All to the glory of God!

Post by **_tartanarmy** » Thu Jun 21, 2007 11:14 am

Man this is getting frustrating!
Piadion is a Heretic!

Why would I back off from that statement?
It is not slander, but true!

I very well know that such language is not popular nor common today, and I certainly do not use that term loosely, but Open Theists are heretics.

It is not a sign of immaturity!

And as far as debate is concerned, I have put in much effort on that front, but what I get back is not reasoned exegesis, nor even cogent most of the time.

I see human libertarianism as the doctrine of this board with not a shred of biblical evidence presented to support it!

I do not call Sean or Steve heretics.
Nor anyone else here for that matter, just Paidon. He has made his views quite clear, and for that I am appreciative, but that does not stop me from calling him a heretic, for that is what he is.

If someone called me a heretic on a Christian board I would take a good long hard look at my theology, and certainly would take zero comfort from others who simply defended me by calling others immature etc.

As far as my wife comment. She is a dear Christian, far better one than I am. She has a simple faith, but a faith that grasps "regeneration" and the whole "ordo salutis".

And I do not think I am losing the debate, if that is what we are having, so I am clueless as to that comment.
Perhaps, as some are not interacting with what I have thus far presented, are trying to use any excuse to paint me as the bad guy here all of a sudden. I don’t know, maybe.

From my perspective, the Open Theist is the one you all need to be wary of.
Those of you not embracing it, I am trying to help you. Stay clear of it is my advice.

Let me just ask this. Is this board heading towards Open Theology?
Seems so, from what I am reading.
If so, let me know, so that I may move on, and invite any of you to discuss matters privately if you like.

Mark

Post by **_tartanarmy** » Thu Jun 21, 2007 11:19 am

tartanarmy wrote:

Quote:
The sad thing is people like Steve Gregg, who have so much good to say in other Christian areas, have nothing scriptural to say in this one important area.

My question to you is: How did you know this????????????????????

How did? or how do I know this?

I have listened to the man and have seen his responses here, that's why.

Mark

Post by **_tartanarmy** » Thu Jun 21, 2007 11:26 am

Robin, if you feel as though I am wrong, please point it out to me.
I mean, show me. Do the work.

Lay out a defense for Paidon or your own views, rather than just call me a big meanie!

Pick apart my posts and correct me where I am wrong or have misunderstood something.

I am all for debating these issues, but I expect refutation of my arguments.
I expect to be corrected by the Word of God.
That is all I ask.

If you think I am out of line in calling Paidon a heretic, please lay that out for me.

Mark

Post by **_Michelle** » Thu Jun 21, 2007 11:48 am

Let me just ask this. Is this board heading towards Open Theology?
Seems so, from what I am reading.
If so, let me know, so that I may move on, and invite any of you to discuss matters privately if you like.

Are you asking if we're going to take a vote or something? Surely you don't think that everyone here just moves en masse from one doctrine to another, do you? Have you read in any other forum besides this one?

Tart, you have written some thought provoking posts here. At other times you may have been in too much of a rush and not realized how some things you wrote came across. I, too, was bothered by your statement about your wife. I'm sure she is a kind, patient, wonderful Christian woman, but:

Paidon doesn't get it.
Arminians do not get it.

Why is it, that Atheists and philosophers get it?
Why is it, that my three girls under age 11 get it?
Why is it my wife gets it?

The way you crafted this little verse makes it appear that she comes in below atheists and children in her ability to "get it." Points for her for coming in ahead of Arminians, however. Would you be flattered to come in after atheists and children?

Michelle

Post by **_tartanarmy** » Thu Jun 21, 2007 1:04 pm

My wife read the post and laughed.
Then she said, "even dumb ol me gets what you are saying!".

Not that she is dumb, but rather she has a simple faith that grasps these issues.
Ahead of the Arminian? Absolutely, that was my point!

I have not posted elsewhere here, and have had no reason to. Actually, I think I did post in one or two other sections come to think about it.

Anyway, I have probably run the course here and have said more than I ever thought I would.
I enjoyed the discussion and am just completing some posts in another thread.

No, I am not asking for a vote! I just get the impression that Open Theism is given a voice here. So be it.
Steve Gregg has a soft spot for it and if this is his place, it makes sense to me that such views are tolerated.
I am opposed to Open Theism, and strongly so, as you can tell.

