* * *
ADMIN NOTE: The comments are closed on this thread and a new one has opened here:
It’s Calvinism Free-For-All: Off the Top of Your Head, Part 2
The other record-breaking thread is getting really long with comments and so I thought it might be good to let Brian’s new comment have its own thread since it’s on one topic. I’m doing something I’ve never done before. We’re going to let this post be an open post on Calvinism. Many of the people I cover in abuse stories come from either Calvinist or Neo-Calvinist background. That’s not to say there are not abuse issues within Arminian churches (i.e., Calvary Chapel). I’ve mentioned before that I have friends who are Calvinist who certainly are not abusive. In fact, they defend the oppressed/abused. We have to be careful about those kinds of blanket statements. But there may be some truth to the idea that some doctrines may be a better “breeding” ground for abusive-type leaders.
So, in light of Brian’s comment below, let’s go for it. And okay, I give up . . . go ahead and spell out that “C” word if you want – LOL 🙂
* * *
* * *
Ed said: “Don’t call yourself a Calvinist if you don’t support everything about John Calvin.”
Ed, Calvinism and John Calvin are not synonymous, regardless of what you say.
Holding to the tenets of what is commonly called Calvinism does NOT equate to agreeing with everything Calvin did or taught.
I am curious…does anyone on here even know what they are talking about when they use the term “Calvinism”? I’d be interested to see some responses. What is Calvinism? You’ve all been railing against it, so I expect you can describe it without having to look it up. If you have to look it up, then why are you so against something about which you actually do not know the details?
* * *
Spiritual Sounding Board 
Gary, Here is the problem with the protests from Calvinists that Calvin had no REAL power (and yes, I hear this ALL the time). Official history proves different. And by official history, I am talking about the documentation that survived. The fact is, Calvin’s second time around in Geneva had conditions attached. And he consolidated his power. The Genevans were very concerned about the Catholic church coming back into power. They were lost about Reformation doctrine. And Calvin had what? Oh yes, his institutes. Systematized religion laid out for them.
Leonard Verduin ran into the documentation when he researched his book (on a grant from the Calvin Foundation) about the step children of the revolution. Some very damning evidence are Calvin’s letters! He premeditated Servetus’ murder for one thing. In other examples, he might have been able to hide his behavior from history had he not written Farel so often. He comes off as a brute and whining coward. And official church history seemed to be proud to document their heretic hunts. Ever read Martyrs Mirror? Get out the Kleenex.
Verduin’s book is very well researched but the focus is on those groups that did not fall in line with the state church and how they were persecuted.
CAlvin was like any other cowardly bully who used others to carry out his dirty work, like Trie. He hid behind others. After Servetus, he wrote a friend and whined about how he was being blamed. But using others to carry out the dirty work, gives a ready made defense for those who are pro Calvin but the truth is Calvin ran the show. He insisted on that before he came back to Geneva. And they so feared the Catholics taking hold, they complied.
You might also enjoy Zweig’s Mary Queen of Scots. John Knox was much like Calvin.
LikeLike
The phrase “doctrines of grace” has the stench of a marketing ploy, as in it smells like a rotting pigs ear formed into what is supposed to look like a silk purse. With apologies if you have already done so, but could you tell us what the YRR/NC types mean by all their references to “doctrines of grace?” And what are they trying to camouflage with their fine sounding terminology? Am I near the mark in guessing these are code words for deterministic predestination?”
Yes, because at some point, people start researching Calvin and Calvinism and have a problem. So rename it to make it more palatable. It comes from their belief that we are so guilty, vile and depraved that God saving any of us, even randomly because we have no input at all, is total grace.
Yep, it is a marketing ploy akin to “complementarian” which does not mean what it says at all.
LikeLike
“He said he depended on God to enable him to “perceive” his sin and how gracious his God was for showing him this particular sin or that particular sin…and if God didn’t show him, then there will be no perceiving that’s for sure. Just the strangest thing I ever heard. He can’t know his sins unless God shows/tells him somehow– unlike the rest of us slugs who just read the word and understand what it says….things like don’t lie, don’t fake humility, don’t love the praises of men, oh, and here’s a good one–don’t blackmail your fellow Christians ’cause that is bad bad bad. ”
Diane, you know what is amazing? Those docs did not phase a lot of people. I was stunned. They proved to me what I had known for a while just reading the blogs and listening to his sermons/talks, etc. Those docs were obviously showing normal behavior for Piper, Mohler, Dever, Ortlund, Truman, the list goes on and on. What does that say about them? They need to get out of their bubbles? They are not qualified for their lofty positions? They protect evil?
How could anyone reading those official documents of SGM history not see how totally and utterly evil that place was? Little petty men with way too much power, time and money (other peoples) on their hands. The interactions were so cheesy fake they made me.
LikeLike
Gary, You might also appreciate Durant’s Reformation history volume in his series. It is huge and covers that whole era. Often, secular history is more accurate as they have no agenda to protect the characters.
LikeLike
“I had a retired Calvinist preacher (now a missionary in Costa Rica) try to defend Calvin’s actions by telling me that it was not murder, that it was a civil action, due to the law of heresy on the books, and that Calvin begged the court to give him a merciful sentence, but still death, nonetheless. ”
That was actually a huge problem for Calvin. There was NO law on the books for burning Servetus in Geneva. He was passing through. He was a foreigner. What law did he break WHILE THERE? A civil law? An ecclesiastical law? He did not even have time to espouse his heresy before he was arrested and locked up while in St Pierre hearing Calvin preach..
And Servetus was well aware that Calvin had written much earlier (when he was being persecuted by the Catholics) that persecuting people for having differing interpretations was wrong. Servetus had read everything Calvin wrote. (And had the nerve to correct some of it and send it to him years before he visited Geneva).
What Servetus was NOT aware of was Calvin’s writing to his friend, after receiving Servetus’ corrections to his writing, that if Servetus ever showed up in Geneva, he would not leave alive.
LikeLike
Ed, Lydia, All
Recognizing that such references can be rather in the nature of passe cliche, I cannot help but be struck by the similarities between the rise of John Calvin and the Rise of Adolph Hitler. By personality, both were intelligent, manipulative, unyielding, tyrannical, sociopathic despots. Each experienced early success, followed by a period in the wilderness. Hitler penned Mein Kampf; Calvin had his Institutes. Mein Kampf became the bible of the German people under Naziism. Institutes is to this day the de facto bible of wide swaths of Protestant Christianity. Each man returned from the wilderness to assume unbridled power. Each maintained their power with inhumane terror, including the premeditated murder of their personal enemies.
Hitler, by far, destroyed the greater number physically. I cannot help but wonder if Calvin, given his continuing influence, has not contributed to the destruction of far more people’s love, and souls, than the number people’s lives Hitler took physically.
LikeLike
Diane – “Those were Jesse Johnson’s words, not mine.”
Oops. Sorry about that.
