Haas,
A man's zeal for God and for souls does not exempt his theology from critical analysis. Which statement of Homer's did you take as sarcastic?
John Piper
Last edited by FAST WebCrawler [Crawler] on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
In Jesus,
Steve
Steve
Hello Steve,
You wrote:
and
Homer wrote,
I haven't read all of the Calvinists out there, but I sure haven't read anything like is suggested here. "Conversion experience?" "turned away in despair". If they are out there and they are speaking like this.....then shame on them. Again, this is not at all representative of Piper.
Who enlightened the ones that "could simply trust God to do what is said?"
Sorry Steve and Homer, but this seems like the type of stuff you would have jumped all over Mark about. Though Homer didn't call anyone a heretic.
Joy in Christ,
Haas
Revelation 7:9-10
After this I looked, and behold, a great multitude that no one could number, from every nation, from all tribes and peoples and languages, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed in white robes, with palm branches in their hands, and crying out with a loud voice, "Salvation belongs to our God who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb!"
You wrote:
Amen!A man's zeal for God and for souls does not exempt his theology from critical analysis.
and
Pretty much all of it, but I will be more specific.Which statement of Homer's did you take as sarcastic?
Homer wrote,
I've never read or heard Piper say anything remotely close to this. Instead, I hear and see him preaching the Gospel to all."But Piper believes that God will not allow most of them to repent no matter how much they might want to.
Come on? Maybe a hyper-Calvinist would say something like that. This to me is sarcastic.no matter how much they might want to.
Make no mistake, the history of Calvinism is littered with many souls who came seeking but did not find because they could come up with no "conversion experience" (gotta be regenerated first, you know), as they were taught they must, and were turned away in despair.
I haven't read all of the Calvinists out there, but I sure haven't read anything like is suggested here. "Conversion experience?" "turned away in despair". If they are out there and they are speaking like this.....then shame on them. Again, this is not at all representative of Piper.
Did God's plan for the others get thwarted because of bad theology?Thankfully, some of them were enlightened to the truth that they could simply trust God to do what He said.
Who enlightened the ones that "could simply trust God to do what is said?"
Sorry Steve and Homer, but this seems like the type of stuff you would have jumped all over Mark about. Though Homer didn't call anyone a heretic.
Joy in Christ,
Haas
Revelation 7:9-10
After this I looked, and behold, a great multitude that no one could number, from every nation, from all tribes and peoples and languages, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed in white robes, with palm branches in their hands, and crying out with a loud voice, "Salvation belongs to our God who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb!"
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Quite honestly, Haas, I don't think Homer meant any of those statements sarcastically (I guess he can answer for himself). It may be true that neither Piper nor any Calvinist is willing to make the statements as directly as Homer did, but they appear (to non-Calvinists) to represent the teaching of Calvinism, stated in more robust language than the Calvinists themselves choose to use.
Suppose there was a non-elect person who really wanted to repent. I know that Calvinists do not believe in the existence of such people. Dr. White describes all such people as "standing on the parapet of hell and screaming out their eternal hatred for God." Unfortunately for anyone seeking to gain credibility for this stereotype, I have known several people intimately (some of whom lived in my own home for decades) who have desperately sought after God with all the sincerity they could muster (one who did so for more than twenty years), but who have never seemed to be granted genuine repentance, regeneration or faith. They are not screaming out their eternal hatred for God. If our theology does not account for realities in the real world (like the existence of these people), then it is doubtful that it is a correct interpretation of God's truth.
I know that Calvinism has its categories for such people—e.g., they are not really sincerely seeking God (as unregenerate people, they couldn't possibly want to do so—Rom.3:11), but I find no biblical basis not to take their testimony at face value. The Calvinist, in questioning their sincerity is judging their hearts, not on the basis of any knowledge of the persons, but upon a prior commitment to shakey theological exegesis. I would stand with Homer in seeing Calvinism as teaching that these people (if they remain unregenerate) were never elect, meaning that, despite their great desire to repent and to know God, this is not an option that God will allow them to experience.