Now, if my wife was not offended by my comment, then neither should anyone else. Like I said. She just laughed at it, God love her!
She might not have a clue what "ordo salutis" means, but she certainly understands beyond the term, and that is all I was really aiming at.

So if anyone thinks I am in the Doghouse!
I am not.
And if anyone still thinks that perhaps she should be bothered by what I said, then I humbly suggest, that perhaps such says more about you than her.

Mark

Post by **_tartanarmy** » Thu Jun 21, 2007 1:07 pm

Just out of curiosity..What have I said that you have found thought provoking?

Mark

Post by **_Michelle** » Thu Jun 21, 2007 2:38 pm

Well...

I liked this one. I thought about it all day:

Bob, your bringing in Paul's conversion is a great example of regeneration preceding faith, as well as Total depravity, Unconditional election, and Irresistible grace.

Arminians I have spoken to, never deal head on with his conversion, and many will flat out twist the whole event to somehow bring in Paul's so called free will choice in salvation.

They seem to forget that we Calvinists teach that man has a will, and that so called “free” will is the “fallen” will heading upon the road to an eternal Damascus, unless, like Paul, we are knocked off our horse and in our blindness are lead and become healed.

This one amazed me because I didn't know Arminians were not saved:

My hearts prayer to God, is that my bretheren, called Arminians might be saved, for they have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge.

This one made me laugh (in a good way:)

Quote:
I would now like for you to provide one quote from anyone who lived before Augustine and who believed the Calvinists doctrine of sovereignty and free will.

Is this a trick question? Laughing

How about the Apostle Paul and maybe Job?
Do you want me to cite them?

Mark

Interesting:

It does not follow that Calvinism leads to prayer being a waste of time.
Calvinism teaches that God has decreed that He works through means, so that in His meticulous control, prayer is a means that God predestines, even our struggling in prayer is a means God has ordained for His purposes.

No, Calvinism does not lead to prayer being a waste of time at all, quite the contrary!
How exciting to know that our prayers have been ordained by God and can be a means of very great significance!

What about the Non Calvinists prayer? Have you ever prayed that the Lord would soften or change someones heart? Ever?

If you have, then you are a closet Calvinist!

I thought this one was sad:

If those doctrines taught in Calvinist/Reformed Theology were untrue, then I am the most miserable of men, without hope, and without assurance and ultimately one seriously deluded individual.

If Arminian Theology was all that I had, and I actually believed in free will (1), prevenient grace (2), deciding for Jesus (3) etc, then I would in good conscience depart from that faith and would not know where I would finally end up.
Perhaps an Atheist or some kind of Cult leader or something! If not, maybe a Gangster or a hired hit man!

But that’s just me.
Maybe other Calvinists will tell you a different story, I do not really know.

There were more, but I'm running out of time

Michelle

Post by **_Allyn** » Thu Jun 21, 2007 4:16 pm

I am not a clavinist so I have a question for a calvinist and may sound stupid but to me it makes perfect sense.

How is God glorified by calvinism? In my way of thinking we are all drawn to God by the Holy Spirit but some (many) refuse the Spirits prodding and remain in sin. those who are drawn are brought to accepting Christ as Saviour because of the preaching of the Gospel. When the Gospel is accepted then based on faith in that Gospel we have been declared saved in Christ. Through all of this and at every step, God is glorified.

If God has predetermined one to be save but another lost then where is the glory?

Post by **_Christopher** » Thu Jun 21, 2007 5:19 pm

Hmm. Heretic. Let’s see here.

Derived from:

NT:141
hairetikos (hahee-ret-ee-kos'); from the same as NT:140; a schismatic:

KJV - heretic [the Greek word itself].
NKJV – divisive man
NASU – factious man
NIV – divisive person

I don’t see Paidion trying to cause any schisms on this board, but I do perceive your comments going that direction. Wouldn’t that make you the real “heretic”?

What does scripture say about “heretics”?

Titus 3:10-11
10 Reject a divisive man (heretic) after the first and second admonition, 11 knowing that such a person is warped and sinning, being self-condemned.
NKJV

It seems you’ve been extended much more grace than Paul even called for here.

Mark wrote:

If you think I am out of line in calling Paidon a heretic, please lay that out for me.

You made the accusation, it seems to me the onus is on you to lay out your case as to why he is a “heretic”. Maybe you could also explain to us how you define who is and who isn’t a “heretic” and how you reach your conclusions?

