Proof Regeneration Precedes Faith
Jugulum,
I've read your comments and still stick with my original point. Why? Well, this is a response to Bob who stated that no one can come unless the Father draws him, and that those drawn will be raised on the last day. Your comments instead focus on if Judas ever "believed" or not. That's not the point of the discussion since belief would come after regeneration according to Calvinist. The point is how was Judas able to come (be drawn) to Jesus and follow him after others left, even apparently going on a short missionary trip where authority was given to them to perform miracles that were done by the power of the Spirit (Matt 10:1-20). Would this not require faith? As alluded to in Matt 17:20.
Isn't that why Jesus made these comments to the people who were leaving and no longer wanted to remain because the Father was not drawing them? If Judas didn't leave then how was he drawn? By his own will?
Joh 6:65 And he said, "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father."
Joh 6:66 After this many of his disciples turned back and no longer walked with him.
Joh 6:67 So Jesus said to the Twelve, "Do you want to go away as well?"
Joh 6:68 Simon Peter answered him, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life,
Joh 6:69 and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God."
Joh 6:70 Jesus answered them, "Did I not choose you, the Twelve? And yet one of you is a devil."
Joh 6:71 He spoke of Judas the son of Simon Iscariot, for he, one of the Twelve, was going to betray him.
Peter said "we have believed and know that you are the Holy One from God". John wrote this long after the fact, it's interesting that John writes this the way he does. We means all twelve. Jesus said "Did I not choose you"? How then can one be chosen, believe, know that Jesus is the Holy One from God and later fall away? Well, an Arminian doesn't have a problem with this, nor apparently does Jesus. You see, just because Jesus knew what Judas would do, doesn't mean he wasn't drawn, given the revelation of who Jesus is and believe, yet he still fell away.
I've read your comments and still stick with my original point. Why? Well, this is a response to Bob who stated that no one can come unless the Father draws him, and that those drawn will be raised on the last day. Your comments instead focus on if Judas ever "believed" or not. That's not the point of the discussion since belief would come after regeneration according to Calvinist. The point is how was Judas able to come (be drawn) to Jesus and follow him after others left, even apparently going on a short missionary trip where authority was given to them to perform miracles that were done by the power of the Spirit (Matt 10:1-20). Would this not require faith? As alluded to in Matt 17:20.
Isn't that why Jesus made these comments to the people who were leaving and no longer wanted to remain because the Father was not drawing them? If Judas didn't leave then how was he drawn? By his own will?
Joh 6:65 And he said, "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father."
Joh 6:66 After this many of his disciples turned back and no longer walked with him.
Joh 6:67 So Jesus said to the Twelve, "Do you want to go away as well?"
Joh 6:68 Simon Peter answered him, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life,
Joh 6:69 and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God."
Joh 6:70 Jesus answered them, "Did I not choose you, the Twelve? And yet one of you is a devil."
Joh 6:71 He spoke of Judas the son of Simon Iscariot, for he, one of the Twelve, was going to betray him.
Peter said "we have believed and know that you are the Holy One from God". John wrote this long after the fact, it's interesting that John writes this the way he does. We means all twelve. Jesus said "Did I not choose you"? How then can one be chosen, believe, know that Jesus is the Holy One from God and later fall away? Well, an Arminian doesn't have a problem with this, nor apparently does Jesus. You see, just because Jesus knew what Judas would do, doesn't mean he wasn't drawn, given the revelation of who Jesus is and believe, yet he still fell away.
Last edited by Guest 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)
Sean,
Can you please answer my comment without a question about Judas?
Jesus in my mind gave us the answer about Judas..."none has been lost except the one doomed to destruction so that scripture would be fulfilled"Jn 17:12 Jesus did not protect him. Jesus did not pray for Judas as he did for the others. We know he protected Peter, who denied him. Lk:22:31-32 "Simon, Simon, Satan has asked to sift you as wheat. But I have prayed for you Simon that your faith may not fail..." And I shall lose none of all that the Father has given me"; It seems pretty self evident to me Sean, whether or not you "exgete or isogete" with Arminian or Calvinist eyes, those who come to Jesus, drawn by the Father and raised on the Last Day and NONE are lost means exactly what it says. "Many are called but few are chosen", perhaps?
Peace
Bob
Can you please answer my comment without a question about Judas?
