There Was a Time, Long, Long Ago.....

[Tambora]

Because the debate boils down to the freedom of God's will vs the freedom of man's will, in salvation.

Nah.

One says God sets His will aside in the purpose of His Son going to the cross, in favor of not violating the will of man.

Nah.

And those who propose that God gives man this free choice in what determines whether His sacrifice is effectual for a person,

No, God did not let man choose the time or circumstances of His Son's sacrifice for the salvation of mankind.
But God did let man make the choice to accept it or not.

often also add that if he didn't, then he would be evil.

That's because in any other circumstance where anyone else punished someone for not doing something that was impossible for them to do would most certainly be deemed evil and unjust.

Doing that truly, truly, stands man's will above God's will.

Nah, it shows how wrong the doctrine is.

The other view says God always accomplishes his purposes, not the purposes of man.

Nah, scripture says that sometimes God is pleased with what man chooses to do and sometimes God is not pleased with what man chooses to do.
God doesn't have to stack the deck to have a relationship with the ones that choose to be His only.

And this is what God has to say about it.

Dan 4:25 All the inhabitants of the earth are accounted as nothing, and he does according to his will among the host of heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth; and none can stay his hand or say to him, "What have you done?"

Eph 1:11-13 In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will, so that we who were the first to hope in Christ might be to the praise of his glory.

Romans 9:18 So then he has mercy on whoever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.

Which is why you cannot pit scriptures against other scriptures; because there are several scriptures that have God telling man to choose whom they will serve, choose to return to Him, choose to repent, choose to seek God, choose choose choose.

 

[Tambora]

Because there are those who would deny God the free will to give mankind free will.

Yeah, there are way too many scriptures that show God giving man free will to choose to believe the truth and turn to Him.

 

[Arial]

Nah.

OK. Fair enough. Then what does it boil down to?

Nah.

OK. What does it do?

No, God did not let man choose the time or circumstances of His Son's sacrifice for the salvation of mankind.
But God did let man make the choice to accept it or not.

In what way then does that not equal man determining when Christ's sacrifice is effective according to its purpose, and when it is not?

That's because in any other circumstance where anyone else punished someone for not doing something that was impossible for them to do would most certainly be deemed evil and unjust.

God is always just. His justice is not measured by human, horizontal ideas of justice. We don't tell him what is just. The thing that it is impossible for man to do is raise himself out of the pit of sin. And he doesn't even want to. Mankind loves his "independance" and he loves to freely sin. And that is his own doing, not God's doing. It is grace and mercy that God saves any from the kingdom of darkness. If God were to give justice to all, all would burn in hell. God isn't the one sinning. We are. It is at the cross that justice and mercy kiss.

Nah, it shows how wrong the doctrine is.

Explain that please.

Nah, scripture says that sometimes God is pleased with what man chooses to do and sometimes God is not pleased with what man chooses to do.
God doesn't have to stack the deck to have a relationship with the ones that choose to be His only.

I don't see the connection of stacking the deck. How have I presented a stacking the deck? And by your standard of justice as presented above, how just is it that God will only have a relationship with those who first choose to be His? Without the intervention of God in a people so bound in sin and trespasses as to have it expressed as being dead in them, no one would choose to be His only. Scripture tells us no one does good, not even one. It tells us without qualification that we are all at enmity with Him. That is not metaphor, figure of speech, or hyperbole. I think you would agree with that. So why and from where does the idea that any would choose him come from. We can't jettison the one in order to have the other.

Which is why you cannot pit scriptures against other scriptures; because there are several scriptures that have God telling man to choose whom they will serve, choose to return to Him, choose to repent, choose to seek God, choose choose choose.

You find those in the OT relating to the Mosaic covenant legal code with its instructions. The two choices are spelled out and they pertain to covenant faithfulness that keeps the covenant in force. To choose to disobey breaks the covenant bond. Where you will not ever find any reference to choosing, choosing to seek God or choose to repent, is in the NT regarding the new covenant. In fact Jesus tells us in John 6:65 that no one CAN come to him unless the Father grants it.

So it is not pitting scripture against scripture, it is using the whole counsel of God.

 

[makesends]

You need to demonstrate how they are non-biblical in an exegetical, expository, way. To simply say they are non-biblical is an opinion with no support. It is a non-debate, non-discussion, form of presentation. Not only that you include in your list some who were adopted by the church and some who put forth those the church deemed as heresy because they could not be supported by the whole counsel of God. You do this with no distinctions being made or any examples of what was heretical.

One of them which was deemed heresy is ones you agree with when it comes to original sin and the standing all mankind has before God. That is Pelagianism.

Pelagius denied that the fall of Adam had any adverse influence on the will of man.

