvinistic system falls apart.

On a side note, I find it quite humorous that you are a Calvinist, Petro. After you rail against Orthodox Christians for believing in the "traditions of men," it is very humorous to find you believe something that is so contrary to scripture, and is truly a recent and very human tradition.

pnotc,

You already established your unbelief in the soveriegnty of God, no doubt because of methodist leanings which you have been unable to shake, even though you keep searching for the truth.

You cannot and never will see, the biblical teaching of it, for a man must come by faith, believing in His wisdom and understanding.

You, who would question God, see yourself as just as soveriegn as He, which means to me, you are in for a rude awakening, unless you snap out of it.

By the way, you asked a question on the images of the cherubs, being used in the tabernacle/temple of God.

I ansawered it and just because you didn't like my answer you slithered off without telling us, why, God ordered His house decorated with them.

From tyhe confidence you exhibited in asking such a question, I was sure you knew, but I wonder if your really do.

Care to tell us?

If not that is fine, as I can understanbd you wouldn't want to stick your neck out any further, then you have already, since you would have to use the scriptures to substantiate your presupposition. I am sure Orthodoxy has a piles of papers written on the subject, but they won't fly here, you know, we need the inspired version.

You said;

Quote

by pnotc;
But it also requires that God be in utter control of our every action as well, including sin. Every sin, every evil deed, thought or desire is the direct result of God's intent per Calvinist doctrine

From what you have stated, here it is obvious you don't know what Calvin taught, you speak out of ignorance, better it be if you remain silent.

Blessings,
Petro

Petro-

"You already established your unbelief in the soveriegnty of God, no doubt because of methodist leanings which you have been unable to shake, even though you keep searching for the truth."

Once again we are blessed by your psychic ability to peer deeply into my soul! I sincerely doubt that I have any Methodist leanings still clinging to my brain cells, since we weren't all that active in the church. I mostly went to pre-school there and went to Sunday school until the 4th grade. While I don't remember much of it, I don't think they delved too deeply into theological differences at that level. And no, for the record, I fully believe in the sovereignty of God. I simply believe that he is so sovereign that his authority and control are not threatened by free will in his creations. Your God-concept puts God on the defensive; if he's not in control of everything, he's not in control of anything. In this, Calvinism imposes a definition of sovereignty onto God that is not present in scripture. Scripture certainly teaches that God is in control and has the power to do whatever he wishes, but there are also thousands of examples of his creations exercising choice.

"You cannot and never will see, the biblical teaching of it, for a man must come by faith, believing in His wisdom and understanding."

I fully believe in His wisdom and understanding. I also fully believe that you are adhering to what you believe to be true, however mistakenly that adherence may be. And you're right, I never will see it, because it's not biblical. It imposes outside conditions and ideas onto the Word. Granted, they are imposed with good intentions, but they are nevertheless, false teachings.

"You, who would question God, see yourself as just as soveriegn as He, which means to me, you are in for a rude awakening, unless you snap out of it."

Your psychic powers again? You've stated this before, this "you-see-yourself-as-sovereign-like-God" thing, and I didn't get it then, and I don't get it now. Care to elaborate?

"I ansawered it and just because you didn't like my answer you slithered off without telling us, why, God ordered His house decorated with them."

The question was originally asked by Kerygma, and you didn't answer it then. And when you finally did "answer" it, your response was something along the lines of "I don't dare to questions Gods word you filthy, heathen sinners." Okay, I added that last part, but it was certainly implied in the tone of your posts. Also, I think you're forgetting that I did answer your question. I'll save you the time of looking it up - God ordered those decorations because he sees (unlike you) the difference between idols and images used to bring him glory. Cherubs and icons are the latter, whereas you continually confuse them with the former. This, of course, is due to your hatred of all things Roman, and by extension, all things Traditional. As for me slithering off, you're the one who decided to stop posting on that page. You got off a couple of fleeing salvos, and then disappeared. Want to rejoin the conversation?

"If not that is fine, as I can understanbd you wouldn't want to stick your neck out any further, then you have already, since you would have to use the scriptures to substantiate your presupposition."

Happily. But this isn't the thread for it. Come over to Orthodoxy part 2 and we'll get back into it.

"we need the inspired version."

Or do you mean "Petro's version?"

"From what you have stated, here it is obvious you don't know what Calvin taught, you speak out of ignorance, better it be if you remain silent."

Actually, I know very well what Calvin taught. I did some research in this area a few years back. Calvin didn't teach TULIP, or any of that other stuff. He simply laid the groundwork, and his followers took his teachings to their logical conclusions. It is those conclusions that I was referring to. You may hold to a different set of beliefs on the matter, but its really not a viable position. Any Calvinist doctrine, taken to its logical conclusion, makes God the ultimate author of evil. From your statements, you seem to fall in line with "hyper-Calvinism." And yet you offer up ludicrous arguments like:

The evil one knows that there is a Godly seed, but he is in the dark as to who they are, just like us, this is why, his goal to deceive, devour, kill, and murder, pillage rape, and what ever, in hopes of frusterating Gods Plan, if he can cause the death of just one of the elect, whom God has chosen from before the foundations of the world, then he can thwart the Plan of God.

First off, if we don't know who the elect are, why do you continually condemn those of us who disagree with you? How do you know we're not one of the elect? For that matter, how do you know that you are? Now, the last part of your statement is absurd. If God has chosen these people before the foundations of the earth to be saved, then they will be saved. There is no room for the devil to do anything, much less thwart God's plan. If they die unsaved, then they were not foreordained to salvation. You contradict yourself in this. The elect are the elect are the elect. The devil certainly has no say in this. If they are elected for salvation before the foundation of the world, how on earth could they possibly lose that salvation?

but He brought me kicking and screaming and arguing with his Word, to the truth that I was a sinner, needing to repent. He didn't force to repent

I'm assuming the last sentence intended to say that he didn't force you to repent. The fact of the matter is, if he brought you kicking and screaming then he did. Oh, and of course, this violates the I in TULIP. Irresistible means, in this context, you were indeed forced into repentance. Another hole in your logic.

Oh, and this kind of thing:

"Others see their salvation differently, and do so to give themselves credit, because they really don't want God to get all of the credit."

is self-serving, self-righteous crap. All your talk makes it abundantly clear that you are very, very satisfied with yourself and quite full of pride. It was a nice sentiment though.

Quote from: pnotc on June 08, 2003, 09:19:36 PM

pnotc,

You are still kicking and screaming at Him and at the pricks, what are you talking about.

You resist the Holy Spirit, yet..

You fail to recognize, that there are limits, to Gods word which He has placed beyond which we can only assume, this what He did or didn't do, and your pre sumption that these images were given that you might worship images is exactly that, presumption; which you need to excercise and get approval for from other men, because you desire to pray to them or thru them to justify it to yourself.

I have already given you his word and what he says, seen you can't receive it, I find fruitless to carry on with you concerning the matter of praying to angels and departed saints, go and do what you are bent on doing.

I am not interested in arguing with those which ignore good council.

If you are a child of God, you should recognize, that he places a hedges around that which belongs to Him, and it would be well for you to stay put, if you belong to him, His desire is 100% obedience to His desires, and you are not ignorant of them, at least you won't be able to claim ignorance beyond this point.

For to obey is better than to sacrifce..and rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft.

You pride yourself in being a military man, and yet, you seem to ignore the commandments of the Captain of the Army of God (Jesus), who made the battle plan when He appeared before Joshua, actually, you ignore Him, because you are unable to discern the Lord..

I say argue amongsts yourselves, and or councel yourselves, whatever you want to do is fine with me..

I see, no need to speak with you about the matter further.

Petro

Petro-

”You are still kicking and screaming at Him and at the pricks, what are you talking about.”

I’d say by the attitudes and pride you’ve shown in these posts and in the other thread that you are the one kicking and screaming against God and His Church.

”You resist the Holy Spirit, yet..”

Those psychic powers again? You should get an infomercial. ;)

”You fail to recognize, that there are limits, to Gods word which He has placed beyond which we can only assume, this what He did or didn't do, and your pre sumption that these images were given that you might worship images is exactly that, presumption; which you need to excercise and get approval for from other men, because you desire to pray to them or thru them to justify it to yourself.”

Oy, but it gets difficult slogging through your petty insults and foolish statements. Especially when they so clearly contradict your own standing! No, my presumption is not that the images were given so that I might worship images, since I don’t. Your presumption is quite clear that any image is an idol. We have shown this to not be the case, and yet you still refuse to accept the mere possibility that an icon might not be idolatrous. And since I’ve never prayed to or through a saint, your last comment is, once again, baseless, ignorant, childish, petulant and ultimately irrelevant.