Jesus in my mind gave us the answer about Judas..."none has been lost except the one doomed to destruction so that scripture would be fulfilled"Jn 17:12 Jesus did not protect him. Jesus did not pray for Judas as he did for the others. We know he protected Peter, who denied him. Lk:22:31-32 "Simon, Simon, Satan has asked to sift you as wheat. But I have prayed for you Simon that your faith may not fail..." And I shall lose none of all that the Father has given me"; It seems pretty self evident to me Sean, whether or not you "exgete or isogete" with Arminian or Calvinist eyes, those who come to Jesus, drawn by the Father and raised on the Last Day and NONE are lost means exactly what it says. "Many are called but few are chosen", perhaps?
Peace
Bob
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
-
- Posts: 3
- Joined: Sat Jul 15, 2006 12:26 pm
- Location: Australia
Hi Mark,
I did not intend to offend you by not listing you among the exceptions to my general statement.
Meaning you do not consider my presence here as all that helpful or edifying?
The statement was, in fact, about you primarily.
Really, the whole statement?
Do I expect that to endear me to you? Not particularly. Is that supposed to be my goal? Are your posts calculated to endear you to others?
There is a time in dialogue of this nature for both I believe, but I agree with you in that our goal in proclaiming truth is not primarily to endear others to us, but then again Christ was lifted up in order to draw all men to Himself!
Also, as fellow believers there should be some room for terms of endearment, for that is one aspect of brotherly unity.
You strike me as a somewhat independent kind of guy, maybe a tad bit too independent perhaps?
Seems to me a part of your makeup, something which you are probably already aware of, but maybe not.
My posts may be sharp at times and yours may be a little bit politically correct and somewhat dismissive of your opponents views, but we both would hope that as believers discussing important matters , perhaps striving for a little endearment should not be so casually ruled out.
I sense that you are more hostile against Calvinism, even though you will forever claim to have no particular axe to grind, but I can honestly say that my views against Arminianism attacks the theology of Arminians, but makes no elicit nor speculative judgements against the individual caught up in Arminianism.
Fair enough, I read you loud and clear Steve.I did not come here looking for friends. I am interested in speaking the truth in love. Whether this endears people to me should not be on my list of concerns.
What is this chip you are referring to?You say that the only place you can be published is the internet because (as you put it): "My views are hated and would really struggle to get an audience for sure." Perhaps I should play the part of a true friend and tell you a little secret. It isn't your views that are unpublishable or offensive to audiences. There are hundreds of published authors (some of them very popular) who proclaim just the same views as yourself. It is the chip on your shoulder that repels audiences.
Just maybe you have been for so long surrounded by others who would not dare call you out on your teachings?
Maybe you find that particular aspect of my posts to be a burden you are not quite used to dealing with.
It is not just the scholars in their ivory towers Mr Gregg who can become isolated. It can happen to independent, strong willed, enthusiastic persons such as you and I.
Just an observation, but I would appreciate what you are referring to by this chip on my shoulder.
You wrote:
"The fact I have posted in threads here about Calvinism, and then proceed to address Calvinism, seems rather consistent don't you think?...Even the Arminians are staying on topic! but I wouldn't accuse them of what you are accusing some Calvinists, nor would I accuse them of teaching that Arminianism is the gospel etc. It is a cheap shot."
I don't know what subjects you may have addressed at other forums. All I know is that the Calvinism issue is the only one that throws your switches here.
You completely missed my point, and common courtesy should have caused you to at least back off from this accusation.
I told you I address other matters elsewhere, and that should have been enough for you, but you continue with the accusation.
If I write about Calvinism on a Calvinism thread, I do not deserve those comments and you should sincerely apologise for trying to make me out as some kind of myopic one string fiddle player!
The Arminians, as you say, have done pretty well in staying on-topic in this Calvinist forum. However, almost all of them can be found posting at a dozen other forums here, on subjects unrelated to the Calvinism/Arminianism controversy.
Steve, we are visitors at your forum, we are here because there is talk of a debate taking place. I fully expect your regular board members to be posting in other threads, as such would be quite normal behaviour for regular posters at their board.
We are not regular posters, have little or no previous history here, but come from other places where we do interact much in the same way as the regulars here do at our own regular boards, so I have no idea what you are trying to achieve with your charges.