Pelagius argued that sin consists solely in separate acts of the will.​

Sin is never a matter of nature. That is to say, there is no such thing as a sin nature or constitutional depravity. Sin is only sin when it can be avoided. To speak of inability is to eliminate responsibility, without which there can be no sin. Thus, sin is not a fault of nature but of choice.https://www.crossway.org/articles/10-things-you-should-know-about-pelagius-and-pelagianism/

Another you agree with in part if not in whole is Arminianism.

While that is true, it was not the case in the Reformation, as was illustrated in the OP Part 2. You yourself are quite often doing what you say is done above. But understand what a proof text is. It is not identified as such by quoting a single text or group of texts alone. That can be done without it being a proof text. What makes it a proof text is if it is put into its context, both the surrounding context and the whole counsel of God on the subject (and context is more than just the surrounding words but also includes who is writing, to whom, for what reason, and cultural and historical aspects involved);if when it is put into its context it says something entirely different that what it is being used to say. And/or if it in any way contradicts other scriptures on the same topic.

Irrelevant to the conversation.

I can only tell by knowing you, which is your opinion and which is your quote/representation of someone else's opinion. Can you edit that? Maybe quote marks, or indentation?

 

[Arial]

Because there are those who would deny God the free will to give mankind free will.

Don't forget the central figure in salvation is his very Son going to the cross to bear on his body the suffering and death that awaits us, but for him. So you have to consider. Would God send him to do that if the results were iffy? And if the results were hit and miss? If the results were entirely dependant upon those who were the wisest, and smartest, the cream of the crop, out of all the human race who, incidentally, are stuck in the quagmire, dead so to speak, and in love with their sins? Does it seem God like that he would honor the will of the creature above his own will, and his love for the Son? Think about it for ten or fifteen minutes and be honest.

 

[Arial]

I can only tell by knowing you which is your opinion and which is your quote/representation of someone else's opinion. Can you edit that? Maybe quote marks, or indentation?

Does this help?

You need to demonstrate how they are non-biblical in an exegetical, expository, way. To simply say they are non-biblical is an opinion with no support. It is a non-debate, non-discussion, form of presentation. Not only that you include in your list some who were adopted by the church and some who put forth those the church deemed as heresy because they could not be supported by the whole counsel of God. You do this with no distinctions being made or any examples of what was heretical.

One of them which was deemed heresy is ones you agree with when it comes to original sin and the standing all mankind has before God. That is Pelagianism.

 

[makesends]

Does this help?

No. Lol, we do think differently! But, nevermind...

 

[Tambora]

I don't see the connection of stacking the deck.

It's ok if you don't see it.
I don't want that to be something we fight over.

And by your standard of justice as presented above, how just is it that God will only have a relationship with those who first choose to be His?

First??
God is the one that says He loved the world.
He's loved His creation since He created it.
And man can choose to love Him back and be a part of His family or choose to go his own way and not have anything to do with Him.
That's how a love relationship goes, it takes two.

Without the intervention of God in a people so bound in sin and trespasses as to have it expressed as being dead in them, no one would choose to be His only.

Job was said of God to be righteous, and Noah, and Abraham, and David was said to be the apple of God's eye.
Even of rebellious Israel God desired to gather them under His wing as a loving hen does her chicks.
That doesn't sound like God thought of them as dead.

Scripture tells us no one does good, not even one. It tells us without qualification that we are all at enmity with Him. That is not metaphor, figure of speech, or hyperbole. I think you would agree with that

Heck no I don't agree with that conclusion because we have scripture talking about God being pleased with men, so I don't pit those scriptures against each other.

We can't jettison the one in order to have the other.

Then don't do it.

You find those in the OT relating to the Mosaic covenant legal code with its instructions.

I find throughout scripture (both OT and NT) of God wanting man to repent, seek, open the door, etc.

 

[JIM]

Don't forget the central figure in salvation is his very Son going to the cross to bear on his body the suffering and death that awaits us, but for him. So you have to consider. Would God send him to do that if the results were iffy? And if the results were hit and miss? If the results were entirely dependant upon those who were the wisest, and smartest, the cream of the crop, out of all the human race who, incidentally, are stuck in the quagmire, dead so to speak, and in love with their sins? Does it seem God like that he would honor the will of the creature above his own will, and his love for the Son? Think about it for ten or fifteen minutes and be honest.

You deny that there is even such a thing as the will of the creature in regard to God at all. Does it seem to you that God would actually direct that any would not love Him? Does it make sense to you that God would predispose that most would not love and honor him?