Oasis – “Jeff B said, ‘No matter how well one knows the Bible, there is still a realm of mystery, and anyone who thinks he/she can explain it all is a fool. That includes people who pretend to know for sure exactly why a person acted the way he/she did or why a certain event took place.’
Then I said, “Care to elaborate on the people/fools who pretend to know for sure why a person acted the way he/she did or why a certain event took place? Not understanding you at all here.”
It bothers me that you ignored my question. The reason why I asked you to elaborate is because in a comment above yours, I mentioned knowing “why they did what they did.” I hope you weren’t referring to me, because the truth is that my child self was anything but a fool.”
First of all, I’m sorry for missing your comment the first time. It was not intentional.
The only people I had in mind are people like Pat Robertson and John Piper, who say with certainty exactly why a certain weather event occurred, or why a certain accident took place. I shouldn’t have mentioned that they claimed to know why people with whom they have had no contact do what they do, because I can’t recall a specific instance when they did that. I certainly did not have you in mind when I wrote that.
LikeLike
That sounds like the reasoning Chuck used to sue me. He had a 19-page manifesto justifying why the Bible verse on not suing was not for him. Because he’s so so special. God must have a special Bible just for Chuck O’Neal.
LikeLike
“Recognizing that such references can be rather in the nature of passe cliche, I cannot help but be struck by the similarities between the rise of John Calvin and the Rise of Adolph Hitler. ”
Very astute and at least you had the courage to mention it. When I have in the past, someone always trots out Goodwin’s law. I am a HUGE history reader and when you compare the psychology and sociology of what was going on in each instance, it is easier to see the parallels and the environment was ready for a brute to take power.. Geneva was afraid of Catholics coming back and were unschooled in Reformation theology.. Germany had been in constant chaos since WW1. With unbelievable inflation. In other words, chaos proved the perfect venue. Both needed a “savior”.
In William Shirer’s “The Rise and Fall of The Third Reich” he goes into a lot of the psychology of the time. He mentions the precursors used to make Jews the enemy. (People forget that most of the German Jews were totally assimilated and even fought as hero’s in WW1) For example, Hegel and his dialectic is one. Another, to bring the Lutheran confessing church in line, were Martin Luther’s writings on the Jews being widely distributed.
LikeLike
lydiasellerofpurple,
What I was told was that heresy was against the law, punishable by burning at the stake, and that Calvin begged the court for a merciful death, instead of a painful death. That’s what the retired preacher told me. Oh, and by the way, this preacher comments on B4B’s blog. And the way that these two are always in agreement with one another doesn’t surprise me, with their, “You are so right, brother”, or “You are spot on, brother” comments. It makes me sick.
Ed
LikeLike
Because only he has special revelation from God and true witnesses, people who see him in action day in and day out don’t count??? That’s how cult leaders act. They dismiss reality and proclaim only they have God’s real knowledge/revelations. Only they hear the true story. :::::::cult material here::::::
LikeLike
Sounds like an oxymoron to me. It sounds like beginning violin students screeching their bows on strings every time I hear “doctrines of grace.” And now will you all show me some real sympathy? I did Suzuki with 3 brand spanking new violin students and survived. And I’m a musician and bad notes irritate me like crazy. I am a survivor in so many ways 😉
LikeLike
‘That sounds like the reasoning Chuck used to sue me. He had a 19-page manifesto justifying why the Bible verse on not suing was not for him. Because he’s so so special. God must have a special Bible just for Chuck O’Neal.”
Oh, I know! Doug Phillips of Vision forum seemed to always be embroiled in some legal fight. (never sign a contract with him, btw) He would always just declare them unbelievers. And that made it ok.
I used to be amazed at how the big businessmen at mega churches did it. They would take their legal problem to their elder friends who would announce their spiritual right to sue and that was that.
All these “technicalities” make me dizzy. We need a Talmud to keep up!
LikeLike
I have to interject with a little hyper Calvinist love here:
https://twitter.com/TonyMiano/status/371495379633573888
LikeLike
@ JA~
“Because he’s so so special. God must have a special Bible just for Chuck O’Neal.’
extreme sarcasm on-JA–CON’s so special he has Miano’s full support-wheeeeeee, and if Miano lived in Beaverton, CON would be the pastor he’d be sittin’under. God will surely bless the socks off of CON with that endorsement–extreme sarcasm off.
LikeLike
LOLOLOL I wish I could meet him in person, right Ed?
LikeLike
“What I was told was that heresy was against the law, punishable by burning at the stake, and that Calvin begged the court for a merciful death, instead of a painful death. ”
From what I understand in my research, a burning was for ecclesiastical crimes. A beheading was for civil crimes. Calvin wanted a beheading because he did not really have a pretext for an ecclesiastical crime. But the civil guys claimed they did not have a pretext either. It certainly was not for mercy as we know concerning the facts of the matter leading up to his arrest! There was no merit for him to be arrested. He could just as easily have been asked to leave Geneva.
We have not even talked about the fact that Calvin’s people wrote to their mortal enemies ( a cousin) in Catholic France informing on who Servetus was and where he was so he would be arrested there. Calvin literally stalked the guy through his many informers around the region before he got to Geneva!
Servetus had no clue what he was walking into.
LikeLike
BTW: Leonard Verduin has a documented resource that Calvin ordered “green wood” so in the end Servetus would burn slower.
LikeLike
Julie I am not intimidated by unrepentant women who assert themselves like men. Repent. Tony Miano”
Julie Ann, We should get on our knees every day and Thank God these men have no political power. And that we are a nation of laws not obeying man. Sheesh!
LikeLike
Diane. Tony tweeted about there should be plurality if elders, not one main pastor. Hypocrisy! Chuck answers to no one.
LikeLike
Julie Anne,
“@DefendTheSheep @ABereanOne @Richardst5 @ChuckONeal_ Julie I am not intimidated by unrepentant women who assert themselves like men. Repent.—
Tony Miano (@TonyMiano) August 25, 2013”
Oh, the nerve of him. I can just see the beam in Chuck’s eyes…Dollar Sign, Dollar Sign. Ka-CHING. There is money to be had with those two partnering up.
Ed
LikeLike
@ JA~
“Because only he has special revelation from God and true witnesses, people who see him in action day in and day out don’t count??? That’s how cult leaders act. They dismiss reality and proclaim only they have God’s real knowledge/revelations. Only they hear the true story. :::::::cult material here::::::”
No kidding. I read he was considered a prophet by some in SGM leadership…as well as a “which definition are we going to use for apostle today….hmmmm” apostle. There was a video I watched and I will have to try to find it of him talking about building CLC…a dedication maybe?
Anyway, from what I can remember of the video, Mahaney said GOD told him to build CLC…. and that it was going to be THE place for him to be. This was a prophecy from God. CLC was going to be a building built by God for Mahaney.
Dang. Failed prophecy.
LikeLike
JA,
“LOLOLOL I wish I could meet him in person, right Ed?”