”I have already given you his word and what he says, seen you can't receive it, I find fruitless to carry on with you concerning the matter of praying to angels and departed saints, go and do what you are bent on doing.”

You haven’t given us any word on praying to departed saints, or angels for that matter. You kept on repeating the 2nd Commandment and confusing Orthodox doctrine with Roman doctrine, and refused to accept correction when shown you were wrong. I think you’re pretty bent on your own agenda, too.

”I am not interested in arguing with those which ignore good council.”

LOLOLOL

”You pride yourself in being a military man”

I mentioned my military background once, and I’m actually very happy to be getting out of the Army.

“and yet, you seem to ignore the commandments of the Captain of the Army of God (Jesus), who made the battle plan when He appeared before Joshua, actually, you ignore Him, because you are unable to discern the Lord..”

And you are clearly unable to discern his Word since I showed that the Captain of the Hosts of the Lord is not the Lord of Hosts. To back up your argument, all you said was that a whole lot of commentators agreed with you, and then refused to provide a reference to any of those commentaries. A reliance upon those commentaries would also be a reliance on the traditions of men, which you reject. At least, you reject them when they don’t agree with you.

I, too, see no need to discuss Orthodoxy any further in this thread. But this thread is about Calvinism and you have yet to respond to a single one of my arguments. Why is that? Slithering away from an honest debate?

Stliz-

“Do you know you are Orthodox yet? smile.”

I think my wife and I are fast on our way to joining the Church. We’ve been doing a lot of studying and the church we’ve been attending (Antiochian) will be having a class for potential converts this summer, lasting for a couple of months. I don’t think we’ll know for sure where God wants us for a bit longer, though.

You bring up a good point about the Augustinian doctrine of original sin. It is not a concept that was known or preached throughout the early church prior to him, and was definitely not the Judaic understanding of the Fall. Since he was already brought up earlier, Justin Martyr actually preached that Adam and Eve and the story of the Fall demonstrated the moral freedom of human beings, in contrast to the Augustocalvin doctrine of inherited, binding sin.

My degree is from Arizona State University in beautiful, and currently disgustingly hot, Tempe, AZ. And no, I look up all my Greek references. I’ve done a little bit of studying in Greek, but not at all enough to consider myself an even basically skilled exegete. And I would never panic about becoming a priest! I felt the call to ministry some time ago, and have been actively engaged in numerous leadership roles at my old home church. If my wife and I join the Church, I will be heading towards the ministry.

Thank you for your kind words and God Bless!

Quote

Reply #58 posted by pnotc

Quote

posted by petro
" yet, you seem to ignore the commandments of the Captain of the Army of God (Jesus), who made the battle plan when He appeared before Joshua, actually, you ignore Him, because you are unable to discern the Lord.."

And you are clearly unable to discern his Word since I showed that the Captain of the Hosts of the Lord is not the Lord of Hosts. To back up your argument, all you said was that a whole lot of commentators agreed with you, and then refused to provide a reference to any of those commentaries. A reliance upon those commentaries would also be a reliance on the traditions of men, which you reject. At least, you reject them when they don't agree with you.

pnotc,

I don't have to quote commentaries, the scriptures themselves are sufficient to prove the written word true.
The fact is, you showed nothing, it is evident to any reader of this passage, that the Commander of the Hosts of the Lord, is not the Lord of Hosts, you simply cannot see that the vision of Joshua not that of a mere angel at all, but was that of Jesus as The Angel of Jehovah..

Your vision is blurred, because you seek to worship, angels and saints.

Conclusive proof that it was the Lord Jesus in one of His preincarnate appearances is found in verse 14 and 15.

Joshua 5
14 And he said, Nay; but as captain of the host of the LORD am I now come. And Joshua fell on his face to the earth, and did worship, and said unto him, What saith my lord unto his servant?
15 And the captain of the LORD'S host said unto Joshua, Loose thy shoe from off thy foot; for the place whereon thou standest is holy. And Joshua did so.

These same words I have italicized are written in the account where Jehovah appeared unto Moses in Exodus 3.

And then Jehovah goes on to say to Moses, I am that I am, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you. when commissioning Moses to bring His people from bondage in Egypt.

Jesus said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am. (Jhn 8:58; and then they took up stones to cast at Him (vs 59), and again, Jesus said;
color=Red] I that speak unto thee am he.[/color] Jhn 4:26.

Nowhere in scripture does a mere angel ever accept worship, but here the Angel of the Lord commands worship, thereby proving His divine nature.

The Host of the Lord, which Jesus came to command was not that of angels, but the armies of children of Israel, whom Jehovah had brought out of bondage to the house of Egypt, and have at this passage in Joshua, now come about to enter the promised land after 40 years of wonderings in the desert, and begin the campaign of releiving the inhabitants of the land given to Abraham by God.

So, these verses leave you with no grounds for believing angels can be worshipped.

It never ceases to amaze me the pious excuses idolaters use to excuse the things they do, contrary to the word of God.

Using their misunderstanding of passages like this one, claiming that angels may be worshipped, because Joshua worshipped an angel, justifies, praying/worshipping saints, and asking thru them intercessory prayers.

They are used to better worship God, according to their claims, this is a lame excuse.

Your understanding of this passage of scripture, springboards you into, a wresting of the scriptures to your own damnation, you call them tradition, and you are accurate at least herein, they are the traditions of men.

As for your credentials, what good are they if you, worship God not in accordance to His known will , and encourage other to do likewise;

This what secularism and the teaching produces in wannabe christians; I simply am not impressed..

Later

Petro

Petro-

Welcome back! I hope your absence was not related to your recent surgeries and that you are recovering speedily.

“I don't have to quote commentaries,”

Then why did you refer to them as a way of bolstering your argument?

“the scriptures themselves are sufficient to prove the written word true.
The fact is, you showed nothing, it is evident to any reader of this passage, that the Commander of the Hosts of the Lord, is not the Lord of Hosts, you simply cannot see that the vision of Joshua not that of a mere angel at all, but was that of Jesus as The Angel of Jehovah”

I cannot see it because scripture does not support it. I really don’t want to re-hash the argument, but I think its important that we recognize that both you and I are relying on English translations of a very ancient tongue. As such, we have to take into account the hermeneutics of our translations. What are the underlying principles that guided the translator? In this instance, the word that the KJV translates as “worship”, the NASB (the translation I happen to use most of the time), translates it as “bow down.” Which is actually the more literal rendition of the Hebrew word. This bowing is done in different circumstances in the OT. Sometimes it is done as a sign of respect for a superior, in others it is in idolatry and in yet others, it is a sign of worshiping the Lord. You are basing your entire argument on that one word, and yet that word is identical in all of the situations I just mentioned. How do you know that it is to be translated worship here, and not to respectfully bow down? The fact is, you don’t. You are basing this on your own circular presuppositions that are not supported by the text, and then accusing me of blindness because I can actually think logically and without presumptive bias.

”Your vision is blurred, because you seek to worship, angels and saints.”

Negative. I think your vision is blurred because of your hard, bitter heart and small, closed mind.

“These same words I have italicized are written in the account where Jehovah appeared unto Moses in Exodus 3.”

Moses taking off his sandals is not a form of worship – it’s a sign of humility and awe. Nor does the text imply that it is only in the presence of God does ground become holy. One can easily make an argument that the Captain of the Hosts of the Lord is certainly an incredibly powerful being, one who acts intimately on behalf of God and would likely radiate God’s glory and divinity, thereby consecrating the ground he stood on. Or, one could easily argue that the mouthpiece of God – here in the form of an angel, elsewhere as a burning bush – sanctifies the ground or place around him due to the glory of God’s words and commands. Or is Jesus a bush, too?

Of course, you bring up an interesting point with the “I AM” references. If that angel is Jesus/God, why doesn’t he identify himself using God’s normal honorifics? And why is his statement so short? Very rarely in scripture is God ever known for his brevity.

”Nowhere in scripture does a mere angel ever accept worship, but here the Angel of the Lord commands worship, thereby proving His divine nature.”

Actually, this knife cuts both ways. If an angel never accepts worship, and this angel didn’t accept worship, then it could be because Joshua was not worshiping him, but bowing respectfully. And if he was bowing respectfully, it must be because this is not Jesus, but an angel.

“The Host of the Lord, which Jesus came to command was not that of angels, but the armies of children of Israel,”

Scripture please.

”So, these verses leave you with no grounds for believing angels can be worshipped.”

You’ll have to refresh my memory as to when I ever said this.

”It never ceases to amaze me the pious excuses idolaters use to excuse the things they do, contrary to the word of God.”

Hmm, I could point out quite a few things that you believe and do that are contrary to the word and will of God.

”They are used to better worship God, according to their claims, this is a lame excuse.”

Really? Whats your excuse then?