Steve, before coming to the conclusion that I am obsessed, why not just ask me why I consider reformed theology important? Is that just too hard to do?I have seen no evidence of anyone having an Arminian hobbyhorse here. I can't search the internet to discover all the other websites where you post, but I can scan your name at this site and see scores (perhaps hundreds) of posts from you, invariably, in the Calvinism section. From the evidence you have given us of your interests, this would seem to be an obsession. What I can't figure out is, why you think it so important.
Nearly every post I make here has passion connected with it and I make no apologies for that. But I also lay out my position using scripture at every point. That is not obsession, unless it is obsession for truth about God, salvation and free grace alone. That obsession I will frankly and freely admit!
I don't know how you choose your priorities, but I will share how I choose mine. If a certain area of study makes me more loving, humble and Christlike, I wish to devote my attention to that subject.
I find that the more we talk about being humble, or trying to become humble by pursuing it, the less we ever actually achieve it. Just my two cents worth.
Again, your comments are inflammatory and not conducive to reasonable discussion regarding these matters.Calvinism is certainly not one of those subjects, as seems to be demonstrated (at least to me) by your attitude and obsession with this topic.
I hope in your debate with Dr White you do not end up using this “aloofness” in order to save face.
That is just too easy to paint your opponent as obsessed or whatever, rather than just provide biblical answers to their position. That requires serious effort.
If I had the same attitude to Calvinism as you seem to “now” have, I would never debate the subject in any meaningful way. Why bother? It is not that important is it?
Then again, when I listen to your lectures upon Calvinism I do not get the impression that you find Calvinism so unimportant. Why is that?
When I listen to you on your show I often get the idea that you are some kind of a Philosopher, rather than a Bible teacher. Sorry if that offends you, but I have listened to you many times and that is the main thing I come away with. You have a lot of good philosophical things to say for sure, but it ain’t exegetical Bible exposition.It seems to me that Calvinism only is important if it is untrue. This seems paradoxical, but here is my reasoning:
If Calvinism is untrue, but is believed, it may lead to a number of behavioral problems related to a fatalistic outlook.
I have known people who concluded that they must not be of the "elect" since they had sought hard for God and not yet come to know Him.
Funny that. I have known a few who said the same thing, but eventually they came to know the Lord!
They understood election post-conversion and were greatly encouraged, but pre-conversion, they feared election and were brought to a lowly state in despairing if a Holy God could save such a one as them. (If Given Libertarian free will, such an assertion is reasonable)
Believing that God loved and elected some, but not others, led these people to discontinue their attempts to find God. To you, this may simply mean they were indeed not elect, but to me, this means that a false doctrine discouraged them from believing that God is the rewarder of those who diligently seek Him.
Yes, and that is why you really are a good philosopher Steve.
Many years ago, the Rev Jerry Falwell in his early days was a strong Calvinist, but after continually shrinking his audience, he started to wonder why people were not being saved. A good friend who was not a Calvinist told him his problem was Calvinism, and if he wanted to see people saved, he needed to get rid of his Calvinism.
The rest is history as they say.
The Lord in John Chapter 6, went from having multitudes following Him over several days. People from all around going out of their way to hear Jesus.
By the time you get to the end of Chapter 6, the multitudes have gone, the followers vanish, the religious are offended and even His closest Disciples are about to forsake Him, but one of them admits there is nowhere else to go when pressed by Jesus!
You say people seek God.
That is your false premise, and from it flows all of your theology.
Scripture rejects your presuppositions Steve, and therefore the foundation has collapsed even before you set about your hermeneutic.
Human Nature is full of bad fruit, and neither Calvinism or any other “ism” can alter that fact.Sometimes Calvinism has the opposite effect, causing someone to assume himself to be "elect" with the result of giving a false sense of security, and a slackness in Christian obedience. I do not say that all Calvinists succumb to such imbalances, but many do, and it can generally be traced to their views about election. That is why I say that Calvinism is important only if it is not true. As a false doctrine, it can generate bad fruit.
The very same arguments you use to defend Christianity against the false charges from atheists etc, can be applied to Calvinism, verbatim.
On the other hand, if Calvinism is true, it is unimportant. It has no practical ramifications that do not equally inhere in non-Calvinism. Both Calvinists and Arminians can glorify God, can live holy lives, can be humble and faithful disciples, and can love God and their brethren. Calvinism does not contribute anything distinctly to these ends.