Is this not the case? What are we not understanding correctly here?
Cases such as these are difficult for me, as an Arminian, also. One difference is, I can assure them that God does want to save them, and that they must pursue with diligence until He does so (Heb.11:6). Of course, they may actually be saved already, and not have recognized this, due to unrtealistic expectations of what it is like to be born again.
The Calvinism they learned from some of their friends has convinced them that there are some people to whom God has no intention of giving the option of salvation, and so the frustration of their desire to know God may simply be evidence that they are non-elect. There is nothing in Calvinism to convince them, as individuals, that God really has sent Jesus to save them.
Dr. White says that it is not important to assure the sinner that God loves him, because "the proclamation is repent and believe" (he says this multiple times on his second show critiquing my lectures). I do believe, however, that the preaching of the Gospel is supposed to contain an element of good news in it for the sinner. The Arminian believes that that good news is that salvation is offered to all sinners, upon their repentance and faith, and that any sinner might avail himself of it by this means. Calvinism only has good news for those who are elect. The non-elect need not apply. Of course, as Dr. White often says, "We don't know who the elect are!" This is supposed to ameliorate the problem for those who actually are non-elect, but who do not know it.
I do not believe that we should have to conceal from people what our theology actually teaches (if they convert, they will learn it eventually). If our theology, at bottom, tells us that many of the people that we are to love and seek to convert are actually not among those whom God loves and wants to convert, and if we tell them so (why should we be embarrassed to say what we believe?), then we will inform our audience that God loves some of them, but no one knows which ones. That is not good news to all people (Luke 2:10).
The bottom line is, if such people (people who are desiring to know God), never find God in their lifetimes, is this because God did not want them to? I say no, it is because they gave up too soon. Calvinism would suggest that their failure to find God is an evidence that they were not among the elect, and that God really determined that their search would remain fruitless.
Suppose there was a non-elect person who really wanted to repent. I know that Calvinists do not believe in the existence of such people. Dr. White describes all such people as "standing on the parapet of hell and screaming out their eternal hatred for God." Unfortunately for anyone seeking to gain credibility for this stereotype, I have known several people intimately (some of whom lived in my own home for decades) who have desperately sought after God with all the sincerity they could muster (one who did so for more than twenty years), but who have never seemed to be granted genuine repentance, regeneration or faith. They are not screaming out their eternal hatred for God. If our theology does not account for realities in the real world (like the existence of these people), then it is doubtful that it is a correct interpretation of God's truth.
I know that Calvinism has its categories for such people—e.g., they are not really sincerely seeking God (as unregenerate people, they couldn't possibly want to do so—Rom.3:11), but I find no biblical basis not to take their testimony at face value. The Calvinist, in questioning their sincerity is judging their hearts, not on the basis of any knowledge of the persons, but upon a prior commitment to shakey theological exegesis. I would stand with Homer in seeing Calvinism as teaching that these people (if they remain unregenerate) were never elect, meaning that, despite their great desire to repent and to know God, this is not an option that God will allow them to experience.
Is this not the case? What are we not understanding correctly here?
Cases such as these are difficult for me, as an Arminian, also. One difference is, I can assure them that God does want to save them, and that they must pursue with diligence until He does so (Heb.11:6). Of course, they may actually be saved already, and not have recognized this, due to unrtealistic expectations of what it is like to be born again.
The Calvinism they learned from some of their friends has convinced them that there are some people to whom God has no intention of giving the option of salvation, and so the frustration of their desire to know God may simply be evidence that they are non-elect. There is nothing in Calvinism to convince them, as individuals, that God really has sent Jesus to save them.
Dr. White says that it is not important to assure the sinner that God loves him, because "the proclamation is repent and believe" (he says this multiple times on his second show critiquing my lectures). I do believe, however, that the preaching of the Gospel is supposed to contain an element of good news in it for the sinner. The Arminian believes that that good news is that salvation is offered to all sinners, upon their repentance and faith, and that any sinner might avail himself of it by this means. Calvinism only has good news for those who are elect. The non-elect need not apply. Of course, as Dr. White often says, "We don't know who the elect are!" This is supposed to ameliorate the problem for those who actually are non-elect, but who do not know it.