”Your understanding of this passage of scripture, springboards you into, a wresting of the scriptures to your own damnation,”

And now I remember why I was half-way glad to see you leave the forum. You can judge and condemn all you want, Petro, but all it really does is propel you deeper and deeper into sin. Or don’t you remember those verses about not judging, praying for your enemies, gently correcting a brother, etc, etc, etc? Your actions and words clearly show they have slipped your mind.

”I simply am not impressed..”

Well, a debate is only as engaging as the points presented by both sides. I can’t help it if your contentions lack any credibility or cogency.

Quote from: pnotc on June 26, 2003, 11:18:02 PM

Petro-

Welcome back! I hope your absence was not related to your recent surgeries and that you are recovering speedily.

Thanks, I am revcovering very well,
No, Actually I had family in as one of my sons, graduated from an engineering program, and spent wonderful time with them all.

Quote

“I don't have to quote commentaries,”

You can take a hint... thats good..

Quote

I cannot see it because scripture does not support it. I really don’t want to re-hash the argument,

I can understand why...

Quote

but I think its important that we recognize that both you and I are relying on English translations of a very ancient tongue. As such, we have to take into account the hermeneutics of our translations. What are the underlying principles that guided the translator? In this instance, the word that the KJV translates as “worship”, the NASB (the translation I happen to use most of the time), translates it as “bow down.” Which is actually the more literal rendition of the Hebrew word. This bowing is done in different circumstances in the OT. Sometimes it is done as a sign of respect for a superior, in others it is in idolatry and in yet others, it is a sign of worshiping the Lord. You are basing your entire argument on that one word, and yet that word is identical in all of the situations I just mentioned. How do you know that it is to be translated worship here, and not to respectfully bow down? The fact is, you don’t. You are basing this on your own circular presuppositions that are not supported by the text, and then accusing me of blindness because I can actually think logically and without presumptive bias.

Because to me the scriptures speak clearly that this was Jesus, God himself spoke to Joshua, and gave Him the Battle Plan.

And, it doesn't surprise me you cannot see this,

You shopuld take time to read the book of Deutoronomy, especially at Chapter 31 it precedes the Book of Joshua, at verse 14,

The Lord said to Moses; Behold, thy days approach that thou must die: call Joshua, and present yourselves in the tabernacle of the congregation, that I may give him a charge.

and down at verse;

23 And he gave Joshua the son of Nun a charge, and said, Be strong and of a good courage: for thou shalt bring the children of Israel into the land which I sware unto them: and I will be with thee.

Do you suppose, Joshua, was anticipating the Lord, upon entering the land??

We read at Joshua 6:2, the same Lord that gave Joshua this charge, spoke to Him, and not only set the host at the battle stattions, but delkivered the plan of attack.

Don't bring up the proskuneo vs proskynesis, issue again, it wont fly at these verses.

And inspite of your NASB, translation, that translates the word as, "Bow Down" remember the commandment??,

here let me post it again.

Ex 20
5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;

Is this the same word?

Quote

“These same words I have italicized are written in the account where Jehovah appeared unto Moses in Exodus 3.”

Moses taking off his sandals is not a form of worship – it’s a sign of humility and awe. Nor does the text imply that it is only in the presence of God does ground become holy. One can easily make an argument that the Captain of the Hosts of the Lord is certainly an incredibly powerful being, one who acts intimately on behalf of God and would likely radiate God’s glory and divinity, thereby consecrating the ground he stood on. Or, one could easily argue that the mouthpiece of God – here in the form of an angel, elsewhere as a burning bush – sanctifies the ground or place around him due to the glory of God’s words and commands. Or is Jesus a bush, too?

Of course, you bring up an interesting point with the “I AM” references. If that angel is Jesus/God, why doesn’t he identify himself using God’s normal honorifics? And why is his statement so short? Very rarely in scripture is God ever known for his brevity.

Hey you ask me?, you are the theologian, remember..

What is interesting is that when the Lord commissioned Moses to bring the nation out of Egypt, He told Moses;

Ex 3
14 ........................................, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.

I suppose you might have your own theory, but it is obvious to me, the nation had no problem accepting whom Moses spoke of when he told them who had sent him.

Is it because, they anticipated being delivered out of the house bondage by God??

Quote

”Nowhere in scripture does a mere angel ever accept worship, but here the Angel of the Lord commands worship, thereby proving His divine nature.”

Actually, this knife cuts both ways. If an angel never accepts worship, and this angel didn’t accept worship, then it could be because Joshua was not worshiping him, but bowing respectfully. And if he was bowing respectfully, it must be because this is not Jesus, but an angel.

Unfortunately, for your theory; the word makes it clear Joshua, worshipped the Angel..

Quote

“The Host of the Lord, which Jesus came to command was not that of angels, but the armies of children of Israel,”

Scripture please.

What you missed it?? Try reading Joshua 6:2-5,

The Host that encircled Jericho, is the fighting men of the nation, who are refferred to as the armies of God, whom God delivers from Egypt. Try ;

Ex 7:1-5 "mine armies, and my people the children of Israel, out of the land of Egypt by great judgments."

for this one..

Quote

”So, these verses leave you with no grounds for believing angels can be worshipped.”

You’ll have to refresh my memory as to when I ever said this.

Try your first post, where you entered in at the conversation, where the worship of angels were being discussed, at the Orthodox thread.

Quote

”It never ceases to amaze me the pious excuses idolaters use to excuse the things they do, contrary to the word of God.”

Hmm, I could point out quite a few things that you believe and do that are contrary to the word and will of God.

Please do, feel free to do it..

Quote

”They are used to better worship God, according to their claims, this is a lame excuse.”

Really? Whats your excuse then?

”Your understanding of this passage of scripture, springboards you into, a wresting of the scriptures to your own damnation,”

And now I remember why I was half-way glad to see you leave the forum. You can judge and condemn all you want, Petro, but all it really does is propel you deeper and deeper into sin. Or don’t you remember those verses about not judging, praying for your enemies, gently correcting a brother, etc, etc, etc? Your actions and words clearly show they have slipped your mind.

You are to sensitive, to someone pointing out sin to you, you should be so sensitive to Gods word.

Quote

”I simply am not impressed..”

Well, a debate is only as engaging as the points presented by both sides. I can’t help it if your contentions lack any credibility or cogency.

OK..

Blessings, Petro

“Thanks, I am revcovering very well,
No, Actually I had family in as one of my sons, graduated from an engineering program, and spent wonderful time with them all.”

I’m glad to hear your recovery is going well and congratulations to your son! What are his plans after graduation?

"I don't have to quote commentaries,
--You can take a hint... thats good..”

I’m not sure what you’re referring to here. You’re the one who posted something referring to the agreement between your view and those of many commentaries and then refused to provide a link or hardcopy reference. And now you’re stating you don’t have to quote commentaries – so my question still stands: why did you reference them in the first place?

”I can understand why...”

I don’t think you do, actually. I don’t want to re-hash it because it is quite clear you have your mind made up and aren’t willing to enter into a rational dialogue about it. Were you actually willing to listen to any one else’s arguments with respect and to give them an honest evaluation not tinged by your obvious bias, then I’d happily delve back into that discussion. As it is, I don’t have time for what is certain to be another round of misunderstandings and insults.

“Because to me the scriptures speak clearly that this was Jesus, God himself spoke to Joshua, and gave Him the Battle Plan.”

If it is truly spoken clearly by the scriptures, then there is no doubt that I should see it. Since I, and others, do not, then it is evident that this declaration is not as clear as you believe it to be. You will, of course, chalk this up to my spiritual blindness – but that too proves that it is not “clear.”

”23 And he gave Joshua the son of Nun a charge, and said, Be strong and of a good courage: for thou shalt bring the children of Israel into the land which I sware unto them: and I will be with thee.
--Do you suppose, Joshua, was anticipating the Lord, upon entering the land??”

Certainly, but it wasn’t in the form of a man!! That’s alien to the entire concept the Hebrews had of God at this point. No doubt Joshua was anticipating aid, succor and assistance, but do you honestly believe he was expecting God to show up saying “How you doing? Can I get a hand with my luggage?” And yes, God spoke to Joshua in 6:2, but he spoke to a lot of people, are we to expect it was always in the form of a man? No. People had visions, dreams, felt the leading of the Spirit, etc, etc. There is no indication that the being in chapter 5 is the same producer of the commands Joshua receives in chapter 6. In fact, the titles are different and there is no indication that the angel said anything to Joshua after telling him to take his sandals off.

But let me bring up another verse – Matt 28:20. Here, Christ tells us His disciples He will be them, always. Does that mean Christ is still here physically? Is He still walking around somewhere, helping out at soup kitchen or something? Of course not! Obviously this is figurative, metaphorical language. Christ does not mean He will be physically present any more than God meant he would be physically present with Joshua.

