A simple question, really.

[REBoyce]

... And please, leave the vitriol out of the post.

Thanks!

Now that right there is funny! 

Unless you were serious.  ??? 




















Okay, it's funny again!  ;D

I was.

It's easy, in our flesh, to be a butthole. Doesn't jive too well with John 13:35, though.

 

[REBoyce]

CU, what specifically are you wanting me to answer? And please, leave the vitriol out of the post. I doubt you would act like this if we were chatting over coffee. And also, please make it a question or two. Conversations get muddled when there are multiple issues to explore.

Thanks!

Do you believe in Irresistible Grace and how does this "fit" with your previous statement of

"No biblical Calvinist would every affirm that God forces anyone into a relationship- be it with Him or Satan. "

Well, really it depends on whether or not my understanding of irresistible grace is the same as yours. Too often online and in person we tend to share vocabularies and yet have radically different dictionaries.

For clarity's sake, I'll paste an excerpt from John Piper:

More specifically irresistible grace refers to the sovereign work of God to overcome the rebellion of our heart and bring us to faith in Christ so that we can be saved. If our doctrine of total depravity is true, there can be no salvation without the reality of irresistible grace. If we are dead in our sins, totally unable to submit to God, then we will never believe in Christ unless God overcomes our rebellion.
 
So to answer the first part of your question, I do indeed affirm the doctrine of irresistible grace insofar as it is "the sovereign work of God to overcome the rebellion of our heart and bring us to faith in Christ so that we can be saved."

Now the second part of your question would be how this affirmation fits with my claims that "no biblical Calvinist would every affirm that God forces anyone into a relationship- be it with Him or Satan."

The reconciliation between the two comments is simple: God overcomes our depravity, rebellion, and continued resistance by removing from us our heart of stone and giving us a heart of flesh. This is central to the New Covenant, per Ez. 36.

The nature of a regenerate person is faith, repentance, contrition, etc. We now want a relationship with God. And because we want it, it's not coerced. Likewise, the unregenerate is condemned for the sinfulness because, though they were indeed slaves to sin, they sought it out. There was no forcing. Both the believer and unbeliever act volitionally in accordance to their nature.

I suppose you could say "God forced me to love him by granting me spiritual life," but if those are the semantic games we want to play, than God "forced" anything that's ever happened, simply because He created it all.

I hope this answers your question!

 

[christundivided]

CU, what specifically are you wanting me to answer? And please, leave the vitriol out of the post. I doubt you would act like this if we were chatting over coffee. And also, please make it a question or two. Conversations get muddled when there are multiple issues to explore.

Thanks!

Do you believe in Irresistible Grace and how does this "fit" with your previous statement of

"No biblical Calvinist would every affirm that God forces anyone into a relationship- be it with Him or Satan. "

Well, really it depends on whether or not my understanding of irresistible grace is the same as yours. Too often online and in person we tend to share vocabularies and yet have radically different dictionaries.

For clarity's sake, I'll paste an excerpt from John Piper:

More specifically irresistible grace refers to the sovereign work of God to overcome the rebellion of our heart and bring us to faith in Christ so that we can be saved. If our doctrine of total depravity is true, there can be no salvation without the reality of irresistible grace. If we are dead in our sins, totally unable to submit to God, then we will never believe in Christ unless God overcomes our rebellion.
 
So to answer the first part of your question, I do indeed affirm the doctrine of irresistible grace insofar as it is "the sovereign work of God to overcome the rebellion of our heart and bring us to faith in Christ so that we can be saved."

Now the second part of your question would be how this affirmation fits with my claims that "no biblical Calvinist would every affirm that God forces anyone into a relationship- be it with Him or Satan."

The reconciliation between the two comments is simple: God overcomes our depravity, rebellion, and continued resistance by removing from us our heart of stone and giving us a heart of flesh. This is central to the New Covenant, per Ez. 36.

The nature of a regenerate person is faith, repentance, contrition, etc. We now want a relationship with God. And because we want it, it's not coerced. Likewise, the unregenerate is condemned for the sinfulness because, though they were indeed slaves to sin, they sought it out. There was no forcing. Both the believer and unbeliever act volitionally in accordance to their nature.

I suppose you could say "God forced me to love him by granting me spiritual life," but if those are the semantic games we want to play, than God "forced" anything that's ever happened, simply because He created it all.

I hope this answers your question!

Its not a semantics game to me. You said what you said.... and then... NOW... to willingly admit... that...... "perhaps" (my word) it can be seen that way. You willing ignore the words "overcome" to begin with and then attempt to do some "spiritual gymnastics" to tell us why "overcome" really doesn't mean "overcome".

Well..... let me say.... .I'M NOT SURPRISED AT ALL. Its is the typical Calvinist tactic to say their doctrine doesn't teach such and such..... and then when pressed........ they have to really admit that is what it teaches.

I call this deceptive and dishonest. Call it whatever you like.... That's the way it is.

Just for clarity.... I think John Piper is pretty much an ignorant fool. Not trying to be bombastic or argumentatively. I sincerely believe he is a ignorant fool. I have read too many stupid things come of his mouth to give two seconds of consideration to anything he has ever said.