I do not believe that we should have to conceal from people what our theology actually teaches (if they convert, they will learn it eventually). If our theology, at bottom, tells us that many of the people that we are to love and seek to convert are actually not among those whom God loves and wants to convert, and if we tell them so (why should we be embarrassed to say what we believe?), then we will inform our audience that God loves some of them, but no one knows which ones. That is not good news to all people (Luke 2:10).
The bottom line is, if such people (people who are desiring to know God), never find God in their lifetimes, is this because God did not want them to? I say no, it is because they gave up too soon. Calvinism would suggest that their failure to find God is an evidence that they were not among the elect, and that God really determined that their search would remain fruitless.
Last edited by FAST WebCrawler [Crawler] on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
In Jesus,
Steve
Steve
Steve,
I've read over your comments several times. What struck me overall is that your position is the position that I once held. I held these beliefs as a new Christian that had read the Bible very little. Obviously, people like yourself and others here are Bible readers and are Arminian (or non-Calvinist). I often find myself thinking of the many differing theological perspectives and am convinced that God is sovereign over them all. I believe God is sovereign over bad theology (whether it be mine or yours or both of ours).
My view of election is positive. I praise God that “salvation belongs to the LORD!” (Jonah 2:9b) I don’t spend a lot of time wondering who is elect and who isn’t (II Timothy 2:19 “The Lord knows those who are his,”).
My wife and I are blessed with three daughters. After we pray with the girls, I kiss them on the cheek and say two things. “God is love” and “God is the Truth” (I John 4:8b and John 14:6). We preach the gospel to the girls and ourselves every chance we get. Our job is to point them (and the others God puts in our path) to Christ. I have yet to find the verse that explicitly and in light of the rest of Scripture says God loves everyone in exactly the same way.
Did God love Pharaoh in the same way he loved Moses?
Did God love Judas in the same way he loved the eleven?
Steve, suppose someday when you meet the Lord you discover that unconditional election is true. Would you want to spend eternity with Him?
There are people in my life like the ones that are dear and close to you. This is my approach:
2 Timothy 2:24-26
24 And the Lord's servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, 25 correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth, 26 and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, after being captured by him to do his will.
I have committed to praying for these individuals until the day I die. We are to pray without ceasing, not sit around wondering who is elect and who isn’t.
That being said, the doctrines of grace are not something I wish to hide. Would I try to teach an unbeliever about particular redemption? No, of course not. We are to preach the gospel (Matthew 4:17, Luke 13:1-5, Romans 3:23-24, Romans 6:23, Romans 10, etc. etc.). The deeper things of Scripture come later. I find it interesting what Scripture says about people moving to maturity in Christ:
6:1 Therefore let us leave the elementary doctrine of Christ and go on to maturity, not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God, 2 and of instruction about washings, the laying on of hands, the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment. 3 And this we will do if God permits.
If God permits, you and I and anyone else will move on to maturity. If not, we won’t. Another Scriptural truth that I love:
Philippians 2:12-13
12 Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, 13 for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure. [emphais on the verses throughout this post added]
This is getting longer than I expected. Let me finish up with a few more thoughts:
1. We should be shocked if people are not offended by the truth of God.
2. There are a lot of people out there telling others that God loves them, but are not talking about sin, repentance, holy living, etc (not surprisingly, many churches like this don't open their Bibles enough). This is not being loving.
3. I haven’t read or listened to enough by James White to comment much about him, though I’ve enjoyed what I have heard (I thought he dealt graciously and respectfully with a catholic guy that called in who identified himself a Guardian).
4. Almost everyone in my extended family is non-Calvinist (with only one or two out of many that would even consider the Reformed position). My wife and I are not winning any popularity contests with our beliefs.
5. Truth is truth and it is eternal. May God deal graciously with all of His follower’s misunderstandings about Himself.
I am interested in your understanding about I Peter 2:1-12. I will post another message asking you about that.