Wow, that is some huge assertion. Is it just me who stands amazed at this statement?
Name any area of Christian Theology and I will show you how Calvinism impacts that area and will compare it to Non Calvinism.
At times the ramifications are insurmountable let alone anything close to what you assert above.
But, obviously for you, it is indeed serious enough error to be important enough to debate the subject, right?
Man, “The Institutes” boiled down to this mere assertion! Incredible stuff Steve, simply incredible.All Calvin provides is a theory about what was going on behind the scenes that led to our conversion. Obviously, a person may be converted, and live a Christian life without having any such knowledge of these "behind the scenes" activities of God.
I do not argue this way, but if that is your experience, I shall let it pass.Calvinists often say that Calvinism is valuable in keeping the saint humble (about his depravity, apparently), but I have not necessarily seen this fruit in most of my Calvinist correspondents, so I think Calvinism must exert very little influence in this direction.
I know you are aware that truth is truth no matter what the wrapper it comes in is, but I digress.
No Calvinist teaches that Calvinism per say humbles anyone. God humbles man, and that Calvinism teaches. Man does not humble man as most Non Calvinists seem to teach.
Some Calvinists say that Calvinism alone can provide assurance of salvation.
Wrong again.
Calvinism teaches that God who is able to save to the uttermost all those who come to God by Him, shall be saved, for their salvation starts with God, continues with God and shall end in God.
Being someone who rests in God’s promises, results in assurance, but holding the view you hold, seems reasonable enough on the surface, but still, you cannot guarantee anyone, that in believing today, they can and shall believe next week, next year or moments before their final breath! No, you can never teach that.
Your views about trusting only in the present is all we have, is the exact same thinking that puts God “in time” along side us, i.e. Inherent Open Theology. A direction you are heading in very fast btw.
Without the Spirit and being not in Christ leads to anything really. False assurance is in all cultic sects, both positive and negative.However, this doctrine is quite capable of delivering a false assurance as easily as a genuine assurance.
The doctrines of grace are the only real foundations for assurance of salvation.
I heard this line of reasoning in your lectures and am just wondering where on earth you came up with this?To a logical and humble person, it would seem that believing in Calvinism must inhibit any full assurance of salvation, since that doctrine teaches that any present evidence of regeneration ultimately may be proved imaginary by the failure to die faithful (many cases can be produced of people who had exemplary evidences of salvation, early in life, but who apostasized and died in unbelief).
Certainly not from reformed theology.
James White also answered this objection on the Dividing line and likewise was curious to know from whence such an idea originated or was based upon.
As I have said elsewhere, if believing Calvinist doctrines were essential to our spiritual well-being, it seems strange that so many believers prior to Augustine lived in ignorance of these doctrines, and yet often showed remarkable sanctity and martyr's courage.
Not to mention many errors and quite strange doctrines.
And as you well know, Calvinism traces it’s theology to scripture, not the early Church.
First of all, Calvinism is not a “Doctrine”. Where did you get that idea?If it is an important doctrine, why did Jesus and the apostles never speak clearly enough about it to allow the first ten generations of Christians to see it in their teachings?
How much reformed theology have you read and understood?
After your fairly reasonable description of what exegesis is as opposed to eisogesis, you say the following.
I think many Calvinists believe that exegesis primarily involves detailed analysis of Greek words and tenses.
From whence does this assertion come from?
And what on earth do you really mean by that?
I know such a comment may influence others and perhaps seem like the one saying it has a grasp on the plain reading of a text, but those who like to dig a little deeper are not convinced by such shallow comments.
It reminds me of a man who prides himself on being self taught in Physics but scorns anyone who would point out his misunderstanding of the periodical table of elements.
I fully agree!, and that is why I am looking forward to this debate, for that is where your manipulation (not deliberate) shall become evident.However, this is only necessary when the English version gives a false sense through poor translation. In a good translation, most biblical texts can be easily understood without an advanced knowledge of the Greek language. Occasionally, a translation is incorrect or unclear. In such cases, analysis of Greek vocabulary and grammar becomes essential to exegesis. However, the Greek language is just as capable of manipulation by a teacher as is English.