I can understand, sort of, that many do not love and honor God; but I cannot understand at all that they do not because God doesn't want them to love and honor Him. It seems to me that you try to get around that nonsense by inventing something called Total Depravity that is nothing more than God taking away man's ability to decide for himself under any circumstance whether to love and honor Him.

 

[Arial]

It's ok if you don't see it.
I don't want that to be something we fight over.

Me either.

 

[Arial]

Oh for Pete's sake!

 

[JIM]

Oh for Pete's sake!

Who is Pete?

 

[Arial]

Who is Pete?

My exasperated friend.

 

[JIM]

My exasperated friend.

Yes, we all have one or more of those.

 

[LeviR]

You deny that there is even such a thing as the will of the creature in regard to God at all. Does it seem to you that God would actually direct that any would not love Him? Does it make sense to you that God would predispose that most would not love and honor him?

I can understand, sort of, that many do not love and honor God; but I cannot understand at all that they do not because God doesn't want them to love and honor Him. It seems to me that you try to get around that nonsense by inventing something called Total Depravity that is nothing more than God taking away man's ability to decide for himself under any circumstance whether to love and honor Him.

The idea of Total Depravity is that because of original sin, man would not choose to love God unless God directly acts upon the person.
This means that God directly acts upon some but not others.

I disagree with that teaching.

Although I agree the heart of man is wicked, God searches the heart and will give to everyone according to their ways. To those who choose life, he gives the hope of eternal life. To those who don’t choose what He offers, have no hope.

 

[Arial]

The OP is dealing with a specific topic. How did the church get into the condition of being full of divisions. It was pointed out that the most striking division that opened a door for the enemy to enter unnoticed and undetectable was a loss of something the church at one time had. What happened with the responses to the OP was the very thing at the root of this theological difference reared its head.

The first response, acknowledged the OP's validity, then changed the subject to monergism in sanctification.

There was a response to that subject from two people, one from the OP author herself.

Then a straw man attack on Calvinism by misrepresenting it from an emotional, opinionated POV with no theological rebuttal.

Then a response from the OP author to that accusation.
Then a response to that making another straw man, unsupported accusation against Calvinism and changing the subject to spiritual death. (Post was edited before it could take hold as the new OP topic).
Poster returns to his version of OP topic by simply casting the blame on the non-biblical doctrines of Augustine, Pelgius, Luther, Calvin, Arminius and the RCC without giving any support or evidence.

OP author responds by pointing out the lack of substance to the claim absent of any actual points and then shows the similarity between that posters view and that of Pelagius who was listed as one of the culprits of how the church came to be in the condition of devisiveness today.
The response from that poster denies and agrees in the same breath.

Another poster asks that the claim of unbiblical doctrines be explained and his own expressed to which there is no response.

There follows seven post arguing against Calvinism from the perspective of feelings rather than theologically, and responses from the OP author that do contain a theological and biblical perspective. And one post that simply asks for the post on Pelagius' beliefs on original sin needed to be edited so he could understand which was the author's belief and which was that of Pelagius. Even though before giving the P view it was clearly stated that is what it was. This was pointed out and responded to with a backhanded comment about the two of them thinking differently and a never mind dismissal.

Then a back and forth statement, response, rebuttal, repeat of statement. And not once is the actual claim of the OP actually dealt with. Instead the OP responses simply verify that the division exists. That the loss of the very foundation that existed long, long, ago, has been cracked, the foundational walls that are the protection of the purity of Christ's church have been breached, and the foundation attacked. And not through biblical, theological means, but through the expression of feelings.

We are intelligent people here! We can do better!

 

[Arial]

You deny that there is even such a thing as the will of the creature in regard to God at all. Does it seem to you that God would actually direct that any would not love Him? Does it make sense to you that God would predispose that most would not love and honor him?

The first statement is untrue and shows a misunderstanding of those foundational doctrines of Christianity that have been tossed out.

The Bible and the truths in it, including the gospel take no consideration as to what seems right to any person concerning God or any other truth it so graciously gives to us. It does not care one iota about what makes sense to me, you, or anyone else. And he predisposes no one to anything. He commands and we are to obey. It is people---every last one of them---- who disobey and do so willingly.

But let me ask you this. What was lost that we once had, so that now even those such as yourself and @LeviR can deny some of the very foundational doctrines of apostolic and historical Christianity and create these divisions? One being the denial of original sin, the other the very deity of Christ. I give my reasoning on the subject attaching it to a specific time period and a specific historical reason. Do you have anything to say in rebuttal of those specifics?

 

[JIM]

The OP is dealing with a specific topic. How did the church get into the condition of being full of divisions. It was pointed out that the most striking division that opened a door for the enemy to enter unnoticed and undetectable was a loss of something the church at one time had. What happened with the responses to the OP was the very thing at the root of this theological difference reared its head.