Unfathomable joy in Christ,
Haas
I've read over your comments several times. What struck me overall is that your position is the position that I once held. I held these beliefs as a new Christian that had read the Bible very little. Obviously, people like yourself and others here are Bible readers and are Arminian (or non-Calvinist). I often find myself thinking of the many differing theological perspectives and am convinced that God is sovereign over them all. I believe God is sovereign over bad theology (whether it be mine or yours or both of ours).
My view of election is positive. I praise God that “salvation belongs to the LORD!” (Jonah 2:9b) I don’t spend a lot of time wondering who is elect and who isn’t (II Timothy 2:19 “The Lord knows those who are his,”).
My wife and I are blessed with three daughters. After we pray with the girls, I kiss them on the cheek and say two things. “God is love” and “God is the Truth” (I John 4:8b and John 14:6). We preach the gospel to the girls and ourselves every chance we get. Our job is to point them (and the others God puts in our path) to Christ. I have yet to find the verse that explicitly and in light of the rest of Scripture says God loves everyone in exactly the same way.
Did God love Pharaoh in the same way he loved Moses?
Did God love Judas in the same way he loved the eleven?
Steve, suppose someday when you meet the Lord you discover that unconditional election is true. Would you want to spend eternity with Him?
There are people in my life like the ones that are dear and close to you. This is my approach:
2 Timothy 2:24-26
24 And the Lord's servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, 25 correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth, 26 and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, after being captured by him to do his will.
I have committed to praying for these individuals until the day I die. We are to pray without ceasing, not sit around wondering who is elect and who isn’t.
That being said, the doctrines of grace are not something I wish to hide. Would I try to teach an unbeliever about particular redemption? No, of course not. We are to preach the gospel (Matthew 4:17, Luke 13:1-5, Romans 3:23-24, Romans 6:23, Romans 10, etc. etc.). The deeper things of Scripture come later. I find it interesting what Scripture says about people moving to maturity in Christ:
6:1 Therefore let us leave the elementary doctrine of Christ and go on to maturity, not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God, 2 and of instruction about washings, the laying on of hands, the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment. 3 And this we will do if God permits.
If God permits, you and I and anyone else will move on to maturity. If not, we won’t. Another Scriptural truth that I love:
Philippians 2:12-13
12 Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, 13 for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure. [emphais on the verses throughout this post added]
This is getting longer than I expected. Let me finish up with a few more thoughts:
1. We should be shocked if people are not offended by the truth of God.
2. There are a lot of people out there telling others that God loves them, but are not talking about sin, repentance, holy living, etc (not surprisingly, many churches like this don't open their Bibles enough). This is not being loving.
3. I haven’t read or listened to enough by James White to comment much about him, though I’ve enjoyed what I have heard (I thought he dealt graciously and respectfully with a catholic guy that called in who identified himself a Guardian).
4. Almost everyone in my extended family is non-Calvinist (with only one or two out of many that would even consider the Reformed position). My wife and I are not winning any popularity contests with our beliefs.
5. Truth is truth and it is eternal. May God deal graciously with all of His follower’s misunderstandings about Himself.
I am interested in your understanding about I Peter 2:1-12. I will post another message asking you about that.
Unfathomable joy in Christ,
Haas
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Steve,
I have heard some of your teachings on Romans.
Please comment on this passage of Scripture.
1 Peter 2:1-12
2:1 So put away all malice and all deceit and hypocrisy and envy and all slander. 2 Like newborn infants, long for the pure spiritual milk, that by it you may grow up into salvation— 3 if indeed you have tasted that the Lord is good.
4 As you come to him, a living stone rejected by men but in the sight of God chosen and precious, 5 you yourselves like living stones are being built up as a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. 6 For it stands in Scripture:
“Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone,
a cornerstone chosen and precious,
and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame.”
7 So the honor is for you who believe, but for those who do not believe,
“The stone that the builders rejected
has become the cornerstone,”
8 and
“A stone of stumbling,
and a rock of offense.”