In the vast majority of texts, the best exegesis is to consider the various contexts of a passage: 1) the immediate context, involving the sentences before and after the passage, so as to follow the author's flow of thought; 2) the context of the whole book in which the passage is found; 3) the context of all the writings of the same author; and 4) the context of the whole Bible.
The whole range of hermeneutical principles provides the tools for exegesis--not just Greek grammarical analysis.
What is your point?
You seem to be forgetting that it was Calvinists who wrote the rule books on hermeneutics!
Prove your assertion about the Greek charge. It is too easy to make an assertion, without proving it.
I really hope you will not use this tactic in your debate with Dr White, who can and will use Greek in his exegesis. Will that be part of your MO for this debate? I hope not.
I could write up a big fancy sentence explaining what Hermeneutics is, and then finish it off by asserting something without proving it, but that would be wasting space and time and effort.
But who is making that argument? I never heard a Calvinist say such a thing?One might expect me to disparage3 the importance of such Greek analysis, since I am not a Greek scholar. However, it is clear that people in the first centuries of Christianity (who all spoke Greek as their native language) were capable of disagreeing about the meaning of many texts (and even disagreeing with the way modern Calvinist Greek scholars interpret them). This should demonstrate that correct understanding of the Bible does not depend upon knowledge of Greek alone, or primarily.
I will do so in a post yet to come which shall summarise much of what I have been saying.In your saying that you exegete texts and that I do not, I am at a loss to know what examples you may have in mind. Can you point me to an example of your exegesis in any part of this forum?
If you think you or any other Non Calvinist here has been doing what your accurate above description concerning exegesis is, then can you point me to that?
It is patently obvious to anyone, that you have chosen where I was responding to a post that was sarcastically putting forward a rather pun intended misrepresentation of Calvinism and scripture.In my answers, I attempt to show why the text should be understood the way that I represent it. In the process, I analyze the context (and the Greek, when necessary) and apply normal rules of hermeneutics. By contrast, it seems to me that you simply run a string of verses, assuming that they teach whatever you have in mind, and do not make an effort to show that they have the meaning you assign to them. Here is an example of one of your typical presentations of evidence (Found at http://www.wvss.com/forumc/viewtopic.php?t=1756&start=0. Each series of dots represent an elipsis where you quote a passage you were critiquing):
.....
Parallel = Everyone ever born is the poor innocent recipient of this thing called Original sin from our first parents Adam and Eve. Poor children.
Text to consider
Psa 58:3
The wicked are estranged from the womb; they go astray from the womb, speaking lies.
.....
Parallel = All sinners are not only poor unfortunate sinners, but they have a tendency to follow the pattern of their fallen parents in rebellion against God.
Text to Consider
Rom 1:29-32
being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; being full of envy, murder, quarrels, deceit, evil habits, becoming whisperers, backbiters, haters of God, insolent, proud, braggarts, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, undiscerning, perfidious, without natural affection, unforgiving, unmerciful; who, knowing the righteous order of God, that those practicing such things are worthy of death, not only do them, but have pleasure in those practicing them.
......
Parallel = The Supreme Ruler so respects mans will that He only offers a cure to those who will eat the cure. He will not force anyone to take the cure. Such would be ungentlemanly, wouldn’t it?
Text to Consider
Isa 61:1
The Spirit of the Lord Jehovah is on Me; because Jehovah has anointed Me to preach the Gospel to the poor; He has sent Me to bind up the broken-hearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to those who are bound;
Eze 11:19
And I will give them one heart, and I will put a new spirit within you. And I will remove the stony heart out of their flesh, and will give them a heart of flesh,
......
Parallel = God is expected, or demanded to save everyone! Grace is not grace, it is expected!
God must save everyone if He has the power to do so. Salvation is not an act of mercy but a deed demanded by the guilty.
Text to Consider
Rom 9:15 For He said to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion."
Rom 9:18 Therefore He has mercy on whom He will have mercy, and whom He will, He hardens.
.......
Parallel = Condemnation is not justified, nor hell deserved for all men without exception!
Text to Consider
Rom 9:19-23
You will then say to me, Why does He yet find fault? For who has resisted His will?
No, but, O man, who are you who replies against God?
Shall the thing formed say to Him who formed it, Why have you made me this way?
Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel to honor and another to dishonor?