I visualize you taking your fist and pounding his head like a bass drum, and he sinks into the ground..lol
Ed
LikeLike
Oh no, Ed, just the initial visual encounter. No need for anything physical. Lol.
LikeLike
Oh Ed. I forgot. Tony mentioned you in a tweet, too:
https://twitter.com/tonymiano/status/371496754195075072
LikeLike
@ lydiasop, JA and all the biblical gospelly wimmins who frequent this blog-
Miano will be debuting his Should She Preach sermon this morning in front of CON. Prayers appreciated. Pressure’s on. (sarc off)
I have a better idea for a sermon for him to preach instead. Here is the topic:
Does begging for thousands of dollars via twitter to help make “budget”, traveling around the world on donations from professing Christians to be able to yell at people, and not working a regular job to provide for a family of four adults with whom one lives…..all while asking for yet more donations to buy a 45 thousand dollar 2014 ministry van for “Christ Across America” ……. make one worse than an unbeliever?
LikeLike
“Hypocrisy! Chuck answers to no one.”
Oh….maybe that’s why Miano likes him so much! Yeah!!! That’s it. Like attracts like.
LikeLike
I don’t think it’s about $$ for CON. It’s about approval by celebrity church leaders.
LikeLike
JA
“Oh no, Ed, just the initial visual encounter. No need for anything physical. Lol.”
He would definitely be looking UP to you!!
Oh, and since I don’t have a twitter, tell him that I am not pro-choice. I am pro 1 Corinthians 5:12-13
12 For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? 13 God judges those outside.
And Acts 19, where Paul left where he wasn’t wanted.
Let God be the judge of those in the world. Christians have no right to point fingers.
That isn’t the gospel of Jesus Christ, to accuse outsiders of murder. Tell him to worry about those inside the church, as Paul said, not those outside the church.
And by church, I mean his tiny little building in Beaverton, because he is a cult.
Ed
LikeLike
I hope there are others on here who can rejoice with me in the glorious truth of the good news that Peter proclaimed in his first letter:
“Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! According to his great mercy, he has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, to an inheritance that is imperishable, undefiled, and unfading, kept in heaven for you, who by God’s power are being guarded through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time. In this you rejoice, though now for a little while, if necessary, you have been grieved by various trials, so that the tested genuineness of your faith—more precious than gold that perishes though it is tested by fire—may be found to result in praise and glory and honor at the revelation of Jesus Christ.”
(1 Peter 1:3-7 ESV)
LikeLike
“Tony Miano @TonyMiano 24m
Tune in at 6pm PST, How to interact with law enforcement during street ministry.”
I watched that days ago. CON is the example. There were two officers, a male and a female. Is a female office allowed in CON’s world? Anyway, CON was super nice to her. At the end (9 min mark), the male officer (who seemed quite enamored with being on video, imo) heard a comment from the female officer as she came back into the video asking CON if he was the famous one in the limelight, if I heard correctly.
CON smiles and says yes, I’m the famous one…hey, laugh laugh ha ha ….don’t believe everything you read…ha ha …they have a way of slanting….male officer cuts in and says…you’re famous or infamous… ha ha smile smile. Then the officers are ignoring him and talking to themselves as CON is still talking about himself saying…yeah, blank (couldn’t make it out) Weekly has given me “lots of love.” The officers were so outta there after that. Kind of humorous. OK…really humorous.
LikeLike
Thank you, Brian. Those are good words.
LikeLike
“I hope there are others on here who can rejoice with me in the glorious truth of the good news that Peter proclaimed in his first letter:”
Your hope wishes have been granted, Brian. My friends all know that 1 Peter 1: 3-9 is one of my favorite, if not my favorite, passages in the bible. I rejoice in it everyday.
LikeLike
“Does begging for thousands of dollars via twitter to help make “budget”, traveling around the world on donations from professing Christians to be able to yell at people, and not working a regular job to provide for a family of four adults with whom one lives…..all while asking for yet more donations to buy a 45 thousand dollar 2014 ministry van for “Christ Across America” ……. make one worse than an unbeliever?”
tou·ché Diane! Let’s ‘fleece the flock’ and do it in fine fashion, driving a nicer vehicle than many of them probably drive. I wonder how long it’ll be before he gets up to a ‘Kenneth Copeland’ level of begging, demanding a Lear jet for travel purposes? Stay tuned…
As Julie said in her tweet -‘Amazed at how many Christians will follow a popular Christian name and follow blindly with no fact checking.’ It’s all about people following other people!!! They don’t follow Christ, they defend and follow men who exalt themselves as a ‘god’. Miano’s hatred and suppression of women is all too obvious. Their brand of Christianity is ‘off the rails.’ Miano and his one man band is constantly promoting himself, where he’s going to be, what he’ll be doing/saying, etc. He always sets up his dog and pony show in front of abortion clinics, could this be because he has a twisted view of women? Does he really care about the unborn? The way he badgers, belittles, name-calls, and attacks, I doubt his heart is motivated by the unborn. He makes sure he tweets, keeks, youtube, blogs, etc. EVERY word that comes from his own mouth..he is his own ‘god’. Sickening…and people defend that?!? The unregenerate have more discernment than professing Christians do.
JA- I thought a brief ‘lighter moment’ was in order- thus, the ‘c is for cookie’ song!
LikeLike
” He makes sure he tweets, keeks, youtube, blogs, etc. EVERY word that comes from his own mouth..he is his own ‘god’.”
He’s God’s little Lorax…
LikeLike
lyn, Sesame Street songs are always appropriate here. May we never forget how Jesus loved the little children. We learn so much through them. Our intellectualism can be brought down quickly by the simplicity of the words of a child. The Bible talks of child-like faith. That’s a slap in the face to all of Calvin’s Institutes and wordy church leaders who tell us how to interpret God’s word. I think those intellectuals don’t know how to respond to such beautiful simplicity and wisdom.
LikeLike
@ JA~
“Diane. Tony tweeted about there should be plurality of elders, not one main pastor. Hypocrisy! Chuck answers to no one.”
Is CON the lone elder of BGBC? I went to the website and couldn’t find a “Meet Our Elders” page-only a lone picture of CON on the front page of the website.
Is CON a nomad? I hope Tony doesn’t find out. Why does Tony fully support a nomad and why would he wish to sit under a nomad if he lived there? Tony is against all nomad Christians-especially nomad evangelists. Tony preached a sermon against nomads and it was so good that the Pyro guys posted it in a 3 part series.
A quote:
“Over the years, I have asked Christians, those who serve as street evangelists and those who don’t, to whom do they answer—meaning to whom are they accountable in their life. Sadly, the answer I sometimes receive comes with a quick and angry retort. “Well, I don’t answer to you! I answer to God!” They say.”
“So while the argument is valid that the ultimate authority in the Christian’s life is God, the argument becomes fallacious when the argument is used to defend the unbiblical position that the Christian need not submit to earthly authority, either inside or outside the church—authorities which are instituted by God.”