They stumble because they disobey the word, as they were destined to do.
9 But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light. 10 Once you were not a people, but now you are God's people; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy.
11 Beloved, I urge you as sojourners and exiles to abstain from the passions of the flesh, which wage war against your soul. 12 Keep your conduct among the Gentiles honorable, so that when they speak against you as evildoers, they may see your good deeds and glorify God on the day of visitation. [emphasis added
Thanks for your time, comment as you are able. (oops, this thread was at one time about John Piper)
In Christ,
Haas
I have heard some of your teachings on Romans.
Please comment on this passage of Scripture.
1 Peter 2:1-12
2:1 So put away all malice and all deceit and hypocrisy and envy and all slander. 2 Like newborn infants, long for the pure spiritual milk, that by it you may grow up into salvation— 3 if indeed you have tasted that the Lord is good.
4 As you come to him, a living stone rejected by men but in the sight of God chosen and precious, 5 you yourselves like living stones are being built up as a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. 6 For it stands in Scripture:
“Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone,
a cornerstone chosen and precious,
and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame.”
7 So the honor is for you who believe, but for those who do not believe,
“The stone that the builders rejected
has become the cornerstone,”
8 and
“A stone of stumbling,
and a rock of offense.”
They stumble because they disobey the word, as they were destined to do.
9 But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light. 10 Once you were not a people, but now you are God's people; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy.
11 Beloved, I urge you as sojourners and exiles to abstain from the passions of the flesh, which wage war against your soul. 12 Keep your conduct among the Gentiles honorable, so that when they speak against you as evildoers, they may see your good deeds and glorify God on the day of visitation. [emphasis added
Thanks for your time, comment as you are able. (oops, this thread was at one time about John Piper)
In Christ,
Haas
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Hi Haas,
It would take too much time for me to comment in general about all twelve verses (this normally requires about an hour of speaking--that's about twenty pages in print), though I think you are mainly interested in my thoughts on verse 8, since that is the only one that looks to be challenging from the Arminian point of view.
"They stumble because they disobey the word, as they were destined to do."
First (a small matter), I am not sure how your translators justified using the word "destined" for the Greek word "tithemi," which has a much more general use of "appointed" or "set," in many of its uses in the New Testament. It gives the verse a more "Calvinist feel" than it otherwise might, but it is not very consequential to my comments.
Peter, like the Psalmist and Isaiah, whom he quotes in this passage, is talking about specific persons, the "builders" (mentioned in verse 7), who rejected the Cornerstone.
Jesus, who also quoted the same verse (Psalm 118:22), identified these builders with the first century Jewish leaders (Matt.21:42-45), who rejected Jesus as God's appointed stone, and who therefore came under the judgment of judicial blindness, which God appointed for those people (see also 1 Thess.2:15-16 w/ Rom.1:18, 28).
Thus Peter draws a contrast between the Gentiles to whom he is writing, and their contemporary Jews, who, through the agency of their leaders, rejected the Messiah and consequently came under judgment of blindness, resulting in their stumbling.
It is interesting, from my point of view, that the election mentioned in verse 9 is corporate, not individual. Like Israel before, the church is now a "chosen race...a holy nation." Israel's election was corporate. Individual Gentiles could join the elect race (by conversion to Judaism), and individual Jews could choose to be "cut off from the people" by certain behaviors enumerated in the law. The nation as a whole was "elect" or "chosen." Individuals made their own choices to be in the elect people or not.
I believe the same is true today, except it is no longer Israel that is elect, but Christ. Those who chose to be in Him are thus "elect in Christ" (Eph.1:4), just as an individual who chose to be in Israel was "elect in Israel." Christ is the new Israel, but the conditions for inclusion still must be met by the individual.
It would take too much time for me to comment in general about all twelve verses (this normally requires about an hour of speaking--that's about twenty pages in print), though I think you are mainly interested in my thoughts on verse 8, since that is the only one that looks to be challenging from the Arminian point of view.
"They stumble because they disobey the word, as they were destined to do."