What if God, willing to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much long-suffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction; and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy which He had before prepared to glory;
........
Parallel = God must save everyone if He has the power and ability to do so.
He has no right to withhold grace. He has no right to save some and condemn the rest, when He has every right to condemn all...
He has absolutely no right to have mercy on whomever He decides to show mercy.
We reject that God, preferring a God who lets us decide for ourselves if we will be saved or not, even though we cannot save ourselves. Even though we hate God and spit in His face, and would hang Him on a cross all over again, especially if this Calvinist God is the God of scripture! But we know better.
God would never choose to save whoever He desires to show mercy and leave others to perish. That is not my God. My God pleads and years and strives for all, even though He knew before I was born whether I would end up in Hell or not! Even if He knew I would definitely end up in Hell, He still made me anyway...............
Text to Consider
Pro 16:4 Jehovah has made all for His purpose; yea, even the wicked for the day of evil.
Jer 31:3 Jehovah has appeared to me from afar, saying, Yea, I have loved you with an everlasting love; therefore with loving-kindness I have drawn you.
Joh 17:2 even as You have given Him authority over all flesh so that He should give eternal life to all You have given Him.
Joh 17:9 I pray for them. I do not pray for the world, but for those whom You have given Me, for they are Yours.
Joh 17:20 And I do not pray for these alone, but for those also who shall believe on Me through their word,
I was not presenting “exegesis” there in any way, shape or form!
I was using irony to provide a response to a rather bad series of misrepresentations about scripture and Calvinism.
The fact that simple point escapes your attention seems quite strange to me and yet again makes me truly wonder if you do know what exegesis is, not just being able to define it, but recognise when it is being done and when it is not being done.
Your citation of scripture is not exegesis, but assertion. You present the material as if these are verses that Arminians have forgotten about and have no way of explaining. If you were to exegete the passages, you would attempt to demonstrate that the passages mean what you believe they mean, and that they cannot mean what Arminians believe they mean. Have you attempted this in any of your posts?
Yes I have, in just about every post!
Like I said, I will do a summary and perhaps a concluding post here at these forums, but at the end of the day, I am simply looking forward to the debate between you guys, for the Church needs to hear these issues openly debated with thorough cross examination, and to that end I thank you for your willingness to see enough of a need for this kind of open debate and your willingness to engage Dr White.Perhaps you have, but I have forgotten where. Would you supply me with an example of your doing exegesis? That would be very helpful.
Mark
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Hello Bob,Traveler wrote:Sean,
Can you please answer my comment without a question about Judas?
Jesus in my mind gave us the answer about Judas..."none has been lost except the one doomed to destruction so that scripture would be fulfilled"Jn 17:12 Jesus did not protect him. Jesus did not pray for Judas as he did for the others. We know he protected Peter, who denied him. Lk:22:31-32 "Simon, Simon, Satan has asked to sift you as wheat. But I have prayed for you Simon that your faith may not fail..." And I shall lose none of all that the Father has given me"; It seems pretty self evident to me Sean, whether or not you "exgete or isogete" with Arminian or Calvinist eyes, those who come to Jesus, drawn by the Father and raised on the Last Day and NONE are lost means exactly what it says. "Many are called but few are chosen", perhaps?
Peace
Bob
The first line asks me to answer your comment without a question. What exactly do you want me to answer? Jesus said none was lost except one. That means one was lost. That means one was lost, not none as you state. One (Judas) came to Jesus, didn't leave when others did, had faith, worked wonders granted by Jesus authority, yet he fell away. And yes, Jesus knew it ahead of time. From reading the rest of scripture, we find that Judas is not the only one who can fall from Grace, lose faith, etc. Exhortations are given repeatedly by the apostles to saved Christians to keep the faith and not lose it.
Read Acts 1:15-21 and tell me if Judas held an "office" and then defected, so as to need replacement.
Acts 1:17 "For he was numbered among us and was allotted his share in this ministry."
"For it is written in the Book of Psalms, "'May his camp become desolate, and let there be no one to dwell in it'; and "'Let another take his office.'
I'm not sure what else to say. Peace brother.
Last edited by Guest 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)
You haven't been around here long, have you?tartanarmy wrote:
Just maybe you have been for so long surrounded by others who would not dare call you out on your teachings?

