"It is a mystery to me..."

FSSL

Well-known member
Staff member
Administrator
Doctor
Joined
Jan 31, 2012
Messages
7,668
Reaction score
508
Points
113
Location
Gulf Shores, Alabama
I sat on an ordination committee of a friend. He wrote in the section on the "Doctrine of sin" that man's choices, will and emotions were totally corrupted by his sinful nature.

When we got to the section on the "Doctrine of Salvation" he wrote that "God chose man on the basis that man chose him."

I asked him to reconcile the two points. His reply, "It is a mystery to me..." And his pastor shut me down for having the audacity to question that.

Can you repeat after me? COP OUT!

Is there ANYTHING that we can ultimately understand perfectly about God? No. But the clause, "It is a mystery..." is way overused.
 
Izdaari said:
FSSL said:
"God chose man on the basis that man chose him."

What he meant by that is a mystery to me too.

He was a typical tunnel-of-time advocate where he believes God's election was based on a foreseen good decision.
 
FSSL said:
Izdaari said:
FSSL said:
"God chose man on the basis that man chose him."

What he meant by that is a mystery to me too.

He was a typical tunnel-of-time advocate where he believes God's election was based on a foreseen good decision.

I watched Time Tunnel too back in the day, and sometimes it was pretty entertaining. But I never tried to base my theology on it.
 
FSSL said:
I sat on an ordination committee of a friend. He wrote in the section on the "Doctrine of sin" that man's choices, will and emotions were totally corrupted by his sinful nature.

When we got to the section on the "Doctrine of Salvation" he wrote that "God chose man on the basis that man chose him."

I asked him to reconcile the two points. His reply, "It is a mystery to me..." And his pastor shut me down for having the audacity to question that.

Can you repeat after me? COP OUT!

Is there ANYTHING that we can ultimately understand perfectly about God? No. But the clause, "It is a mystery..." is way overused.

Question....

What would you say If I were to include the following under "Doctrine of Salvation"....

The Salvation of mankind is God's choice in His Son.

 
aleshanee said:
it;s not a cop out to refuse to ride in the car with someone who is going to repeatedly drive you into a dead end then smugly pretend they got somewhere........  i;m not saying you would have done that to him..... but maybe that pastor was burned out from having argued with calvinists before....

Actually. "Behind the scenes" this particular pastor, that shot me down, agreed with us and attended my overtly Calvinistic ordination. We had a good relationship. Even today, he is in another church and claims to be a "Calvinist" (not that the label is necessary). He was probably in a situation where the church (and his assistant that was being ordained) would have risen up against him (don't really know).

All I know is this... He said one thing under the "Doctrine of Sin" and contradicted himself in "Doctrine of Salvation." All I asked was "How do you explain the contradiction?" Even the most staunch Arminian has an answer.

My humble opinion is that there are at least two reasons why this phrase, in this situation, is used:

1) The concept is a mystery to the participants because they have not investigated the biblical material. It is not that the Bible is silent (mysterious) on the issue. They just have not done their homework.
2) The participants don't want to be accountable for having a particular position.

Aleshanee... as we have discussed this... I am convinced you have done your homework and am not at all aiming at you with this. We differ. I believe our differences lie mainly on how Calvinism has been introduced to you.
 
FSSL said:
I asked him to reconcile the two points. His reply, "It is a mystery to me..." And his pastor shut me down for having the audacity to question that.

Frustrating, isn't it? 

Perhaps you should speak to the pastor privately and ask him why he felt compelled to do that and felt justified in doing so. 

 
FSSL said:
I sat on an ordination committee of a friend. He wrote in the section on the "Doctrine of sin" that man's choices, will and emotions were totally corrupted by his sinful nature.

When we got to the section on the "Doctrine of Salvation" he wrote that "God chose man on the basis that man chose him."

I asked him to reconcile the two points. His reply, "It is a mystery to me..." And his pastor shut me down for having the audacity to question that.

Can you repeat after me? COP OUT!

Is there ANYTHING that we can ultimately understand perfectly about God? No. But the clause, "It is a mystery..." is way overused.

:) Speaking of Cop out answers....................C.H. Spurgeon was once asked if he could reconcile  two truths {divine sovereignty and human responsibility} “I wouldn’t try,” he replied; “I never reconcile friends.”




 
Bob H said:
:) Speaking of Cop out answers....................C.H. Spurgeon was once asked if he could reconcile  two truths {divine sovereignty and human responsibility} “I wouldn’t try,” he replied; “I never reconcile friends.”