The Dangers and Symptoms of Nomadism part 2 Pyromaniacs blog August 11, 2011
LikeLike
Brian, I like this translation better. It is not Calvin filterized:
3 Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! In his great mercy he has “”””given us””””” new birth into a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, 4 and into an inheritance that can never perish, spoil or fade. This inheritance is kept in heaven for you, 5 who through faith are shielded by God’s power until the coming of the salvation that is ready to be revealed in the last time. 6 In all this you greatly rejoice, though now for a little while you may have had to suffer grief in all kinds of trials. 7 These have come so that the proven genuineness of your faith—of greater worth than gold, which perishes even though refined by fire—may result in praise, glory and honor when Jesus Christ is revealed.
Your version said “caused us”.
LikeLike
I don’t know how many elders there are currently. There were 2 elders and they were yes-men. One of the former elders left. When I asked the 2 elders privately in all the 10 years they were there if they had any occasion to correct, question, or challenge anything of Chuck, they said “no, never,” implying he was perfect. They were trained yes-men. They used to have pics of the elders on the website. Weird. I don’t see it there. It’s a about you know who.
LikeLike
So not technically a nomad. Got it.
LikeLike
Lydia,
I have no disagreement with your concerns about the errors and wrong actions of NC/YRR leaders/teachers or those of Calvin. I share your views on many things, including arrogant and bullying leaders, and standing up for those who have been abused by them. And I have no disagreement with standing up to them or pointing out their errors. I also have no problem with attempting to demonstrate how a person’s beliefs deviate from Scripture or what seem to be the logical implication of their beliefs. Sorry if my comments made it appear otherwise.
“Your advice is like telling your kid to give his lunch money to the bully every day for the rest of his life. You enable the bully.”
Well, it grieves me that anyone would get that from my statements. It was certainly not my intent. I simply desire that those who profess to believe in Christ, no matter what their theological persuasion, treat each other with humility and charity. And I think part of that is not saying to someone that they must believe something that they specifically state that they do not believe, just because of our own sense of logic and reason. I can see saying, “It makes no sense to me how you can say you believe this and also say you believe that, when the two don’t seem to fit together to me” or otherwise pointing out that what they say they believe appears logically contradictory to other things they say they believe. Again, I still simply think is is better not to say “so and so believes such and such” when that person explicitly says they don’t believe that. I really don’t think that’s asking too much of one professed believer when speaking to or about another professed believer.
LikeLike
“Your version said “caused us”.”
Hi Lydia.
“GIven us new life” instead of “caused us to be born again” in verse 3 is not bad, but it doesn’t quite capture the full Greek meaning of Anagennao. The literal meaning of that verb is: to produce again, be born again, born anew.
A literal rending of the verb might be something like “having fathered us again”, or “having birthed us again”. Anagennao is in the active tense, which means God (theos) is the one doing the action.
But, like I said, “given us new life” is not a bad rendering. I praise God that He has given me new life!
Have a great Sunday!
LikeLike
chapmaned24 said, “Which one of us is an Arminian? I am an American. Whoever is an Arminian here, Welcome to America!!”
Hi Ed,
Sorry for the delayed response. I think maybe you are thinking of Armenians. 🙂 Or possibly Athenians. Like you, I’m proud to be an American (where at least I know I used to be free…) 🙂
LikeLike
Brian, I looked it up so I am aware. Words convey meanings so when you read it through the Calvin filter you might get another sense. I get the sense His resurrection made our New Birth possible. Not for a few but for ALL who believe, repent and obey.
LikeLike
“Again, I still simply think is is better not to say “so and so believes such and such” when that person explicitly says they don’t believe that. I really don’t think that’s asking too much of one professed believer when speaking to or about another professed believer.”
So what do you do when they did say they believed so and so from the pulpit then say they don’t when one to one? This happens ALL the time with YRR. Or even on this blog? Have you not seen the contradictions already? Do you then decide to believe the “last” thing they say they believed even when it contradicts the prior things they said?
Is it unchristian to point these things out? Even when so many people are confused?
One problem is the NC/YRR movement is nothing but mass confusion on doctrine. God is not the author of sin. Yet, God controls every molecule 24/7. We are all so dead we are unable to respond, God has to force us and chose randomly before Adam sinned. YOu have no free will but you do have free will to sin. God loves everyone but He has a special love for those He chose to be saved. And so on and on.
I admit, I have no idea where you are coming from except to agree with any contradictions as truth. Because once you cannot interpret someone’s words for understanding, we are in big trouble. Another form of censorship.
LikeLike
Another Tom, It might be helpful to give specific examples of what you have a problem with or think is unchristian.
LikeLike
“for ALL who believe, repent and obey.”
Lydia, I agree!
LikeLike
Lydia,
This lines up perfectly with John 3:16, which states that all those who believe (pas ho pisteuon – literally: all the believing ones) have eternal life.
The opposite of this group can be found in John 3:18, those who do not believe: “Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.”
LikeLike
Lydia,
If someone is saying one thing in one setting and the opposite in a different setting, and it is not a matter of misunderstanding or incomplete information, then, of course, call them out on it.
I spoke in generalities on purpose, as my point is not to argue for or against any particular doctrine. But I did give a couple of specific examples in my first comment. I’ve stated my opinion and have done my best to clarify what I did and did not mean in response to your responses. If I have failed, please just chalk it up to my own poor communication skills. Be blessed, my sister, and follow the leading of the Holy Spirit as you hear Him.
LikeLike
for ALL who believe, repent and obey.”
Lydia, I agree!
”
Brian, why do you guys do this? You have been defending Calvinism here for an entire thread. Now you are trying another tact. (I know this drill, have been dialoguing with YRR for 10 years now….8 on the internet) as if we are in agreement on the interpretations.
In my experience this is a method employed to get folks to agree and then bam, point out they agreed with Calvinism. I have seen it a TON of times. It is part of the deception that gets so old. Throw out bible verses, get agreement but on YOUR interpretation. I mean the bible is clear and it is plain as can be.
You agree with the above but not that man has volition in it. So it really is something different. I believe that man can make the choice/decision to believe repent and that man can obey. Even though AnotherTom has problems with this, I am not going to scour the thread showing where you have affirmed determinism which means you were not really agreeing with ME concerning what I said above but YOUR interpretation of it. So we really believe 2 very different things.
I cannot find unity in that at all. I know some can and I accept that. But I believe your dualistic “man has no free will but to sin” view blasphemes God’s character and leaves no room for a real love relationship with Christ.
The game playing gets old. I know you will deny it but we have 2 threads now to read and connect dots. Not to mention those you affirm on your blog. And your censoring on your blog. You fit the profile and I admit I am politically incorrect and am profiling. :o)
UNLESS you became a total Free Will guy overnight?
LikeLike
I unashamedly nicked this off a former believer:
Calvinism follows Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals in their interactions with non-Calvinists.
1. “Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have.”
If you buy that their systematic theology really is systematic (despite the fact that it isn’t) then they win.