”Don't bring up the proskuneo vs proskynesis, issue again, it wont fly at these verses.”

Only because its in the Hebrew. Otherwise, the concepts fall right into line.

”And inspite of your NASB, translation, that translates the word as, "Bow Down" remember the commandment??,
--here let me post it again.
--Is this the same word?”

It is, and I see the point you are trying to make, but it is a frail one. I’ll let you make it though. So yes, it’s the same word. Lets hear your argument.

”I suppose you might have your own theory, but it is obvious to me, the nation had no problem accepting whom Moses spoke of when he told them who had sent him.
--Is it because, they anticipated being delivered out of the house bondage by God??”

The discussion of whether or not the people of Israel accepted Moses as being sent by God has nothing to do with whether or not the being that appeared to Joshua is Jesus! I was pointing out to you that when God has appeared to others in the OT, he was clearly identified as such, by titles like “I AM”. So I asked you, why aren’t those titles present if this is truly an appearance of the pre-incarnate Christ? Their absence does not necessarily prove either of our points, but it is an interesting facet of the argument. Other times when the preincarnate Christ appeared in the OT, those appearances were markedly different from the one we have in Joshua. In my mind, this is yet another reason to call your argument into question.

”Unfortunately, for your theory; the word makes it clear Joshua, worshipped the Angel..”

So its an angel now? And once again, what is “clear” to you is not that clear to others.

In the NIV:
14 "Neither," he replied, "but as commander of the army of the LORD I have now come." Then Joshua fell facedown to the ground in reverence, and asked him, "What message does my Lord [1] have for his servant?"

NASB
14 He said, "No; rather I indeed come now as captain of the host of the LORD." And Joshua (1) fell on his face to the earth, and bowed down, and said to him, "What has my lord to say to his servant?"

NLT
14"Neither one," he replied. "I am commander of the LORD's army."
At this, Joshua fell with his face to the ground in reverence. "I am at your command," Joshua said. "What do you want your servant to do?"

Some translations render it “worship” while others render it differently, as you’ll note above. The only thing that is truly “clear” in the discussion of this verse is that the meaning and intent of that one word is not clearly defined by the passage itself. Bowing down before kings, guests or someone you regarded as socially superior to yourself was, and still is in some parts of the world, a common practice throughout the Levant. I should hope you at least have enough integrity and honesty to admit that other people might get a different reading from this verse without being spiritually blind.

“What you missed it??”

Nope, I wanted to make sure you weren’t making more mistakes, and you are. The army of Israel is certainly a host, but it is not THE host. God has an angelic army, as well. Or was Jesus referring to a legion of Hebrews when He said he could be rescued from the cross if He but called? Obviously the Lord’s Host extends into heaven, as well, and there is little reason to think that host was not also present on the fields of Jericho.

“Try your first post, where you entered in at the conversation, where the worship of angels were being discussed, at the Orthodox thread.”

Unfortunately, your comrade-at-fundamentalism Juan deleted the original Orthodox thread, so we’ll never know exactly what I said. I am, however, quite sure that I never said angels should or could be worshipped. I have not a single doubt that you got that impression from your obvious misunderstanding of veneration vs worship.

“You are to sensitive, to someone pointing out sin to you, you should be so sensitive to Gods word.”

As should you. Many here have found your posts personally judgmental – not judging an activity or belief you see as sinful, but judging them as people and children of God. You have called us liars, hypocrites, fools and even the enemy of Christ. Somehow, that doesn’t sound like you are correcting us with love or avoiding the hypocrisy of judging us without first removing the plank from your own eye. So, physician, heal thyself!

Quote

posted by pnotc
Certainly, but it wasn’t in the form of a man!! That’s alien to the entire concept the Hebrews had of God at this point.

Quote

pnotc,

I haven't had alot of time to watch for your posts, but nevertheless, here I am answering the points s you raised which are worthy of comment.

Above, what may be foriegn to your understanding of the Hebrew nation, matters very little, we know God, commissioned and sent a man, Moses to bring them out of bondage, he was a real man, the "man" spoken of in Joshua 5:13, was not, so, your point isn't even valid.

Quote

But let me bring up another verse – Matt 28:20. Here, Christ tells us His disciples He will be them, always. Does that mean Christ is still here physically? Is He still walking around somewhere, helping out at soup kitchen or something? Of course not! Obviously this is figurative, metaphorical language. Christ does not mean He will be physically present any more than God meant he would be physically present with Joshua.

Well this is the reason why you and I are miles apart, I believe I have a personal relationship with Jesus, and since He lives within me, and empowers me by his very presence, in the spirit.

His words are the final authority, He said;

Jhn 14
16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;
17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.
18 I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you.
19 Yet a little while, and the world seeth me no more; but ye see me: because I live, ye shall live also.
20 At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you.

Are these words true to you??

Quote

The discussion of whether or not the people of Israel accepted Moses as being sent by God has nothing to do with whether or not the being that appeared to Joshua is Jesus! I was pointing out to you that when God has appeared to others in the OT, he was clearly identified as such, by titles like “I AM”. So I asked you, why aren’t those titles present if this is truly an appearance of the pre-incarnate Christ? Their absence does not necessarily prove either of our points, but it is an interesting facet of the argument. Other times when the preincarnate Christ appeared in the OT, those appearances were markedly different from the one we have in Joshua. In my mind, this is yet another reason to call your argument into question.

Jesus claimed to be the I AM of the OT, ;

Jhn 8
58 ...........Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.

Quote

“What you missed it??”

Nope, I wanted to make sure you weren’t making more mistakes, and you are. The army of Israel is certainly a host, but it is not THE host. God has an angelic army, as well. Or was Jesus referring to a legion of Hebrews when He said he could be rescued from the cross if He but called? Obviously the Lord’s Host extends into heaven, as well, and there is little reason to think that host was not also present on the fields of Jericho.

He referred to the Host of the Lord Israel in this context..you simply want to argue form the sake of arguing.

Quote

“Try your first post, where you entered in at the conversation, where the worship of angels were being discussed, at the Orthodox thread.”

Unfortunately, your comrade-at-fundamentalism Juan deleted the original Orthodox thread, so we’ll never know exactly what I said. I am, however, quite sure that I never said angels should or could be worshipped. I have not a single doubt that you got that impression from your obvious misunderstanding of veneration vs worship.

So what..you stepped in defending, the worship of angels.

Petro

Petro-

I'm sure you are quite busy posting responses to SOA on the other thread. However, I don't think you've adequately defended your foolishness on this one, so I suggest you take a little more time over here. :)

"Above, what may be foriegn to your understanding of the Hebrew nation, matters very little, we know God, commissioned and sent a man, Moses to bring them out of bondage, he was a real man, the "man" spoken of in Joshua 5:13, was not, so, your point isn't even valid."

My point is most definitely valid. You said that it was Christ who came to Joshua and gave him the battle plan. You based this on Joshua's action, the verse you cited where God told him he would be with Joshua in the promised land. You asked if Joshua did not anticipate the Lord as he entered the fray against Jericho. I agree that he did, but that he would not have expected God to take on physical form and appear to him as he did. To the Hebrews, God was not something or someone you could look at, not even something you could visualize. No God-fearing Hebrew would have ever expected God to appear in the form of a man. An angel, sure. Through the assistance of other people, definitely. But not in the form of a man, which is exactly what Joshua saw. Aside from the angel identifying himself as such, it is quite clear that Joshua viewed him as a human being.

"Well this is the reason why you and I are miles apart, I believe I have a personal relationship with Jesus, and since He lives within me, and empowers me by his very presence, in the spirit."

This is not the reason we're miles apart. I believe I have a personal relationship with Him, too. But that does not mean He is still physically present on Earth, does it? And you just validatd my point, when you said He is with you in the Spirit. That is the kind of presence Joshua would have expected.

"Jesus claimed to be the I AM of the OT,"

Yeah, I know. My point, which I'm assuming you didn't even read due to your response, was that the angel that Joshua saw was identified by a title not ascribed to God anywhere else in Scripture. Furthermore, none of the usual titles for God were mentioned, lending weight to the fact that the angel was not Jesus.

"He referred to the Host of the Lord Israel in this context..you simply want to argue form the sake of arguing."

No, I'm pointing out that the Host of the Lord is not limited to the people of Israel, as you implied.

"So what..you stepped in defending, the worship of angels"

No, I stepped in showing you why your posts were wrong.

I noticed you failed to comment on several of my points, including but not limited too:

1) The fact that you referenced commentaries, only to deny that you need to use them.
2) The fact that the verses you site aren't as "clear" as you'd like them to be.
3) The hermeneutics behind the translation of these verses.