First (a small matter), I am not sure how your translators justified using the word "destined" for the Greek word "tithemi," which has a much more general use of "appointed" or "set," in many of its uses in the New Testament. It gives the verse a more "Calvinist feel" than it otherwise might, but it is not very consequential to my comments.
Peter, like the Psalmist and Isaiah, whom he quotes in this passage, is talking about specific persons, the "builders" (mentioned in verse 7), who rejected the Cornerstone.
Jesus, who also quoted the same verse (Psalm 118:22), identified these builders with the first century Jewish leaders (Matt.21:42-45), who rejected Jesus as God's appointed stone, and who therefore came under the judgment of judicial blindness, which God appointed for those people (see also 1 Thess.2:15-16 w/ Rom.1:18, 28).
Thus Peter draws a contrast between the Gentiles to whom he is writing, and their contemporary Jews, who, through the agency of their leaders, rejected the Messiah and consequently came under judgment of blindness, resulting in their stumbling.
It is interesting, from my point of view, that the election mentioned in verse 9 is corporate, not individual. Like Israel before, the church is now a "chosen race...a holy nation." Israel's election was corporate. Individual Gentiles could join the elect race (by conversion to Judaism), and individual Jews could choose to be "cut off from the people" by certain behaviors enumerated in the law. The nation as a whole was "elect" or "chosen." Individuals made their own choices to be in the elect people or not.
I believe the same is true today, except it is no longer Israel that is elect, but Christ. Those who chose to be in Him are thus "elect in Christ" (Eph.1:4), just as an individual who chose to be in Israel was "elect in Israel." Christ is the new Israel, but the conditions for inclusion still must be met by the individual.
Last edited by FAST WebCrawler [Crawler] on Tue Aug 07, 2007 10:50 am, edited 1 time in total.
Reason:
Reason:
In Jesus,
Steve
Steve
Hello Haas,bighaasdog wrote:Steve,
I've read over your comments several times. What struck me overall is that your position is the position that I once held. I held these beliefs as a new Christian that had read the Bible very little. Obviously, people like yourself and others here are Bible readers and are Arminian (or non-Calvinist). I often find myself thinking of the many differing theological perspectives and am convinced that God is sovereign over them all. I believe God is sovereign over bad theology (whether it be mine or yours or both of ours).
In your reply to Steve (a portion is quoted above), I didn't see an answer to Steve's concerns or points (Maybe I missed it). You did affirm and state your beliefs, but I would like to see interaction on Steve's points. Why? Well, since I arrived at the same conclusions Steve has (before I ever heard of him) I have always wondered how Calvinists respond to such things as Steve has pointed out.
Last edited by W3C [Linkcheck] on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another. (John 13:35)
Hey Sean,
you wrote:
I submit to you that there are far more gifted, intelligent, educated, and articulate individuals than myself that have addressed these concerns (i.e. JI Packer, John Piper, R.C. Sproul, John MacArthur, etc.) And those are just a few guys that are still alive.
I too understand the frustration of not having concerns about a theological position addressed. Here is an example:
http://www.wvss.com/forumc/viewtopic.php?t=1793&start=0
To quote one of my favorite secular musicians
"Hypocrisy is the greatest luxury. Raise the double standard."
Michael Franti
Also, is there anyway to move the posts from Homer's comments on after? This really isn't the right section for this discussion (any mods out there?).
Resting in Christ,
Haas
you wrote:
I addressed some of what Steve expressed as concerns. Which concerns are you specifically speaking about?In your reply to Steve (a portion is quoted above), I didn't see an answer to Steve's concerns or points (Maybe I missed it).
Really? After all the Calvinists that you have read, you haven't heard a single one respond to the concerns that Steve brings up?I have always wondered how Calvinists respond to such things as Steve has pointed out.
I submit to you that there are far more gifted, intelligent, educated, and articulate individuals than myself that have addressed these concerns (i.e. JI Packer, John Piper, R.C. Sproul, John MacArthur, etc.) And those are just a few guys that are still alive.