Don’t be surprised if you’re asked to eat lizards and birds from a heavenly picnic blanket.

Post by **__id_1887** » Thu Jun 21, 2007 8:55 pm

TASTE AND SEE

Beware of Common Sense
“Command what you wish, and give what you command”

Second Chronicles 30 tells how King Hezekiah recovered the Passover for Israel. It had fallen into neglect, and he was broken by this disobedience. So he sent couriers throughout the land calling the people to repentance and obedience.

The message of the king brimmed with conditional statements. For example; “If you return to the LORD,1….[then] he will not turn His face from you” (verse 9, NKJV, emphasis added). These conditional statements show that God really does respond to choices. That is, if we make a certain choice, God does one thing, and if we make a different choice, God does something different. So Hezekiah calls the people to return to the Lord so that he will return to them.

This responsiveness of God to the choices we make causes some people to jump to a very unwarranted “common sense” conclusion. They say: “Well, if God responds to our choices, then what we choose and what God does in response must depend ultimately on us.” This is what I call “philosophical” interpretation rather than “exegetical” interpretation. In other words, this way of understanding conditional statements in the Bible comes from commonsense human reasoning rather than careful attention to the uncommon ways of God revealed in the text.

Let me illustrate from 2 Chronicles 30 (emphasis added). Here are the exhortations Hezekiah sends to the people. They are laden with conditions.

· Verse 6: “O, sons of Israel, return to the LORD God of Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, that He may return to those of you who escaped and are left from the hand of the kings of Assyria.” In other words, if you return to the Lord, he will return to you.
· Verse 7: “Do not be like your fathers and your brothers, who were unfaithful to the LORD God of their fathers, so that He made them a horror, as you see.” God’s action to “make them a horror” was the result of the fathers being unfaithful to the Lord.
· Verse 8: “Now do not stiffen your neck like your fathers, but yield to the LORD and enter His sanctuary which He has consecrated forever, and serve the LORD your God, that His burning anger may turn away from you.” God’s burning anger will turn away from you, if you serve the Lord your God.
· Verse 9: “For if you return to the LORD, [then] your brothers and your sons will find compassion before those who led them captive and will return to this land. For the LORD your God is gracious and compassionate, and will not turn His face away from you if you return to Him.” Returning to the Lord is a condition that the people must meet if they are going to receive the compassion of the Lord in not turning his face away from them.
What was the response to Hezekiah’s couriers who carried these messages of conditional hope? Verse 10 says that some people “laughed them to scorn.” But others from “Asher, Manasseh, and Zebulun humbled themselves and came to Jerusalem” (verse 11). The same humble choice was made in Judah (verse 12). What made the difference in how these people responded? Verse 12 gives the uncommonsense answer: “The hand of God was also on Judah to give them one heart to do what the king and the princes commanded by the word of the LORD.”

Don’t read this too quickly. Think about the stunning implications. They are enormous. What verse 12 teaches, in light of the preceding context, is that God commanded, “Return to me and I will return to you.” Some people did return. Why did they? Verse 12 gives the deepest reason: God gave them a heart to do what he had commanded. “The hand of God was also on Judah to give them one heart to do what the king and the princes commanded.”

Is this a contradiction? To say: “If you do what the king commanded, God will turn his anger away from you,” and then to say, “God gave them a heart to do what the king commanded?” Is it a contradiction to state a condition that people must meet, and then say that God enables them to meet the condition? No, it is not a contradiction. Only philosophical prejudice against what this text teaches would call it so.

This sheds light on dozens of biblical texts. Indeed on the whole structure of biblical thought. When we read sentences like, “If you return to God, he will return to you,” we dare not jump to the conclusion that what we choose, and what God does in response, depends ultimately on us. Verse 12 teaches explicitly: What God commands, God may also give. It is the closest biblical parallel to St. Augustine’s famous prayer, “Command what you wish, but give what you command” (Confessions, X xxix, 40).

The lesson for us is a warning and an exhortation. Beware of interpreting with commonsense inferences, rather than giving heed to the text. Rather, be glad for the grace of God beneath our response to the grace of God. If grace did not awaken us to grace, we would sleep through the revolution. “For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory for ever” (Romans 11:36, RSV).

Taste and See, pp. 66-68 John Piper