2. “Never go outside the expertise of your people.”
They stick to Romans 9, etc. and will not deal with proof-texts not on the approved Calvinist list. They redirect away from your proof texts as fast as they can.
3. “Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy.”
They keep sticking Romans 9 to you because they know you can’t say anything much about it other than “Paul is wrong” which they know you won’t dare say.
4. “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.”
They quote “Let all your speech be seasoned with grace” at you and force you to be nice, but they get to be as mean as the devil.
5. “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.”
Everyone’s a “Pelagian” but them.
6. “A good tactic is one your people enjoy.”
They have loads of fun beating you over the head with Romans 9.
7. “A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.”
They don’t stick with one proof-text for too long; they jump around and machine-gun verse you so that you don’t have time to read the context or respond.
8. “Keep the pressure on. Never let up.”
Needs no comment.
9. “The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.”
They know no Arminian church leaders have enough spine to kick them out, not even in the SBC, so they have nothing to fear.
You, on the other hand, are expected to be terrified by all their threats and show of bravado, and if you’re a limp-wristed Arminian church leader, you probably are.
10. “The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition.”
They create alphabet groups like T4G, SGM, etc. to employ all these tactics.
11. “If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive.”
Somehow if you call God damning people randomly before birth “grace” about a billion times, people begin to believe that it is.
12. “The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.”
They attack your theology as not offering enough security in salvation and then trot out their entirely fake “perseverance of the saints” as a “constructive alternative.”
13. “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.”
They call you a Pelagian, convince you to comment under your real name rather than a pseudonym so they can destroy you personally and run your name through the mud, and they pit Arminians against each other. “You don’t believe in OSAS, but Bob does; are you saying Bob is a bad Christian?” And Bob, like an idiot, joins the Calvinists in attacking his own theology.
LikeLike
Can’t blame a guy for trying to find some common ground. No alterior motives or “game playing” here.
“You agree with the above but not that man has volition in it.”
This is not true. I believe man has total volition in his coming to Christ, I just believe that God must first make him alive spiritually to be able to do it. You believe he can come to Christ in a spiritually dead state (which I’d love to hear your explanation of how that’s possible, but the way).
So, please, I ask you not to misrepresent what I believe by making sweeping blanket statement about the YRR (which I have NEVER claimed to be a part of). Labels are so easy to attack. A person’s individual beliefs are much harder to address because it takes more work to engage them than it does to make broad sweeping statements.
LikeLike
“This is not true. I believe man has total volition in his coming to Christ, I just believe that God must first make him alive spiritually to be able to do it. You believe he can come to Christ in a spiritually dead state (which I’d love to hear your explanation of how that’s possible, but the way).”
Brian, That is not free will and you know it. Man does not have total volition in his coming to Christ because of your ordo salutis:
Man must be regenerated first. (This was a random choosing of God before Adam sinned)
This regeneration causes him to be to believe and repent and is given faith.
The entire process (election, redemption, regeneration) is the work of God and is by grace alone. Thus God, not man, determines who will be the recipients of the gift of salvation.
I realize you interpret Eph differently than I do. I believe the gift is grace. Not faith. I realize we have already debated Romans to death and my interpretation is from a Jew/Gentile election dichotomy. Not an individual salvation perspective.
Where is the free will of man you mentioned? Are you suggesting it is in sanctification only?
I am not misrepresenting you at all. I am pointing out the contradictions in what you say when you say God must make us alive spiritually first yet insist that can also mean we have free will. Trust me, I have talked to hundreds of YRR. Most try to pass off free will AFTER regeneration. What this means is man cannot have faith UNLESS God forces him too. This is not a love relationship.
I do not have the same definition of “spiritually dead state” as you do. It is funny but many YRR have tried to convince me that even Lydia or Cornelius were in a spiritually dead state.
I do believe we were separated from God by the fall. I do not believe we are guilty for Adams sin. Or unable to respond to the Good News unless God forces us to be.
Man can think, reason, think about creation, whether there is a God, see His creation, kill, love, have compassion, etc, etc, before they are ever saved. I have had so many Calvinists tell me: Dead is dead. There is no way they can respond unless God forces it because He chose them before Adam even sinned.
By taking man out of the process at all there was NO reason for a sacrifice by Christ. It was already done before the foundation of the world.
Thing is, Calvinism falls without your definition of total depravity. (inability) None of the rest of the TULIP can stand. The petals fall.
LikeLike
Lydia,
Here’s a simple yes or no question.
Based upon your position that a person can, of his own volition without any working of God, do anything he wants to do, CAN A PERSON OBEY GOD PERFECTLY ON THEIR OWN?
I’ll even go ahead and play my hand on this one. If you say ‘no’, then you are admitting that a person’s will is not completely free. If you say ‘yes’ then you have just admitted that a person does not need Jesus to be saved.
Thoughts? And please, stick to me and my comments, try not to bring in the whole YRR group. I am not young, and I am not restless. 🙂
LikeLike
AnotherTom
You had said:
“Like you, I’m proud to be an American (where at least I know I used to be free…) :)”
My response:
I almost spit my coffee out of my mouth!! That was funny. Thanks for your comedic reply. That was good!
Ed
LikeLike
Brian said:
“The opposite of this group can be found in John 3:18, those who do not believe: “Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.””
My response:
I sure hope you are not discussing the ignorant in your paragraph above.
In order to believe, or not believe, one must be presented the facts. If he does not believe, he REJECTS. If you REJECT, then you are condemned.
Romans 2:14-16 is for the ignorant.
Also,
1 John 2:2
And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.
PROPITIATION:
2434 – ATONEMENT
WHOLE:
3650 – ALL, i.e. COMPLETE
Ed
LikeLike
Jeff B, thanks for clarifying. Piper and Robertson should stop with the declarations, that much we can agree on. (We agree on something? AMAZING!) 🙂
LikeLike
Brian said:
“I’ll even go ahead and play my hand on this one. If you say ‘no’, then you are admitting that a person’s will is not completely free. If you say ‘yes’ then you have just admitted that a person does not need Jesus to be saved.”
You are asking the question based on an incorrect basis that if she states yes, that faith is a WORK.
Faith cannot be a work, because it is not a law in the law of Moses. For it to be a work, it must be a law. The law is not of faith. Faith plays no part in the law. Therefore, it can never ever be a work.
Jesus saves, but it must be us to BELIEVE, based on facts given. If you don’t believe, then that is rejecting. Believing or rejecting is a man’s free will to do so.
Not only that, faith is not an imputation, either. There is only 2 things that is imputed.
1. SIN (By Transgression of the Law)
2. RIGHTEOUSNESS (By Faith Apart From The Law)
Grace is not an imputation, either. Grace is a gift, thru righteousness.
And yes, you must DO RIGHTEOUSNESS. FAITH IS A LAW.
1 John 2:29
If ye know that he is righteous, ye know that every one that doeth righteousness is born of him.
1 John 3:7
Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous.