The first response, acknowledged the OP's validity, then changed the subject to monergism in sanctification.

There was a response to that subject from two people, one from the OP author herself.

Then a straw man attack on Calvinism by misrepresenting it from an emotional, opinionated POV with no theological rebuttal.

Then a response from the OP author to that accusation.
Then a response to that making another straw man, unsupported accusation against Calvinism and changing the subject to spiritual death. (Post was edited before it could take hold as the new OP topic).
Poster returns to his version of OP topic by simply casting the blame on the non-biblical doctrines of Augustine, Pelgius, Luther, Calvin, Arminius and the RCC without giving any support or evidence.

OP author responds by pointing out the lack of substance to the claim absent of any actual points and then shows the similarity between that posters view and that of Pelagius who was listed as one of the culprits of how the church came to be in the condition of devisiveness today.
The response from that poster denies and agrees in the same breath.

Another poster asks that the claim of unbiblical doctrines be explained and his own expressed to which there is no response.

There follows seven post arguing against Calvinism from the perspective of feelings rather than theologically, and responses from the OP author that do contain a theological and biblical perspective. And one post that simply asks for the post on Pelagius' beliefs on original sin needed to be edited so he could understand which was the author's belief and which was that of Pelagius. Even though before giving the P view it was clearly stated that is what it was. This was pointed out and responded to with a backhanded comment about the two of them thinking differently and a never mind dismissal.

Then a back and forth statement, response, rebuttal, repeat of statement. And not once is the actual claim of the OP actually dealt with. Instead the OP responses simply verify that the division exists. That the loss of the very foundation that existed long, long, ago, has been cracked, the foundational walls that are the protection of the purity of Christ's church have been breached, and the foundation attacked. And not through biblical, theological means, but through the expression of feelings.

We are intelligent people here! We can do better!

I think all of that was an excellent answer to the question posed in the OP. Do you think all of those individuals mentioned in the OP were really any different fundamentally than those responding to the OP. They were simply people who, for whatever reason, had developed biases concerning the questions being addressed.

 

[Mr GLee]

The OP is dealing with a specific topic. How did the church get into the condition of being full of divisions. It was pointed out that the most striking division that opened a door for the enemy to enter unnoticed and undetectable was a loss of something the church at one time had. What happened with the responses to the OP was the very thing at the root of this theological difference reared its head.

I would offer. The kingdom of God does not come by observing the temporal dying historical thing seen .They must be compared to the unseen eternal things .called faith Christ giving us His understanding below


2 Corinthians 4:18King James Version While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal.

God looks to the heart. And remember he makes men different so that men do not puff themselves up above sola scriptura) In order that some might reach out to him through His living word .

In that way there must be denominations or sects as families . as heresies. . opinions personal commentaries of mankind .

1 Corinthians 11:19 For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.

In that was there can be differences in oral traditons as long as they do not do despite to the fullness of Christ, the cost of salvation

2 Peter 2:1 But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.

I think in that way Christ uses as a ceremonial sign the gathering as a sign to the world not a sign unto there own selves .Aarons sons added to the ceremony "strange unauthorized fire. the fiery judgment of Christ.

One new testament ceremonial sign to the world not to the church. . .The hair covering doctrine (Nazarene)

1 Corinthians 11. One that seems to be dying .. . .woman taking the head. . Gender confusion by the king of identity theft. and king lying signs to wonder after

 

[JIM]

The first statement is untrue and shows a misunderstanding of those foundational doctrines of Christianity that have been tossed out.

The Bible and the truths in it, including the gospel take no consideration as to what seems right to any person concerning God or any other truth it so graciously gives to us. It does not care one iota about what makes sense to me, you, or anyone else. And he predisposes no one to anything. He commands and we are to obey. It is people---every last one of them---- who disobey and do so willingly.

That is not true. The doctrine of Total Depravity denies your last sentence. Those who disobey, according to TD, do not do so willingly. They have no choice. They have been given ears that can't hear and eyes that can't see.

But let me ask you this. What was lost that we once had, so that now even those such as yourself and @LeviR can deny some of the very foundational doctrines of apostolic and historical Christianity and create these divisions?

Those such as myself and others deny what you claim to be the very foundational doctrines of the apostolic and historical Christianity. We believe it is you, and those who believe as you do, who create some of those divisions.

One being the denial of original sin, the other the very deity of Christ. I give my reasoning on the subject attaching it to a specific time period and a specific historical reason. Do you have anything to say in rebuttal of those specifics?

I don't know about the others, but I certainly do not deny the very deity of Christ. It do deny the doctrine of original sin. I believe the doctrine is a slap in the very face of God.