It is really interesting to note that you call me on "vitriol" and then quote "John Piper" to me...... Please....

Now that we've gotten past this deception..... By all means.... ask any question you feel I haven't answered. If you still want to draw exception to what I just wrote..... Then please detail when a person is "overcome". Let's really see if your "order" of events details what you claim it does.

 

[christundivided]

I was.

It's easy, in our flesh, to be a butthole. Doesn't jive too well with John 13:35, though.

Jives pretty well with Acts 23:3.

 

[REBoyce]

I was.

It's easy, in our flesh, to be a butthole. Doesn't jive too well with John 13:35, though.

Jives pretty well with Acts 23:3.

Acts 23:3 is a comment from a believer to a rebel against God...I shouldn't have to explain why your reference to that concerns me.

 

[REBoyce]

Its not a semantics game to me. You said what you said.... and then... NOW... to willingly admit... that...... "perhaps" (my word) it can be seen that way. You willing ignore the words "overcome" to begin with and then attempt to do some "spiritual gymnastics" to tell us why "overcome" really doesn't mean "overcome".

Well..... let me say.... .I'M NOT SURPRISED AT ALL. Its is the typical Calvinist tactic to say their doctrine doesn't teach such and such..... and then when pressed........ they have to really admit that is what it teaches.

I call this deceptive and dishonest. Call it whatever you like.... That's the way it is.

Just for clarity.... I think John Piper is pretty much an ignorant fool. Not trying to be bombastic or argumentatively. I sincerely believe he is a ignorant fool. I have read too many stupid things come of his mouth to give two seconds of consideration to anything he has ever said.

It is really interesting to note that you call me on "vitriol" and then quote "John Piper" to me...... Please....

Now that we've gotten past this deception..... By all means.... ask any question you feel I haven't answered. If you still want to draw exception to what I just wrote..... Then please detail when a person is "overcome". Let's really see if your "order" of events details what you claim it does.

I have no problems using the word "overcome." And God can "overcome" whoever He wishes, however He wishes. He's God, after all.

Why are you so perturbed that people would believe this to be found in the Bible?


By the way, for anyone else following this conversation, please let me know if you too have perceived me to be "deceptive." I'm clueless as to where this accusation is grounded. Thanks!

 

[christundivided]

I was.

It's easy, in our flesh, to be a butthole. Doesn't jive too well with John 13:35, though.

Jives pretty well with Acts 23:3.

Acts 23:3 is a comment from a believer to a rebel against God...I shouldn't have to explain why your reference to that concerns me.

Okay.... How about 1st Corinthians 15:36

 

[christundivided]

Its not a semantics game to me. You said what you said.... and then... NOW... to willingly admit... that...... "perhaps" (my word) it can be seen that way. You willing ignore the words "overcome" to begin with and then attempt to do some "spiritual gymnastics" to tell us why "overcome" really doesn't mean "overcome".

Well..... let me say.... .I'M NOT SURPRISED AT ALL. Its is the typical Calvinist tactic to say their doctrine doesn't teach such and such..... and then when pressed........ they have to really admit that is what it teaches.

I call this deceptive and dishonest. Call it whatever you like.... That's the way it is.

Just for clarity.... I think John Piper is pretty much an ignorant fool. Not trying to be bombastic or argumentatively. I sincerely believe he is a ignorant fool. I have read too many stupid things come of his mouth to give two seconds of consideration to anything he has ever said.

It is really interesting to note that you call me on "vitriol" and then quote "John Piper" to me...... Please....

Now that we've gotten past this deception..... By all means.... ask any question you feel I haven't answered. If you still want to draw exception to what I just wrote..... Then please detail when a person is "overcome". Let's really see if your "order" of events details what you claim it does.

I have no problems using the word "overcome." And God can "overcome" whoever He wishes, however He wishes. He's God, after all.

Why are you so perturbed that people would believe this to be found in the Bible?


By the way, for anyone else following this conversation, please let me know if you too have perceived me to be "deceptive." I'm clueless as to where this accusation is grounded. Thanks!

Sure God CAN.... The issue is whether God DOES.

Its not enough to just stand back and say God CAN do ANYTHING. You must prove GOD DOES WHAT YOU CLAIM HE DOES. Don't just point at the word Sovereignty and claim you don't see the problem.....

 

[REBoyce]

Sure God CAN.... The issue is whether God DOES.

Its not enough to just stand back and say God CAN do ANYTHING. You must prove GOD DOES WHAT YOU CLAIM HE DOES. Don't just point at the word Sovereignty and claim you don't see the problem.....

Genesis 20:6 Then God said to him in the dream, “Yes, I know that you have done this in the integrity of your heart, and it was I who kept you from sinning against me. Therefore I did not let you touch her."

Sounds to me like God impeded in the "free" will of Abimelech.

CU, let me ask you this: do you believe that men have the capacity for faith in Christ and repentance from sin apart from any divine influence whatsoever?

 

[christundivided]

Sure God CAN.... The issue is whether God DOES.