Not the same thing as the OP point, though.
 
The Rogue Tomato said:
Bob H said:
:) Speaking of Cop out answers....................C.H. Spurgeon was once asked if he could reconcile  two truths {divine sovereignty and human responsibility} “I wouldn’t try,” he replied; “I never reconcile friends.”

Not the same thing as the OP point, though.


I didn't say it was. I was just sayin'


 
I would of kept the cal/arm debates at the top one. I very seldom come down in the basement.............. But you'd da man :)






 
aleshanee said:
...the statements are not a contradiction....  and only someone who is trying to use binary black and white reasoning .... or finite human logic to define an eternal and omnipotent God would even think so.......it is true that the condition of mankind prior to salvation is one of depravity...... but even the most totally depraved person you can think of still has the ability to reason....

Scripture tells us that this depravity consumed our desires and thoughts and it required God's direct intervention to "make us alive":

Ephesians 2: 1 As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins, 2 in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient. 3 All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our sinful nature and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature objects of wrath. 4 But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, 5 made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions—it is by grace you have been saved.


... no agreements to disagree.... no mutual respect of differing opinions.... and they won;t give up and just let it rest...... that;s why i walk away from them...

For these reasons... I will ONLY use Scripture in my discussions.
 
aleshanee said:
yes .. it does say that...  but it does not say that those dead in their sins are not capable of recognizing it and looking to God for help....

Dead men do not seek God. Romans 3:10f  “There is no one righteous, not even one; there is no one who understands, no one who seeks God.

...but then when we reach an impasse in one thread... you start another thread ... on the exact same subject... to rehash the same issue and same argument all over again... where you give an example of someone else who believes the way i do... that you also reached an impasse with... and tell how you think that person.. "copped out"... all because he probably didn;t want to waste his time arguing with you like i wasted mine..... and then you post these comments about christians who see the scriptures the way he and i both do........

I started a new thread because I didn't want you to think I was pushing you. Others on this forum have this theology.

This man was being ordained. I asked him how he correlated the two. That is not a proud and arrogant question. What is proud and arrogant is asking people to come to an ordination and shooting them down when they ask one simple question. ESPECIALLY since the pastor was a Calvinist (behind closed doors). It took me by surprise all the way around.

I did not ask him one more question on the subject. I actually asked one other question that day, but it was a softball.

...and i see that as nothing but judgmental arrogance.....  looking down on other christians with condescension because they don;t interpret a few passages of scriptures the same way you do.....

It was an ordination. Probing questions are expected! If a pastor cannot (or in this case was unwilling) to correlate the doctrines (whether in an Arminian or Calvinist) direction... he should not have passed his ordination. ESPECIALLY when you knowingly invite Calvinists to participate in the questioning.

I would think by now, in handling your situations on this forum, that I am not judgmental and arrogant.

BTW: Pray for us... we have two friends we are witnessing to at this moment. Hence our reason for not going to a  church one hour away in the event that they get saved and want to go with us!
 
FSSL and aleshanee

I'm going to post two verses and I would love to discuss them.

Acts 17

26 And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;

27 That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us:

In 25 plus years of debating Calvinism, I have never heard a Calvinist explain these verses. Even John Gill cops out in his explanation.

These verses places the the ability of all of mankind to seek God as the intent of God's creative action.

Now I believe in most of the doctrine of total depravity, man is not so depraved as to not having the natural ability to seek God.
 
Maybe you should put the verses together the way they're intended.

26 And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation; That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us:

That should help.
 
Previously on the program...

And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord, and as many as were appointed to eternal life believed. (Acts 13:48, ESV)
 
rsc2a said:
Previously on the program...

And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord, and as many as were appointed to eternal life believed. (Acts 13:48, ESV)

This is one of those unambiguous verses.  There are at least 10 of them for every ambiguous verse that can somehow be interpreted to mean our will has something to do with our own salvation. 
 
[quote author=The Rogue Tomato]This is one of those unambiguous verses. [/quote]

You mean like:

He came to his own, and his own people did not receive him. But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God. (John 1:11-13, ESV)

?
 
rsc2a said:
[quote author=The Rogue Tomato]This is one of those unambiguous verses.

You mean like:

He came to his own, and his own people did not receive him. But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God. (John 1:11-13, ESV)

?
[/quote]

Yup.  That's another good one. 
 
The Rogue Tomato said:
Maybe you should put the verses together the way they're intended.

26 And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation; That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us:

That should help.

What changed?
 
Top