The first one doesn't matter to me, but I'd especially like a response to the latter two.

Quote from: pnotc on July 01, 2003, 09:08:45 PM

Petro-

My point is most definitely valid.

For you it may be. To me it is not.

Quote

You said that it was Christ who came to Joshua and gave him the battle plan.

Yes I did say it. Verse 2 of Cahpter 6, is where it occurred., Notice the verse;

And the LORD said unto Joshua, See, I have given into thine hand Jericho, and the king thereof, and the mighty men of valour.

You just assume, this is someone else.

Quote

You based this on Joshua's action, the verse you cited where God told him he would be with Joshua in the promised land. You asked if Joshua did not anticipate the Lord as he entered the fray against Jericho. I agree that he did, but that he would not have expected God to take on physical form and appear to him as he did.

So, this is your opinion, I have given you mine, with references.

Joshua, was there when the Lord fought for the nation at the crossing of the Red Sea, I think you limit Joshua, and assume he thought the way you do. I think not.

Quote

To the Hebrews, God was not something or someone you could look at, not even something you could visualize. No God-fearing Hebrew would have ever expected God to appear in the form of a man.

You might try reading Ex 33, and while your are at it, pay particular attention to verse 11, you will even see Joshua, present, I say perhaps within ear shot, of God speaking to Moses.

So, I simply reject your presumption, that all Hebrews ever expected God to appear in the form of man.

And then you have the Passage at Ex 18, where the Lord appeared to Abraham, and please don't tell me, Abraham, didn't know it was the Lord, look at verse 25, Abraham knew he was speaking to the "Judge of all thre earth."

So your presupposition is all it is, and it is based on how you view the truth.

Quote

"Well this is the reason why you and I are miles apart, I believe I have a personal relationship with Jesus, and since He lives within me, and empowers me by his very presence, in the spirit."

This is not the reason we're miles apart. I believe I have a personal relationship with Him, too. But that does not mean He is still physically present on Earth, does it? And you just validatd my point, when you said He is with you in the Spirit. That is the kind of presence Joshua would have expected.

We are miles apart, friend, you take liberties with scripture, I do not.

Quote

"Jesus claimed to be the I AM of the OT,"

Yeah, I know. My point, which I'm assuming you didn't even read due to your response, was that the angel that Joshua saw was identified by a title not ascribed to God anywhere else in Scripture. Furthermore, none of the usual titles for God were mentioned, lending weight to the fact that the angel was not Jesus.

You were complaining in your last post, when I used the word angel, now you are using it. It wasn't an angel, it was a man, has been your premise from the begining, are you saying it is an angel now??

Quote

"He referred to the Host of the Lord Israel in this context..you simply want to argue form the sake of arguing."

No, I'm pointing out that the Host of the Lord is not limited to the people of Israel, as you implied.

I never said anything that would contradict, what you stated, the Host in view here, is the Armies of Israel.

Quote

"So what..you stepped in defending, the worship of angels"

No, I stepped in showing you why your posts were wrong.

Well, this is the point you brought up, to beef up the argument put forth up, that indeed men, in the OT, worshipped angels.

And by the way, I think it is a cop out, to declare yourself a consicienctious objecter while in the middle of your contract with the military, A man who volunteers to serve his country, ought to serve the time he agreed to, you could have changed your duties, perhaps to that of chaplains assistance.

I served my country, as an infantryman in Vietnam, and willing would have given my all, for people like you, I suppose you your change of heart is do to your secular liberal studies, I'm telling you, Christians need to reject, liberal humanistic philosophies, they have a way of undermining the word of God in people.

Quote

I noticed you failed to comment on several of my points, including but not limited too:

1) The fact that you referenced commentaries, only to deny that you need to use them.
2) The fact that the verses you site aren't as "clear" as you'd like them to be.
3) The hermeneutics behind the translation of these verses.

The first one doesn't matter to me, but I'd especially like a response to the latter two.

I answer what I decide to answer not, what I am compelled to for the sake of argument.

Petro

Quote

“For you it may be. To me it is not.”

That’s ok, I find most your points irrelevant as well.

“Yes I did say it. Verse 2 of Cahpter 6, is where it occurred., Notice the verse;
--And the LORD said unto Joshua, See, I have given into thine hand Jericho, and the king thereof, and the mighty men of valour.
You just assume, this is someone else.”

And you just assume that this is the same being that spoke to Joshua in chapter 5. And you just assume that being was a pre-incarnate Christ, despite the many indications that this is not the case. You base that assumption on just assuming that the KJV has the correct translation and assume that there is no need to even acknowledge that other translations render it differently.

”So, this is your opinion, I have given you mine, with references.”

Finally you at least admit it is your opinion! I will count that as a victory in and of itself.

”Joshua, was there when the Lord fought for the nation at the crossing of the Red Sea, I think you limit Joshua, and assume he thought the way you do. I think not.”

How am I limiting Joshua? When the Lord “fought for the nation”, did he do it in the form of a man? Did he take on a human shape and part the sea?

“You might try reading Ex 33, and while your are at it, pay particular attention to verse 11, you will even see Joshua, present, I say perhaps within ear shot, of God speaking to Moses.”

Perhaps within ear shot of Moses, and perhaps not. Are you really stating that God has a face in this verse and that Moses saw it? And I’ll direct your attention to verse 2:

And I will send an angel before thee; and I will drive out the Canaanite, the Amorite, and the Hittite, and the Perizzite, the Hivite, and the Jebusite

Surely you see the relevance to our discussion…

“So, I simply reject your presumption, that all Hebrews ever expected God to appear in the form of man.”

Aside from the verse in Joshua which is under contention, show me the other times that God appeared to them, on earth, in human form. Exodus 33:11 says that Moses and God spoke face to face, as a man speaks to his friend. It is easy to assert that this is a figurative statement that demonstrates their spiritual closeness, or the love with God displayed for Moses. But I would love to see other times that God appeared to people, on earth, in human form.

”And then you have the Passage at Ex 18, where the Lord appeared to Abraham, and please don't tell me, Abraham, didn't know it was the Lord, look at verse 25, Abraham knew he was speaking to the "Judge of all thre earth."”

I think you will regret bringing this chapter up. Kindly direct your attention to verse 7:

And Moses went out to meet his father in law, and did obeisance, and kissed him; and they asked each other of [their] welfare; and they came into the tent.

Now, I know without saying you know exactly what word “obeisance” is translated from. Yup, “schachah.” So, was Moses worshipping Jethro? Or might he have been honoring him with a great degree of respect? Hmmmmmmm… Oh, I think you have the wrong chapter. Exodus 18:25 has nothing to do with what you said.

“We are miles apart, friend, you take liberties with scripture, I do not.”

Yeah, right. Tell me, what does 2 Peter 3:9 mean? Does it actually mean that God is willing for no one, not one single person to perish, as the verse plainly states? Or does it mean something else? Something more in line with your Calvinist beliefs?

“You were complaining in your last post, when I used the word angel, now you are using it. It wasn't an angel, it was a man, has been your premise from the begining, are you saying it is an angel now??”

My premise has been that it was an angel from the original post back on the Orthodoxy thread! Now I know you haven’t understood any of my arguments. No wonder your arguments aren’t making sense.

“I never said anything that would contradict, what you stated, the Host in view here, is the Armies of Israel.”

You stated it was the humans of Israel only. Tell me, were there no angels present at all?

”Well, this is the point you brought up, to beef up the argument put forth up, that indeed men, in the OT, worshipped angels.”

No. Others were using it to demonstrate the difference between veneration and worship, a distinction clearly beyond your understanding. You attempted to discount their argument by stating this angel was Jesus, when, in fact, it wasn’t.

”I answer what I decide to answer not, what I am compelled to for the sake of argument.”

My points aren’t there for the sake of argument. They are there because they show the holes in your argument. Come on, I dare you. Give ‘em a try.

”And by the way, I think it is a cop out, to declare yourself a consicienctious objecter while in the middle of your contract with the military, A man who volunteers to serve his country, ought to serve the time he agreed to, you could have changed your duties, perhaps to that of chaplains assistance.
--I served my country, as an infantryman in Vietnam, and willing would have given my all, for people like you, I suppose you your change of heart is do to your secular liberal studies, I'm telling you, Christians need to reject, liberal humanistic philosophies, they have a way of undermining the word of God in people.”

How did I know you would not fail to comment on this! I wish I had put a bet on it. First, your psychic powers have failed you yet again. I’m not in the middle of my contract, I’m at the end of it. And I’ve already served the time I agreed to. No, I could not have changed my duties. One, I’m in intelligence and my unit is an intel unit. They will not pay to make me a medic (a chaplain’s assistant is still armed, by the way) since my unit has no slots for a medic. Additionally, since I’m at the end of my contract, no other unit will pay to re-train me, since I would likely get out immediately upon exiting training. Especially since medic training lasts about a year. By then, I’ll be way over my contract date.