There are not only past members who have disagreed strongly with Steve here on the forum but some still post regularly and are quite peaceful about their disagreement(s) with him theologically.
Mark, are you going to answer my last post to you?

Last edited by Guest 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)
-
- Posts: 3
- Joined: Sat Jul 15, 2006 12:26 pm
- Location: Australia
I will get to it Sean...
Regarding your comments above, I have not seen much challenging of Steve, but have read much praise, agreement etc.
Even on the call in show, people phone in, sometimes with deep and important questions, and you get the feeling they have not even began to work out the answer to their questions often admitting as much.
Then Steve gives some answer which is totally libertarian in every way, and he gives no hint that others have an established view diametrically opposed to what he just spouted, without actually giving that view a fair representation, and then often the caller simply says, "Thanks, now I know what that means etc".
It is both sad and laughable at the same time.
Then someone like me calls him out on a few things and wants to hold him to a stricter standard, and I end up with the cold shoulder and a charge of being obsessed.
It just makes me wonder if the guy gets challenged by hard questions and or becomes arrogant to those whom he is not really used to dealing with.
I just heard him state to a caller on his call in show, that Romans 9 has nothing whatsoever to do with Calvinism and then he misrepresented Calvinism as God selecting people to either salvation or damnation, with not a hint of what Calvinism really teaches about the doctrine of election.
He at that point presents a caricature of Calvinism (definitely not as extreme as some folks), and I would not believe in that Calvinism anymore than Steve would, if it was how he explains it.
Anyway, he is big enough to defend himself, but I do admire your loyalty and in fact I like discussion with you. You have not yet stooped to calling me obsessed or having a big chip on my shoulder. We are simply discussing important aspects of scripture, and hopefully such interaction is helping both of us and others reading these discussions.
Mark
Regarding your comments above, I have not seen much challenging of Steve, but have read much praise, agreement etc.
Even on the call in show, people phone in, sometimes with deep and important questions, and you get the feeling they have not even began to work out the answer to their questions often admitting as much.
Then Steve gives some answer which is totally libertarian in every way, and he gives no hint that others have an established view diametrically opposed to what he just spouted, without actually giving that view a fair representation, and then often the caller simply says, "Thanks, now I know what that means etc".
It is both sad and laughable at the same time.
Then someone like me calls him out on a few things and wants to hold him to a stricter standard, and I end up with the cold shoulder and a charge of being obsessed.
It just makes me wonder if the guy gets challenged by hard questions and or becomes arrogant to those whom he is not really used to dealing with.
I just heard him state to a caller on his call in show, that Romans 9 has nothing whatsoever to do with Calvinism and then he misrepresented Calvinism as God selecting people to either salvation or damnation, with not a hint of what Calvinism really teaches about the doctrine of election.
He at that point presents a caricature of Calvinism (definitely not as extreme as some folks), and I would not believe in that Calvinism anymore than Steve would, if it was how he explains it.
Anyway, he is big enough to defend himself, but I do admire your loyalty and in fact I like discussion with you. You have not yet stooped to calling me obsessed or having a big chip on my shoulder. We are simply discussing important aspects of scripture, and hopefully such interaction is helping both of us and others reading these discussions.
Mark
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Hi Mark,
Robin
Obviously you have not listened to Steve to any extent. Steve will give alternative views to almost all questions that are posed to him, while at the same time giving his own opinion to what he sees as the correct answer (that is why people are calling him). Perhaps you should apologize for this slanderous remark.Then Steve gives some answer which is totally libertarian in every way, and he gives no hint that others have an established view diametrically opposed to what he just spouted, without actually giving that view a fair representation, and then often the caller simply says, "Thanks, now I know what that means etc".
It is both sad and laughable at the same time.
Mark, why do you shy away from such a description of Calvinism? Calvin himself never did. You sited in an earlier post the famous sermon by Jonathan Edwards. Have you actually read this sermon?I just heard him state to a caller on his call in show, that Romans 9 has nothing whatsoever to do with Calvinism and then he misrepresented Calvinism as God selecting people to either salvation or damnation, with not a hint of what Calvinism really teaches about the doctrine of election.
Robin
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
God Bless
-
- Posts: 3
- Joined: Sat Jul 15, 2006 12:26 pm
- Location: Australia
Calvinism, if you want to use Calvin a source, is NOT what you represent above, so why would I want to agree with your comments.