I too understand the frustration of not having concerns about a theological position addressed. Here is an example:
http://www.wvss.com/forumc/viewtopic.php?t=1793&start=0
That thread ended up being pretty long, and as far as I can tell, no one from an Arminian perspective even touched the questions I asked. The questions were asked in the first post of the thread.Does anyone have a problem that God called out Israel and set them apart and set his love upon them and distinguished them from other nations?
Here is Moses who is born under a death sentence, born to a slave. And here is Pharaoh who is born heir to the throne of the most powerful kingdom the world has ever known (at that time). God didn’t give Moses everything that He gave this baby Pharaoh (not initially). Then Moses is brought up in Pharaoh’s house. Then Moses flees Egypt.
Does God come in a bush to Pharaoh?
God comes to Moses and says something like: “I am going to be your God and I am going to take care of your people and I am going to give you my Law and put you into a land. I am going to make you a nation (Abraham—Moses---etc).
Does anyone have a problem with God doing this?
If not, why is it a problem in the New Covenant for God to set his covenant of grace/love on some people in a way that is distinct from other people?
To quote one of my favorite secular musicians
"Hypocrisy is the greatest luxury. Raise the double standard."
Michael Franti
Also, is there anyway to move the posts from Homer's comments on after? This really isn't the right section for this discussion (any mods out there?).
Resting in Christ,
Haas
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Umm, the ones you didn't respond to.bighaasdog wrote:Hey Sean,
I addressed some of what Steve expressed as concerns. Which concerns are you specifically speaking about?
Not all Calvinist respond the same, so I was interested in your understanding.bighaasdog wrote: Really? After all the Calvinists that you have read, you haven't heard a single one respond to the concerns that Steve brings up?
This is a discussion forum, and I enjoy the discussion of these topics.
But those guys aren't here discussing this, you (we) are.bighaasdog wrote: I submit to you that there are far more gifted, intelligent, educated, and articulate individuals than myself that have addressed these concerns (i.e. JI Packer, John Piper, R.C. Sproul, John MacArthur, etc.) And those are just a few guys that are still alive.
So it's ok for you to not answer something, but not for us? Maybe there are many gifted Arminian teachers out there who can articulate this better than I can? It almost seems that you want answers but aren't willing to give them yourself. While that's ok, I guess, it doesn't make for interesting discussion.bighaasdog wrote: I too understand the frustration of not having concerns about a theological position addressed. Here is an example
The example you give is about God's favor on a national scale. Was this favor of God salvation? If not, that raises questions of whether or not the ones in this covenant are saved just because God grants them favor. Maybe they can rebel against God and loose their favor with God as Israel did. Does that aspect of Israel find it's way into the new covenant as well?
No problem at at all. But this is not what being discussed. Salvation is different from earthly blessing and calling. Not all those in Israel were called to be saved even though they were called, and not all those outside Israel were lost. Not only that but Israel also was judged as if it were a pagan nation, even with "God's love on it".bighaasdog wrote:Does anyone have a problem that God called out Israel and set them apart and set his love upon them and distinguished them from other nations?
I'm not sure what that means, in light of the way you have (or haven't) answered the points we are talking about. Additionally, you went on to ask about Steve's interpretation of 1 Peter 2. Couldn't you have just downloaded it (Steve's stuff is free, are the Calvinist authors you mentioned free for me to hear their interpretations?) and listened to his interpretation in detail. Instead you wanted him to give it here in writing.bighaasdog wrote: To quote one of my favorite secular musicians
"Hypocrisy is the greatest luxury. Raise the double standard."
Michael Franti
Yet when I asked for your answer to Steve's comments, you pointed me to other Calvinists to articulate a detailed response to Steve's personal question, instead of writing one. I'm suppose to go read their material, but you won't even listen to Steve's material your wondering about. I don't get it. Maybe I'm just missing something.
Last edited by W3C [Linkcheck] on Tue Aug 07, 2007 7:42 am, edited 1 time in total.
Reason:
Reason:
By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another. (John 13:35)