1 John 3:10
In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother.
Romans 3:27
Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.
Obeying God as a Christian is obeying faith….It’s the law.
Anything that is not of faith is sin. So why do you sin? Lack of faith?
The premise behind your question is flawed.
Ed
LikeLike
lydiasellerofpurple,
You had said:
“I unashamedly nicked this off a former believer:”
I loved your list, but they forgot something.
IF the Calvinists perceive that they are losing a debate:
1. Accuse the opponent of “straw man” argument
2. If that doesn’t work, accuse the opponent of “ad homonym”
I was just on another blog yesterday where a Calvinist used the ole “straw man” card. I laughed at it, cuz it’s so Calvinist typical. It’s so so so funny that no other religious debate uses those two catch phrases, other than the Calvinists.
Ed
LikeLike
LOL – Ed – go look at the post I just posted about Miano – another strawman card reference.. I’m cracking up because I hadn’t read your comment before posting.
LikeLike
Ed,
You are swatting at the air. My question to Lydia was about free will.
I am not talking about faith. I am talking about a person’s will PRIOR to salvation.
Does a person possess the ability, prior to being saved, to obey God’s law perfectly?
LikeLike
Brian said:
“You are swatting at the air. My question to Lydia was about free will. I am not talking about faith. I am talking about a person’s will PRIOR to salvation. Does a person possess the ability, prior to being saved, to obey God’s law perfectly?”
My response:
My response was all about free will. First of all, Gentiles were never under the law of Moses to begin with.
Second, YES, a person does possess the ability to obey God’s law OF FAITH perfectly…just like ABRAHAM. He did not have the law of Moses. He fell under the law of faith…and faith is NOT an imputation.
Abraham had free will to NOT BELIEVE God. Abraham obeyed everything that God told him to do:
Genesis 26:5
Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.
Abraham obeyed PERFECTLY.
Ed
LikeLike
Romans 2 states that Gentiles are also under the law:
For all who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.
(Romans 2:12-16)
So, I will ask again:
Is it possible for a person to obey God perfectly before being saved?
LikeLike
Brian said:
“Romans 2 states that Gentiles are also under the law:”
NO IT DOES NOT.
You quoted it, but you did not understand it. So I will break it down.
For all who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law.
There are two sets of people being discussed. Gentiles and Jews
Gentiles are without the law. That means that they do not have the law. It does not mean that they are under the law. The Jews are under the law. They will be judged by the law. Gentiles without the law are not judged by the law. They are judged by their CONSCIENCE.
Under the law, if you broke ONE law, you broke them ALL. So, if the ignorant eat shell fish, and they have no clue that it is against the law of Moses, they will NOT be held to account. Do you see? There is no way that their conscience will tell them to not eat shell fish.
You really have no clue.
But again, I showed you that Abraham obeyed perfectly. So that throws your argument down the trash.
Ed
LikeLike
Lydia, Anyone,
If you know, how did Jews fare at the hands of John Calvin?
LikeLike
Having now finished Stefan Zweig’s masterful “The Right to Heresy,” it is plain that John Calvin was guilty of premeditated murder. Not only did he instigate and actively participate in the proceedings that resulted in the martyrdom of Miguel Servetus by means of drawn out roasting over a low burning fire, he actively sought the destruction, preferably by death, of Sebastian Castellio. On this basis alone, we may legitimately question whether Calvin was even a believer. ” . . . you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him.” (1 John 3:15b, ESV).
But there is more. Calvin was a dictator who could not rest until he had achieved utter and complete submission to his own will. Not only did he pursue and essentially achieve domination over the spiritual, civil and social lives of the people of Geneva, he dominated people’s very thoughts. Only John Calvin was permitted freedom of will. To say that he was some sort of über control freak is to barely scratch the surface of the reality that was John Calvin.
Is it any wonder then, that Calvin’s “god” would look like a megalomaniacal tyrant, exercising complete domination over the lives and wills of men, withholding from men even the ability to freely choose himself? The “god” we find in Calvinism is but a projection of the man who was John Calvin–a man I am now convinced was no more a Christian than, say, that other famous instigator of a judicial murder, Judas Iscariot.
I reject John Calvin. I reject his theology. I reject his “god.” I will embrace no god except the God Who is love.
LikeLike
Ed,
Paul’s entire point is that the Gentiles will be judged accoridng ot their sin. Efven though they don’t have the WRITTEN law, Paul says they will still be judged because they have the law “written on their hearts”.
I ask you (and others) YET AGAIN…
Can a person not sin prior to salvation? Why has no one answered this simple question yet?
LikeLike
I agree about about the shellfish example relating to the Gentiles.
However, if a Gentile commits murder, they are STILL held accountable even though they don’t have the written law, because it is written on their heart, and they would be judged in that respect no differently than the Jews would.
LikeLike
“Based upon your position that a person can, of his own volition without any working of God, do anything he wants to do, CAN A PERSON OBEY GOD PERFECTLY ON THEIR OWN?”
You have done nothing but change the premise of our discussion and then demand I answer yes or no. Congrats. You say you are not YRR but you are acting like one.
It does not matter what I answer because my premise is NOT a deterministic god. I pointed that out with my listing of your ordo salutis and your continued claim man has free will but has to be regenerated FIRST before they even hear the Gosepl. Man is not responding to the Gospel, in your determinist god/dualistic man, God is responding FOR him. So your claiming man has free will is totally contradictory.
” If you say ‘yes’ then you have just admitted that a person does not need Jesus to be saved.”
Your premise is about obeying God perfectly which woudl include the law. How did the Gentiles fare since they were not under the law. For you to claim they were is nothing but to paint God even more cruel. I agree with Ed that you do not understand Romans at all. Which is understandable as Peter said Paul was hard to understand. But you interpret Romans through the Calvinistic filter of individual election. I read it with the Jew/Gentile dichotomy of corporate election. I think this is made clear in Chapter 1.
LikeLike
Brian,
You are forcing it to say what it doesn’t. I stand by what I said.
Murder would be one of the laws written on the hearts of the ignorant.
They are judged by their conscience. Not the law of Moses.
What may appear to be murder to you, may just be killing, and there is no law against killing. David killed Goliath. He didn’t murder Goliath.
And, I have answered you NUMEROUS TIMES.
So, I will try again:
FOR ALL HAVE SINNED.
BUT…
What is sin?
1 John 3:4
…sin is the transgression of the law.
What is the law?
Romans 3:20
…for by the law is the knowledge of sin.
That is a key word that can be taken all the way back to the Tree of KNOWLEDGE of Good and Evil.
The Law of Moses (Exodus 20-Deuteronomy) is OUR MEANS of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Adam and Eve got that knowledge supernaturally. We get it by the law [of Moses].
Romans 5:13
(For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
Not imputed. Before the law, sin was not imputed. Now, I know that this is something that most will disagree with. But let’s take it back to Romans 4.
Abraham is the topic of Romans 4, and certainly this is before the law.