No, my change of heart was not due to my “secular liberal studies.” It was due to my biblical studies. As a Calvinist, I can understand why this does not make sense to you, so I will not attempt to explain it beyond that. My decision was a calling, not from liberal humanistic philosophies, but from God. I’m sure you’ll quickly rebut that I’m wrong, but I really don’t think you’re qualified to comment on what God may or may not do. If you really want to get into a debate on Christian participation in war and violence, I’ll oblige you, but only after we’ve finished up this thread. I simply don’t have the time to be juggling two debates at once right now.

Quote

posted by pnotc as reply #67

"You might try reading Ex 33, and while your are at it, pay particular attention to verse 11, you will even see Joshua, present, I say perhaps within ear shot, of God speaking to Moses."

Perhaps within ear shot of Moses, and perhaps not. Are you really stating that God has a face in this verse and that Moses saw it? And I'll direct your attention to verse 2:

And I will send an angel before thee; and I will drive out the Canaanite, the Amorite, and the Hittite, and the Perizzite, the Hivite, and the Jebusite

Surely you see the relevance to our discussion…

So, are you saying this man was an angel?? And NOT the Angel of the Lord??

Quote

"So, I simply reject your presumption, that all Hebrews ever expected God to appear in the form of man."

Aside from the verse in Joshua which is under contention, show me the other times that God appeared to them, on earth, in human form. Exodus 33:11 says that Moses and God spoke face to face, as a man speaks to his friend. It is easy to assert that this is a figurative statement that demonstrates their spiritual closeness, or the love with God displayed for Moses. But I would love to see other times that God appeared to people, on earth, in human form.

"And then you have the Passage at Ex 18, where the Lord appeared to Abraham, and please don't tell me, Abraham, didn't know it was the Lord, look at verse 25, Abraham knew he was speaking to the "Judge of all thre earth.""

I meant Gen 18, God appeared to Abraham on the plains of Mamre; Abraham knew it was the Lord, the judge of all the earth. vs's 21-25.

Quote

I think you will regret bringing this chapter up. Kindly direct your attention to verse 7:

And Moses went out to meet his father in law, and did obeisance, and kissed him; and they asked each other of [their] welfare; and they came into the tent.

Now, I know without saying you know exactly what word "obeisance" is translated from. Yup, "schachah." So, was Moses worshipping Jethro? Or might he have been honoring him with a great degree of respect? Hmmmmmmm… Oh, I think you have the wrong chapter. Exodus 18:25 has nothing to do with what you said.

Only you would believe Moses worshipped his father n law.

Notice worship is one of the meanings of the word "shachah" it probaly meant prosterated himself, not full blown worship.
I wouldn't press it to mean, what you by necessity, need it to mean. And even it if meant Worship;

The law was given, at Ex 20, and where there is no law, there is no, trangression (Rom 4:15), I doubt Moses, ever worshipped his father n law as he did God. Prosterated himself before Jethro, perhaps, I don't worry about Moses, since the NT, gives a good testimony of Him.(Heb 3:5) he was faithfull to God.

"

Quote

We are miles apart, friend, you take liberties with scripture, I do not."

Yeah, right. Tell me, what does 2 Peter 3:9 mean? Does it actually mean that God is willing for no one, not one single person to perish, as the verse plainly states? Or does it mean something else? Something more in line with your Calvinist beliefs?

It means what it says.

Quote

"You were complaining in your last post, when I used the word angel, now you are using it. It wasn't an angel, it was a man, has been your premise from the begining, are you saying it is an angel now??"

My premise has been that it was an angel from the original post back on the Orthodoxy thread! Now I know you haven't understood any of my arguments. No wonder your arguments aren't making sense.

Well now.. perhaps Now, you remember what you have been trying to prove from the begining that men worshipped angels. So you can be justified in worshipping saints.. right.??.

Quote

"I never said anything that would contradict, what you stated, the Host in view here, is the Armies of Israel."

You stated it was the humans of Israel only.

You simply assumed, I, was refering to the human army, ONLY which was present, I simply stated the Armies of Israel. At this point and time, the generation which had finally died off, after 40 years of wondering was the one which God swore by his name they would not enter into the land because of unbelief. The nation which was about to enter in and possess the land, was not a cursed generation.

Quote

"Well, this is the point you brought up, to beef up the argument put forth up, that indeed men, in the OT, worshipped angels."

No. Others were using it to demonstrate the difference between veneration and worship, a distinction clearly beyond your understanding. You attempted to discount their argument by stating this angel was Jesus, when, in fact, it wasn't.

So you say. What makes you think I should take your word for it, I have Gods word, and it speaks for itself, to me.
After all you are wrong in praying to dead saints, for intercession, contrary to the command, if your in error there, you are off here also.

Quote

"I answer what I decide to answer not, what I am compelled to for the sake of argument."

My points aren't there for the sake of argument. They are there because they show the holes in your argument. Come on, I dare you. Give 'em a try.

You dare me?, aw.. come on.. no double are??

The holes you refer to, are between your ears, you simply want to be contentious.

Quote

"And by the way, I think it is a cop out, to declare yourself a consicienctious objecter while in the middle of your contract with the military, A man who volunteers to serve his country, ought to serve the time he agreed to, you could have changed your duties, perhaps to that of chaplains assistance.
--I served my country, as an infantryman in Vietnam, and willing would have given my all, for people like you, I suppose you your change of heart is do to your secular liberal studies, I'm telling you, Christians need to reject, liberal humanistic philosophies, they have a way of undermining the word of God in people."

Quote

How did I know you would not fail to comment on this! I wish I had put a bet on it. First, your psychic powers have failed you yet again. I'm not in the middle of my contract, I'm at the end of it. And I've already served the time I agreed to.

Friend, I served in SI at the division level, Intelligence falls under S2, S3 Operations, and so, on, you can deceive, some people some of the time, but you can't deceive all of the people all of the time, if you were at the end of your contract, there is not need to submit, Conscientious Objector Status application, part of your previous agreement would authorize the government to extend your contract for a specific period of time, if their is a national interest to do so, if you hold such an important position, which requires your services, you have an obligation to serve your country in its time of need.

God today, seeks faithful men, faithfulness begins by honest men keeping commitments they make, to honor their word; and,

to use, service to God as an excuse to bail out, after having taken advantage of all the country gave you, does not honor God.

Of course this is my humble opinion, as I am from the Old School, where a man's word defined who he is.

You sound as if you don't see things this way, are new from the new school??

And furthermore, it isn't as if, you came to know God recently and came to the realization your are supposed to be agai because now you are a chirstian isn' supposed to be involved in violence (as SOA, says) the nation didn't become godless after you the joined the service to obtain benefits; by your own testimony, you are a practically a man of the cloth, the godlessness of the nation should not be a surprise you, causing you to run for your life this late in the game.

Blessings,

Petro

“So, are you saying this man was an angel?? And NOT the Angel of the Lord??”

That’s what I’ve been saying all along! Holy crow, have you not been reading my posts?! I have said from the get-go that the being Joshua sees with a drawn sword in his hand is an angel. In all likelihood, an incredibly powerful angel, but an angel nonetheless. How have you missed that?

“Only you would believe Moses worshipped his father n law.
--Notice worship is one of the meanings of the word "shachah" it probaly meant prosterated himself, not full blown worship.
--I wouldn't press it to mean, what you by necessity, need it to mean. And even it if meant Worship;”

For the sake of clarity, I’ll break it down for you, nice and simple. In the Orthodox thread, you stated there was no biblical example of veneration of a saint, angel, etc. The Orthodox referenced Joshua 5 to disprove that claim, stating Joshua venerated an angel. You claimed that Joshua worshipped Jesus. When I entered the debate, I disagreed with you on two points. One, this was not Jesus, and two, it was not worship. I have stated, repeatedly, that Joshua was bowing before that angel out of a great deal of respect. Hence, he was not worshipping the angel, but venerating him, holding him in high regard, honoring him. Which is the exact same thing that Moses did to his father-in-law. He bowed before him, the same bow that Joshua made, out of respect and honor. You’ve stated that schachah means worship. Well, here in Exodus, we have an example where it does not. Here we have an example where the non-worship definition of the word is employed. I pointed it out to show you the alternate meaning, the meaning I believe Joshua actually employs. This will likely not persuade you of your point, but here you cannot deny that a word, with a distinctly religious overtone, is used in a relationship between two people. Could this be a biblical example of veneration?!