Its not enough to just stand back and say God CAN do ANYTHING. You must prove GOD DOES WHAT YOU CLAIM HE DOES. Don't just point at the word Sovereignty and claim you don't see the problem.....

Genesis 20:6 Then God said to him in the dream, “Yes, I know that you have done this in the integrity of your heart, and it was I who kept you from sinning against me. Therefore I did not let you touch her."

Sounds to me like God impeded in the "free" will of Abimelech.

As far your reference to Genesis 20:6...... you're looking at the verse the wrong way. I have never said that God doesn't "keep" people from things. Nor have I said that God does not lead men to do things. However, you're taking this situation and trying to apply it to the redemption of man. In this case, its not applicable. Its called "context".

I wholeheartedly believe in the Eternal Unwavering Position of the Believer. Those in Christ are keep by the Power of God.

CU, let me ask you this: do you believe that men have the capacity for faith in Christ and repentance from sin apart from any divine influence whatsoever?

That is a really good question. I'm glad you asked.

First, this is going to be a little complicated. Redemption is a complicated matter. It doesn't "fit" into the overly simplistic/childish teachings found in Calvinism. So hold on to your seats. Maybe you'll get it. Maybe you'll leave it behind. Do whatever you want with it. I'll give a short summary and we can go from there if you have any specific questions.

The Gospel is exactly where the heavenly meets the earthly. The Gospel is the "bridge" between humanity and God. The Gospel is Divine. Ultimately it has its root in deep Spiritual truths...

HOWEVER, there are earthly aspects to the Gospel. Earthly aspects that unregenerate man can respond to as a man without any Divine "influence" other than the origination of the Gospel. Men preach the Gospel to other men. Men that have good reputations can have influence over those they share the message of the Gospel with... Mankind can respond to such "earthly" truths. Man can also seek God due to God's work in this natural world without a direct intervention or influence of Divinity. This is something God has done for all of humanity. Not just the elect. Calvinists ignore these truth. They try to place everything God has done into some "Spiritual Vacuum" in which only the "elect" can respond. This is total nonsense. In fact, its nothing more than another Gospel. I have personally known of LOST men in my life that claimed they couldn't respond to the Gospel because they hadn't been chosen. They have heard your Calvinist non sense to the point they refuse to take any steps toward God unless they feel "overwhelmed" to do so. It makes me sad and mad at the same time. Your mouths need to be stopped and I'm confident that God will do just that in His own time.

 

[subllibrm]

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2014/06/having-mercy-on-whom-he-will-have-mercy.html

For you CU, I know how much you like the term! 

 

[christundivided]

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2014/06/having-mercy-on-whom-he-will-have-mercy.html

For you CU, I know how much you like the term! 

Do you want me to deal with this inane article? If you promise to read what I write.... then I'll take the time to put this moron in his place.

 

[subllibrm]

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2014/06/having-mercy-on-whom-he-will-have-mercy.html

For you CU, I know how much you like the term! 

Do you want me to deal with this inane article? If you promise to read what I write.... then I'll take the time to put this moron in his place.

Not really. I have read everything yo have written so far and suspect anything more would read about like what came before. Just figured that you weren't quite worked up enough on the subject. 

 

[christundivided]

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2014/06/having-mercy-on-whom-he-will-have-mercy.html

For you CU, I know how much you like the term! 

Do you want me to deal with this inane article? If you promise to read what I write.... then I'll take the time to put this moron in his place.

Not really. I have read everything yo have written so far and suspect anything more would read about like what came before. Just figured that you weren't quite worked up enough on the subject. 

That's what I thought.....

I once thought I had to answer everyone that had to say anything about my beliefs. I don't particularly feel that way anymore. Especially when someone is just seeking to antagonize me.

You didn't post a link to anything I haven't heard hundreds of times before. Its nothing more than typical Calvinist dribble. You Calvinist think you're so smart..... and you're not nearly as smart as you think you are....

I heard a old saying once that I'll apply to a Calvinist.....

I'd like to buy a Calvinist for what he's worth and then sell him for what he thinks he's worth........ That would be the deal of the Millennium.

 

[subllibrm]

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2014/06/having-mercy-on-whom-he-will-have-mercy.html

For you CU, I know how much you like the term! 

Do you want me to deal with this inane article? If you promise to read what I write.... then I'll take the time to put this moron in his place.

Not really. I have read everything yo have written so far and suspect anything more would read about like what came before. Just figured that you weren't quite worked up enough on the subject. 

That's what I thought.....

I once thought I had to answer everyone that had to say anything about my beliefs. I don't particularly feel that way anymore. Especially when someone is just seeking to antagonize me.

You didn't post a link to anything I haven't heard hundreds of times before. Its nothing more than typical Calvinist dribble. You Calvinist think you're so smart..... and you're not nearly as smart as you think you are....

I heard a old saying once that I'll apply to a Calvinist.....

I'd like to buy a Calvinist for what he's worth and then sell him for what he thinks he's worth........ That would be the deal of the Millennium.

I'm not a calvinist