Romans 4:8
Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.
Why will the Lord not impute sin?
Romans 4:15
Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression.
Now, let’s see how the Apostle Paul applied this concept to himself in Romans 7
Romans 7:8
For without the law sin was dead.
Sin is only alive if the law is alive.
Next Paul discusses spiritual life, and spiritual death:
Romans 7:9
For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.
Why did he die? Because he got KNOWLEDGE of Good and Evil.
Romans 7:7
I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.
And this ties into Deuteronomy 1:39
Deuteronomy 1:39
Moreover your little ones, which ye said should be a prey, and your children, which in that day had no knowledge between good and evil, they shall go in thither, and unto them will I give it, and they shall possess it.
This is discussing the Promised Land; who shall possess it, and why? Children who have no KNOWLEDGE of Good and Evil.
Knowledge of good and evil is a prerequisite to spiritual death. It is at that point that one becomes lost.
The story of the Promise to Abraham is key. THE “PROMISED LAND”, a spiritual story about heaven. Deuteronomy 1:39 is also in the same realm of spiritual interpretation. Calvinists just wish to see this as a CARNAL interpretation of the physical land of CANAAN, PALESTINE, or ISRAEL. They do not wish to see this a a SPIRITUAL story of heaven.
Who gets to go to the promised land?
1. Those who have faith
a. Caleb
b. Joshua
And
2. Those who have no knowledge of Good and Evil.
This was the same with Adam and Eve. As long as they didn’t have that knowledge, they were cool. But once they got that knowledge, they died.
Now, tie this in with Born Again.
Born again is a spiritual rebirth, or, a spiritual resurrection from the dead.
Spiritually alive before knowledge (Communion with God), spiritual death at knowledge (Separation from God).
Born Again restores what was lost, bringing that relationship BACK, hence the word “again”.
This is the spiritual life cycle.
1. BORN OF FLESH “AND” BORN OF SPIRIT (SPIRITUALLY ALIVE)
2. KNOWLEDGE OF GOOD AND EVIL = SPIRITUAL DEATH
3. BORN AGAIN (SPIRITUALLY RESURRECTED FROM SPIRITUAL DEATH)
4. DEATH OF BODY
NO SIN IS IMPUTED TO ANYONE WITHOUT THE KNOWLEDGE OF SIN, EVEN IF THEY SIN TEN THOUSAND THOUSAND TIMES.
FORGIVE THE CAPS. I AM NOT SHOUTING. IT IS FOR EMPHASIS.
ED
Ed Chapman
LikeLike
It’s a simple question:
Is it possible for a person to NOT sin prior to salvation?
Forget my theology of my take on Romans. According to YOUR theology, does a person contain a free will to the point that he/she can keep from sinning prior to salvation?
I have “demanded” nothing from you. I have asked a question that, for some reason, you guys don’t seem to want to answer.
LikeLike
Ed,
I’ll ask you again, too.
Is it possible for a person to NOT sin prior to salvation?
My answer to that question is ‘no’, it is NOT possitble to abstain from sinning prior to salvation.
What is your answer?
LikeLike
“If you know, how did Jews fare at the hands of John Calvin?”
Gary, If I recall correctly there were not allowed to live in Geneva. I cannot remeber the source for that but it might be Durants Reformation volume. One gets the impression from reading that it was a big deal to even have met a Jew. Calvin makes that point that he has met jews and found them disingenuous, etc. As if meeting a Jew was a rare thing.
The attitude was pretty much like Luther who seemed to view contemporary Jews as liars, theives, sub human
There is more to this though. There is a HUGE disconnect in REformational doctrine and the Hebrew God of Abraham. Or even the Jewish Messiah. They basically ingore the Hebrew roots and this causes a lot problems. You have seen one of them here with how the book of Romans is understood.
A great point has been made by some scholars that not understanding the historical Jesus leads to remaking Jesus into our cultural image and this was exactly what happened in Nazi Germany. (They used Martin Luther’s writings to bring the Lutheran church into line)
LikeLike
“Is it possible for a person to NOT sin prior to salvation?”
Is it possible for a person NOT to sin AFTER salvation?
Brian, this is becoming ridiculous.
LikeLike
Brian,
I gave my answer. I am perplexed at how you can’t see the answer.
Ed
LikeLike
Lydiasellerofpurple,
Since Calvinism has it’s roots in Catholicism, the last Pope wrote a book (Don’t know title) in which he (Vicar of Christ) exonerated the Jews for killing Jesus.
I always thought that Jesus forgave them at the cross when he said, “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do”.
I will eventually do online research as to the relationship that Calvin had with the Jews.
Ed
LikeLike
Is it any wonder then, that Calvin’s “god” would look like a megalomaniacal tyrant, exercising complete domination over the lives and wills of men, withholding from men even the ability to freely choose himself? The “god” we find in Calvinism is but a projection of the man who was John Calvin–a man I am now convinced was no more a Christian than, say, that other famous instigator of a judicial murder, Judas Iscariot.”
It might make more sense to you now why I cannot find unity with Calvinism. I am not interested in finding agree with his systematized tyranny using God for his own power. The thing gthat shocks me the most is that Cavlinism did not die out completely when self determinism becoming legal. (Most of them became soemwhat liberal going Unitarian or social gospel) But there are reasons. There are still tryants out there and people who want a system to follow. I am one who thinks the Founding Fathers had guys likeKing George of course, but even more so… Cromwell, Calvin, Luther in mind when they insisted on religious freedom. Perhaps some of them had read the Bloudy Tenant by Roger Williams, too.
Most people have believed whatever they were told about Calvin from some respected Cavlinistic source and have not done their OWN homework. Most of the mongeristic type books on Calvin paint a different picture than what even the documented truth from Geneva shows! When you go there and and also read Calvin’s own letters, it shows a powerful bully who was also a coward.
I agree that his life showed NO fruit of salvation at all. But Thomas Paine said it best: Belief in a cruel God makes a cruel man.
We are seeing the fruits of Calvin in this Calvinist resurgence. Not the fruits of the spirit. And there are nice Calvinists who have paid little attention to what they believe and why and how is the author of most of their beilef system concerning the attributes of God and salvation: Calvin
The good news is that Calvinism is impossible to really apply to every day Christian life. It needs coercion and censorship to stay alive. (Membershiop covenants, submit to elders, obey your leaders, negative truths are gossip, etc, etc) And because of this, it resurges and then dies out or goes liberal. Check the history of it.
LikeLike
Gary and Ed, A great resource for the geography of the disapora Jews throughout history is Paul Johnson’s History of the Jews. Mine is loaned out or I would check.
LikeLike
Lydia wrote:
I think Thomas Jefferson said it even better in a letter to John Adams dated April 11, 1823: ” I can never join Calvin in addressing his god. He was indeed an Atheist, which I can never be; or rather his religion was Daemonism. If ever man worshipped a false god, he did. The being described in his 5. points is not the God whom you and I acknolege and adore, the Creator and benevolent governor of the world; but a daemon of malignant spirit. It would be more pardonable to believe in no god at all, than to blaspheme him by the atrocious attributes of Calvin.”