Yeah, right. Tell me, what does 2 Peter 3:9 mean? Does it actually mean that God is willing for no one, not one single person to perish, as the verse plainly states? Or does it mean something else? Something more in line with your Calvinist beliefs?
--It means what it says.”

So then why do some perish? If its up to God who gets saved and who perishes, how can God desire that none should perish and yet send many to hell?

Quote:

"Well, this is the point you brought up, to beef up the argument put forth up, that indeed men, in the OT, worshipped angels."

No. Others were using it to demonstrate the difference between veneration and worship, a distinction clearly beyond your understanding. You attempted to discount their argument by stating this angel was Jesus, when, in fact, it wasn't.

"So you say. What makes you think I should take your word for it, I have Gods word, and it speaks for itself, to me."

Really? It speaks for itself to me, also. And my position is at least logically consistent and doesn’t do violence to scripture.

“The holes you refer to, are between your ears, you simply want to be contentious.”

And isn’t that statement by itself completely contentious? You’re the one who frequently resorts to insults and petty innuendos. That seems much more contentious to me.

”Friend, I served in SI at the division level, Intelligence falls under S2, S3 Operations, and so, on,”

Division? Really? Wow, I’m impressed. Except that I’ve served at the tactical level and the MACOM level. But thanks for the lesson on military organization.

“if you were at the end of your contract, there is not need to submit, Conscientious Objector Status application, part of your previous agreement would authorize the government to extend your contract for a specific period of time, if their is a national interest to do so, if you hold such an important position, which requires your services, you have an obligation to serve your country in its time of need.”

When I submitted it, I was under an indefinite stop-loss order. That has since been changed to a year past my ETS, which will put me out by November. So actually, if I didn’t want to go take part in the murder of a bunch of innocent people at some point, I had to submit my application. My MOS, along with about 13 others, was stop-lossed immediately after 9/11. Intelligence is certainly important, but no one from my unit has been deployed so far in support of combat operations, so I’m really not weakening the US any. And the funny thing is, I feel like I’ve got more of an obligation to follow God’s call then my country.

”God today, seeks faithful men, faithfulness begins by honest men keeping commitments they make, to honor their word; and, to use, service to God as an excuse to bail out, after having taken advantage of all the country gave you, does not honor God.”

Well, I guess we’ll just have to disagree. I would have to say that God seeks faithful men who will be faithful to him and his call. Tell me, should Paul have continued persecuting the Christians, even if he had made a commitment to do so for a certain period of time? And yes, the country has given me a lot, but I would have to say that the three deployments I’ve done in the last few years has fulfilled my obligation to the Army, seeing as most reservists never get deployed once.

”Of course this is my humble opinion, as I am from the Old School, where a man's word defined who he is. You sound as if you don't see things this way, are new from the new school??”

Yup, you certainly do sound old school – seeking the praise and honor of men. I don’t think I’m new school, but its obvious we had different classrooms. See, to me, my relationship with God defines who I am, and my obedience to his call in my life, is much, much more important than my word. But wait a minute – weren’t you confirmed and raised in the Catholic Church? How can you now be a Protestant? Isn’t that violating a commitment you made? I’m sure at some point you stated you believed in the teachings of the church and would submit to its authority. Why did you go back on your word?

”And furthermore, it isn't as if, you came to know God recently and came to the realization your are supposed to be agai because now you are a chirstian isn' supposed to be involved in violence (as SOA, says) the nation didn't become godless after you the joined the service to obtain benefits; by your own testimony, you are a practically a man of the cloth, the godlessness of the nation should not be a surprise you, causing you to run for your life this late in the game.”

So now you admit that I know God? Wow, that’s quite a step up from heathen heretic! Let’s use the Catholic Church again – why did you leave? Probably because you became convicted of its error – correct? I, too became convinced of my own error. Personally, I take it as a mark of manhood to be able to admit my mistakes and to pursue the truth and righteousness. No, the nation didn’t become godless, but my eyes were opened to some things. Without going into too much detail: I worked in a MACOM level intel center, where we had access to a great deal of information, not everything our government knew, but quite a bit. Lets just say, and this was before I became a pacifist, I did not agree with the decision to go to war with Iraq, primarily because I didn’t see the evidence. Which is now, thankfully, coming to light. So, in my eyes, the nation was headed towards war for a political motive, not because we were actually threatened. How could I honor that? How could I support that?

And no, I didn’t join the service for the benefits. You actually don’t get too much in the Reserves. And no, I’m not “running for my life,” – I’m following my conscience. I’m in intel, not a grunt – the likelihood of my actually seeing combat are slim to none. The likelihood of the analysis I provide leading to someone’s death is actually quite high in a war-time situation, and that is not something I could do with a clear conscience.

Petro-

I don't much care about your book or my status in it. I do, however, see that once again you have failed to answer many of my questions. Its very telling how you refuse answer the points that undermine your argument. Perhaps because your argument is without merit to begin with?

And yes, the likelihood that my analysis would lead to someone's death has always been there. But exactly what that means and precisely what war did to a nation and a people was never made clear to me until I did my tour in Bosnia. There I saw the long-term effects of war, the terrible spiritual, physical and economic impact. And I found myself unable to participate in such a horrible activity. Just so I have it clear - the experiences we have and the things we see should never have any impact on us? We should never change or seek a different path? Because that is exactly what you are saying. You are saying that once I became a Christian, I should never experience any kind of growth or change.

Also, I've never been a Calvinist. Not ever once even came close to that horrible doctrine that makes God the author of sin. If Methodists are Calvinists, that was never really made clear in my 3rd grade Sunday school class.

"So, what you never objected to while believing in eternal security, now you conscienciouly object to, without so much as giving the commandment and second thought.."

As I stated before, a Calvinist can never understand pacifism. It makes no sense, since it views every human as inherently evil and worthless. If they are, whats the problem with killing them? Furthermore, God's already picked who's going to heaven and who's going to hell, so killing someone isn't going to affect their eternal condition any. If they're elect, you'll see them in heaven and have a good laugh about putting a round in their head. If they're condemned, well, what else do they deserve, those sinful bastards? Eternal security really doesn't factor into it - irresistible grace is what makes pacifism incomprehensible to Calvinism. And I'm really not sure what commandment you are referring to and how exactly it relates to your points. I'm relativley certain, however, that you will not answer that question as you've so artfully dodged my other inquiries.

Quote from: pnotc on July 05, 2003, 02:29:29 PM

pnotc,

Ohh..........

To point out how dishonest you really are, you said you attended a non denominational church and you even held teaching positions there, if I recall.

During your attendance there, did you confess these thoughts, you have revealed herein, that is to say about, not believing in eternal security, or where you ignorant of the statement of faith this fellowship ascribed to;

Don't you think the parents would have been, interested in knowing about your personal feelings about such an ungodly doctrine, most all non denominational churches hold to; more likely, you never expressed these horrible feeelings about Calvinism, while you taught sunday school. Uhh..

This is the epitamy of decit, to withold your repugnant feelings towards doctrines, these parent wanted their children to know, learn, and understand.

Somehow I've come see you as a deceitful person.

It is useless to ask any questions, since I see plainly that your motive is to deny what the truth of scripture teaches, to further your own Orthodox leanings.

I am amamzed, you and SOA, do not recognize, that you are supposed to believe in the Semi-Pelegian doctrine, embraced by Orthodoxy at the Council of Orange (529), I assumed you guys knew this, SoA, even denies it, while admiting there are serious questionable tenets, ascribed to it.

It might also, surprise you that it was at this council, the Augustianian views on faith and grace were also embraced, for show, I am sure...

Petro

Petro-

Your ignorance and arrogance are just astounding! Yes, I attended a non-denominational church and I led college aged and senior high Bible studies. But that church has never even come close to accepting any of your Calvinist garbage! So how am I being dishonest in denying its tenets? Why should I have divulged to the parents of the youth I taught that I didn't buy into Calvinism's lies, when they didn't believe it either? Are you really so ignorant as to think that every non-denominational church believes as your church does? The church I attended was affiliated with the Church of God out of Anderson, IN, which falls distinctly into more a Wesleyan-Arminian perspective. Furthermore, my church wasn't in full agreement with the Church of God's position on many pietistic issues. Look it up for yourself and see how far off your beliefs about me really are.

"This is the epitamy of decit, to withold your repugnant feelings towards doctrines, these parent wanted their children to know, learn, and understand."

Really? Then I guess the youth pastor, senior pastor, worship arts pastor, children's education pastor, small groups pastor and every other volunteer and leader at my church had best quit. The epitome (get a spell checker!) of deceit? Hardly! No one wanted their children to know, learn and understand those doctrines: the parents didn't believe that nonsense themselves.

As for your statements on exactly what councils did or did not teach, you'll excuse me if I call into question your ability to accurately interpret their pronouncements, since you obvsiously rush to judgment in areas where you are completely devoid of knowledge.