I listened to his comments and stated them here.
I have listened to a lot of his stuff on Calvinism.
His other stuff (Non Calvinism) has a lot of great things to say and I have listenned to some of that even recently!
When he does put forward Calvinist views, he does not represent it properly.
Quoting a few lines from a Calvinist just does not cut it.
You can make people say whatever you want them to say with such a method.
Will Steve apologise for misrepresenting Calvinism?
Will he apologise for painting me as having a chip on my shoulder or being obsessed?
I will not expect an apology for he is certainly free to think whatever he wants about me.
I do what I do in order to defend scriptural truth, not Calvinism, and if that means taking accusations then so be it.
I have already stated many times that Steve is definitely not the worst misrepresenter of Calvinism, and for that mercy I am somewhat thankful, but he still misrepresents Calvinism.
He does this because he reads the implications through his own presupositions instead of representing Calvinism through its own presupositions.
It is one thing to honestly represent a view fairly, and then to turn around and argue against that view with all the passion you can muster. Just make sure you represent the thing you oppose on its own terms and then do your best to refute it, is all I ask. That takes effort and careful attention for sure, but it is the most honoring way to pursue truth of any kind.
Mark
I listened to his comments and stated them here.
I have listened to a lot of his stuff on Calvinism.
His other stuff (Non Calvinism) has a lot of great things to say and I have listenned to some of that even recently!
When he does put forward Calvinist views, he does not represent it properly.
Quoting a few lines from a Calvinist just does not cut it.
You can make people say whatever you want them to say with such a method.
Will Steve apologise for misrepresenting Calvinism?
Will he apologise for painting me as having a chip on my shoulder or being obsessed?
I will not expect an apology for he is certainly free to think whatever he wants about me.
I do what I do in order to defend scriptural truth, not Calvinism, and if that means taking accusations then so be it.
I have already stated many times that Steve is definitely not the worst misrepresenter of Calvinism, and for that mercy I am somewhat thankful, but he still misrepresents Calvinism.
He does this because he reads the implications through his own presupositions instead of representing Calvinism through its own presupositions.
It is one thing to honestly represent a view fairly, and then to turn around and argue against that view with all the passion you can muster. Just make sure you represent the thing you oppose on its own terms and then do your best to refute it, is all I ask. That takes effort and careful attention for sure, but it is the most honoring way to pursue truth of any kind.
Mark
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
-
- Posts: 3
- Joined: Sat Jul 15, 2006 12:26 pm
- Location: Australia
Edwards sermon I have actually recorded myself on audio for some other purpose a while ago, so yes I am quite aware of the sermon from Him.
Mark
Mark
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Mark--
how often fo you disagree with James White? Have you ever "called him out?" If so, on what topic?
It seems obvious that if I disagreed with most of what Steve G says it would be rather silly of me to continue listening to his teachings. And I still listen to R.C. and MacArthur occasionally because they are good challenging teachers. They dont always teach about calvinistic topics. even when they do, it sounds good. I just dont agree, although I used to.
i must admit I read these long posts on calvinism with a bit of wonder- i simply dont understand what the big deal is. Like Steve said, the great majority of the people who are in the Kingdom of God would have no idea what all this hubbub is about.
Put it this way: how would your christian life change if you became convinced that calvinism was not correct? And vice-versa for the non-calvinists? When my views changed to a more arminian view, I can honestly say I hardly noticed, as a practical matter.
TK
how often fo you disagree with James White? Have you ever "called him out?" If so, on what topic?
It seems obvious that if I disagreed with most of what Steve G says it would be rather silly of me to continue listening to his teachings. And I still listen to R.C. and MacArthur occasionally because they are good challenging teachers. They dont always teach about calvinistic topics. even when they do, it sounds good. I just dont agree, although I used to.
i must admit I read these long posts on calvinism with a bit of wonder- i simply dont understand what the big deal is. Like Steve said, the great majority of the people who are in the Kingdom of God would have no idea what all this hubbub is about.
Put it this way: how would your christian life change if you became convinced that calvinism was not correct? And vice-versa for the non-calvinists? When my views changed to a more arminian view, I can honestly say I hardly noticed, as a practical matter.
TK
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
"Were not our hearts burning within us? (Lk 24:32)