LikeLike
Lydia,
I will gladly answer your question once you have answered mine.
Ed,
I did not see anywhere in your comments where you actually answered my question in affirmative or the negative.
Here’s the question again:
Is it possible for a person to NOT sin prior to salvation?
My answer is ‘no’, it is not possible for a person to NOT sin prior to salvation.
Do you answer in the affirmative or the negative?
LikeLike
Brian,
Then you are blind. Read it over and over again until you find it.
LikeLike
Brian, I doubt very seriously if you and I even have the same definition of sin. In the Calvinist construct the very fact that we exist is sin. We are born sinning
LikeLike
Ed, Lydia,
I see Brian is still attempting to demand that you answer some question or other in the affirmative or the negative. I don’t need to point this out to either one of you, but I see Brian’s attempt to impose limitations on the answer to whatever question he is asking as an admission of defeat. He cannot win his point unless he can succeed in circumscribing your ability to respond.
Then again, it is not surprising that a Disciple of the spiritual tyrant, John Calvin, would try to play manipulative debating games.
LikeLike
I thought it was us Calvinists who were supposed to be the ones who were cryptic and hard to understand, and you guys were always straightforward.
In reading your answer again, it appears you admit that everyone sins, so I must take it from that that you agree with that it is NOT possible for a person to NOT sin prior to salvation.
Or, you can remove all doubt and simply answer yes or no. Prior to salvation can a person abstain from sinning?
You guys are the ones so big in free will, and yet I can’t get a straight answer from any of you regarding the free will of a person prior to being saved.
I’m not sure why that is.
LikeLike
You guys are so big on proclaiming, “I have the free will to come to Jesus on my own”. Well, do you also have the free will to NOT sin prior to coming to Jesus?
LikeLike
Eric, in response to your quote of Thomas Jefferson,
Wow. Thank you.
LikeLike
Lydia,
I think we should all be able to agree that sin is anything that goes against what Gid wants.
But I’ll let you define it and you can answer my simple question based upon your definition of sin.
So, what is sin, and does a person have the free will to NOT sin prior to salvation?
LikeLike
Yes, of course we have free will not to sin before we come to Jesus. But what does it matter? Jesus was born a man. He was crucified, buried, raised and now lives. He is my Savior, my King, my All. My faith is in Him. Even if I am wrong about all else, still I will worship Him.
LikeLike
“Yes, of course we have free will not to sin before we come to Jesus.”
Gary…
THANK YOU so much for answering my question! I appreciate your willingness to be truthful about what you believe.
My second question is similar and is a very interesting one, I think.
IF it possible for a person to not sin prior to coming to Jesus, is it also possible for a person to NEVER have sinned prior to coming to Jesus?
LikeLike
“IF it possible for a person to not sin prior to coming to Jesus, is it also possible for a person to NEVER have sinned prior to coming to Jesus?”
Yes
LikeLike
So, I’m reading an article at the TGC site on the Duck Dynasty (I’ve heard about this show, but have never seen it), and here is the first comment:
Anyone catch it? What is this message really saying? This drives me bonkers.
LikeLike
Brian,
I am amazed that you have no clue. But then again, I am not amazed.
You are assuming that all are lost in your premise. I am pointing out that NO ONE is LOST until they get knowledge of good and evil.
So, until that knowledge, no one is lost. Salvation is for the lost, not the unlost.
Ed
LikeLike
Gary,
Oh, I am on to him. He has a point to make, and can’t make it until I bow down to his premise. Not gonna happen in this lifetime.
Ed
LikeLike
Ed,
I may have no clue, but you have no class. 🙂
You are amazed but not amazed. How does that work?
You are assuming that I am assuming something. I probably am assuming something, but you do not know what that is.
Right now I am asking questions about how you guys view free will prior to salvation.
Gary answered my questions in a straightforward manner. Why can’t you?
Do you, Ed, believe as Gary does that people are able to never sin at all prior to coming to Jesus?
LikeLike
Ed,
I am not trying to get you to “bow down” to my premise, but to YOURS.
LikeLike
Brian,
Again, my answer is there already. Not everyone is lost to begin with. Therefore, there is no sin being imputed to them, whether they sin or not. And since sin is not imputed, they are not sinners, and it is the same as saying that they are in no need for salvation, all because they have no knowledge of good and evil.
Therefore, your question is flawed.
You said:
“Do you, Ed, believe as Gary does that people are able to never sin at all prior to coming to Jesus?”
And I say that Abraham did NOT SIN. If you have no knowledge of the law, then you are not sinning. You are only sinning if you have knowledge of the law.
YES, for all have sinned. But unless you have knowledge of good and evil, you are not sinning, no matter how much you have sinned.
That is cryptic.
Christians are NOT SINNERS, yet we are sinners.
The Bible states that he who sins is of the devil. You admit that you sin. So what does that tell me? It tells me that you are of the devil, right? If you are a Christian, you are NOT JUDGED by the Law of Moses.
If we reject Jesus, THEN we are judged by the law of Moses. If we don’t, then Jesus was judged by the Law of Moses.
FREE WILL TO ACCEPT OR REJECT.
Of course you don’t understand cryptic.
Ed
LikeLike
Julie Anne,
Please don’t judge us all by the idiotic statement of one person. I have no concern over whether or not the Duck Dynasty guys adhere to my theology. To start off their comment like that was simply ridiculous.
By the way, the show is awesome.
Oh…you probably already know this, but when I link to something I find it better to designate that it opens in a new tab instead of in the current tab. That way people don’t have to re-navigate back to your site when they are done with the link you provided.
LikeLike
JA, Re: “They most likely know nothing of Reformed Theology, but they are as genuine and faithful as any I know. I love these guys.”
They have made an idol of doctrine, and their love of doctrine appears to have supplanted any love they might have for Jesus.
LikeLike
Brian said:
“I may have no clue, but you have no class.”
So, what does that have to do with the price of tea in China?
Having no clue is in discussion of the Bible. My having class or no class is irrelevant. I have been accused many times of being arrogant. That is a badge of honor that I don’t mind having.
Jesus said that if one states, “Thou Fool” that one is in danger of hell fire. Paul said, “Thou Fool” in 1 Cor 15:36. Some might have thought that Paul had no class for saying that.
Ed
LikeLike
Ed said:
“And I say that Abraham did NOT SIN. If you have no knowledge of the law, then you are not sinning. You are only sinning if you have knowledge of the law.”
So, Abraham NEVER sinned because the law of Moses was not yet handed down?
Is that what you are saying?
What about people today?
Is it possible for someone to have the free will to NEVER sin?
LikeLike
“IF it [is] possible for a person to not sin prior to coming to Jesus, is it also possible for a person to NEVER have sinned prior to coming to Jesus?”
Yes.
And No.
LikeLike