For your research, here is the Church of God website:
www.chog.org

And my former church's site:
www.mountainpark.org (but the link appears to be down right now)

Take a look for yourself. I won't hold my breath on an apology.

Quote from: pnotc on July 06, 2003, 08:42:37 PM

pnotch,

You said non-denominational, if you would have said, Weslyan, or Methodist, with another name, then we would have understood.

There are churches today who hold the name Chruch of God, which have roots in Mormonism, just as the Catholic chruch has churches, which have Christian Charismatic Fellowships, or Assembly of God churches with names like Christian Centers.

These try to pass off as non-denominational, but their theology, make them denominational..

So, you should have used more precise words.

Petro

From a sermon by an Orthodox priest (presbyter)

Glory to Jesus Christ! Glory forever!
Once again, the Lord has blessed us to join with one another and with Orthodox Christians throughout the world in celebrating the Sunday of the Triumph of Orthodoxy-the triumph of the True Faith. Historically, the feast of the Church's triumph over the iconoclasts coincides with the first Sunday of Great Lent. And so, for over a thousand years, Orthodox Christians have gathered on this day to proclaim, with one voice, the relationship between the veneration of the holy icons and the Church's teaching on the incarnation of the Son of God. On this day the Church draws our attention to the icon as a vital witness to the fundamental Christian teaching that God became man and has united Himself to us so that the human person might be lifted up and united with God.

Today's celebration reminds us that, by becoming man, the Son of God descends to us so we might ascend with Him into the Glory of His Kingdom. Through His incarnation by the Holy Spirit in the most-pure womb of the Virgin Mary, the invisible and uncontainable Son of the Father has become visible and therefore can be depicted by artistic means. Consequently, in the lines and colors of all the sacred icons-of Christ, of the Theotokos, or of the saints-we behold the image of a transfigured person who in turn reveals the face of Jesus Christ. Every icon whether of a man or woman, depicts the incarnate Savior who is the perfect "image of the invisible God" (Col. 1:15).

The feast of the Triumph of Orthodoxy-the feast of the icon-has its origins in a long-drawn-out theological controversy that spanned the 8th and 9th centuries. But this controversy was not limited to theologians or scholars, to their classrooms or meeting halls. Indeed, the controversy concerning the veneration of icons affected all classes of individuals and threatened the very unity of the Church. The defenders of the Orthodox Faith understood that iconoclasm-the teachings of those who opposed the making and veneration of icons-was a movement that aggressively sought to limit and ultimately overthrow the very mission and purpose of the Church by redefining and distorting our understanding of Christ as "the Word made flesh." Saint Nicephorus of Constantinople, one of the great defenders of the icon during the second wave of iconoclasm, regarded the rejection of the sacred image as a rejection of the Church's Orthodox teaching on the incarnation itself. In this venerable patriarch of Constantinople, the double rejection of image and incarnation expressed a violent infidelity to the will of the Father and the activity of the Holy Spirit. In clear and simple terms he tells his opponents that because of the attack against the icon, because of a misinterpretation of the Church's teaching concerning the incarnation, "the good will of the Father has remained without result; the cooperation of the Spirit has been ineffective; and the apostolic preaching has been quenched."

Celebrating the victory of the icon we celebrate the victory of Christ's incarnation, death and resurrection over the powers of sin and mortality. The Church is the new creation. It is the living and glorified body of Christ. The Church is the pillar and ground of truth (1 Tim 3:15) by which all are called to be "saved and to come to the knowledge of the Truth" (1 Tim 2:4).

Elizabeth

“You said non-denominational, if you would have said, Weslyan, or Methodist, with another name, then we would have understood.”

Mountain Park is a non-denominational church. They are not part of a denomination. The Church of God (Anderson) does not regard itself as a denomination and, in fact, purposely refuses to adopt a doctrinal statement for that very reason. They do not exercise control over their local churches – they are a resource and fellowship connection, not a denomination. I’m not sure who “we” are, but it is clear that you leapt to your own conclusions based on your own assumptions.

”These try to pass off as non-denominational, but their theology, make them denominational..”

If holding to Wesleyan-Arminian theology makes Church of God “denominational”, then holding to Calvinist theology makes your church just as denominated, and you’re just as “deceptive” as you accuse me of being.

”So, you should have used more precise words.”

This is rich! You leap to false conclusions based on your own presuppositions, and its my fault?! I’m almost speechless at the egotism present in the remark. But then again, I’ve been subject to your posts for some time now, so I’m kind of used to it. Let me ask you something, though. Given my obvious disdain and abhorrence of Calvinist theology, does it really make sense that I would attend a church that taught and believed it? Clearly it doesn’t. So why would you come to that conclusion in the first place? I have a feeling I know the answer, but I’m hoping its not true.

One thing, though, that really strikes me as very funny is the fact that you spend an entire post railing at me for being “deceptive” and don’t even apologize to me when it turns out you were entirely and utterly wrong. As much as I disagree with you on so many issues, I would at least apologize to you if I had done the same thing. In fact, I think just about anyone else on this forum would have proffered up some kind of mea culpa, without trying to blame me for their misreading. So why haven’t you?

Did you delete a post? Or was that on the other thread? I'm responding to it here if it was on the other thread.

”Are you likening yourself to a two year old child still, pooping whereever it please you??”

Is it too difficult a question for you? Are you really having that hard a time answering what I thought was a very straightforward question? So come on, be brave, answer the question. What would you do?

Since your having a problem with it, let me lay out a little story, just to avoid any confusion. I call it “Petro has a kid.”

Petro gets married, and gets his wife pregnant. 9 months later, she has a beautiful baby (insert gender here). A few days later, Petro and Mrs. Petro take little (insert baby’s name) home. Later, exactly 2 weeks to the minute after little baby (insert name) was born, Petro lays him/her on the floor in the living room. The baby is not wearing a diaper. Now, Petro looks little (insert name) square in the eye and states in no uncertain terms that he does not want the baby to poop on the floor. He states it several times and even goes so far as to say he hates poop on the floor so much that he cannot even stand to look at it. Petro leaves the room to go fix a sandwich or something. He comes back a few minutes later, and the baby, contrary to his express and explicit wishes, has pooped on the floor. Petro is left with a variety of options in dealing with this mess, so he…

This is where you finish the story Petro – what do you do?

”You said, You were 33 years old bible school graduate, as I recall, by know you ought to be a teacher (remember you taught bible to high school and college aged young people)”

Actually, I never said anything even remotely resembling the first part. I’m 25 and a graduate from a “secular liberal humanist” school, remember? And yes, I’ve taught high school and college Bible studies.

”and yet from what you would teach herein, it appears you need to be taught the first principles of of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk.”

Its interesting how Calvinism contains the first principles of the oracles of God when it wasn’t formulated until 15 or so centuries after Christ walked this Earth. Its interesting how no church father before or since Augustine believed it, and how everyone, including those who lived and worked with Paul and the rest of the apostles, got it all completely wrong from the get-go. See, the fact is, the tenets of Calvinism don’t hold up to historical scrutiny. If it was true, and part of a “reformation”, one would expect to see that at some very early point, the teachings of the church matched it. At some later point those teachings would have changed, only to be rediscovered and re-implemented by Calvin and his antecessors. However, that’s not the case. Aside from the aberration of Augustine, no one believed or taught as you do in church history. The churches the disciples and apostles planted didn’t believe it, the church that spread throughout the world didn’t teach it – so how can it contain the first principles when it is clearly an innovation?

“..and are become such as have need of…a spell checker and a grammar guide…” ::)

”This is evidenced by your wanderings, from the Wesleyan (non-denominational camp) to nearly the opposite end of the spectrum of mans version of christondom, Orhtodoxy, because of every wind of doctrine, that catches yopur fancy.”

I said Mountain Park had more in common with Wesleyan-Arminianism, not that believed or taught exactly that. But I would hardly call Orthodoxy the opposite end of the spectrum – at least not as it relates to the economy of salvation. There are differences, to be sure, but they do have some pretty good parallels in that area.

”You have to admit you have gone a long way, from praying directly to God, through Jesus, to praying to God, through dead saints, which can't hear...............you, anyhow.”

Why the extended ellipsis at the end of so many of your sentences? You do it so often, I just have to ask. Also, you have to admit you, too, have gone a long way, from Catholicism to an innovation with no historical or biblical merit………………anyhow.

And actually, in my Bible study the last few days, I’ve come across some verses that are very relevant to this particular discussion. Unfortunately, I have my Intro to Orthodoxy class tonight, so I’ll have to post them tomorrow.

ChristiansUnite Forums

Theology => General Theology => Topic started by: joelkaki on April 12, 2003, 10:22:37 PM