To you it has been given to know...

[CrowCross]

Common grace is given to all humanity. A conscience, a law unto themselves.. a provision to respond to God commands, in faith.. a gift. We believe the 'ability to choose' is the grace, given to humanity. Still 'not of ourselves', but not 'meticulously contrived'. It's a real choice.. and had God not been gracious to give us a conscience, we'd be animals.

Why would one person choose this grace while another not choose grace?

 

[Josheb]

I believe your umbrage is not completely unfounded since my delivery is imperfect, even if in good faith. I apologize for undue offense, I'm certainly one of God's most unpolished stones. That said, as I've said, Calvinism tests the boundaries of my patience. My desire is to conduct myself with the same civility as I would with say, Mormonism or JW, or RCs. RCs being the closest analogy, in that it's considered by mainstream to not be "heresy" or "anathema", and so, the 'goal' is to find reconciliation.. not absolute irreconcilable division. Of course, we know well it's irreconcilable.. yet, Church Inc. is willing to feign, which.. I cannot see as other than a lie. Similarly, like RC, Calvinism claims the 'same Gospel'.. presenting that doctrinal reconciliation is somehow possible.. however, this narrow definition of what amounts to 'heresy' is arguably lacking, in that even a proper definition of the Gospel, which has an improper doctrine of Atonement.. is no Gospel at all, and therefore 'another gospel'. A real Gospel, presented as "unavailable" to "certain people" is NOT the Gospel. It's a stumbling block, and an enemy to the Gospel. A more insidious wolf than any flagrantly "definitionally false gospel". So yes, it's a dire struggle for me to be 'civil' in the face of such a destructive set of doctrines. But, I don't make the rules.. and so, try my best to do to others as I would have done to me.. and that demands the assumption of good faith, patience and the understanding you feel hasn't been given. So yes, I always try to be better, and do better. Point taken.

Great. However, the problem is not being addressed; it's being talked around. I asked about the supposed contradiction, and the answer was,

The contradiction is clear. Blind people don't need truth obscured for them, it's redundant.. and idea it's a "mercy" against further 'accountability' is frankly ridiculous.. in fact, twisted and perverse.

[/indent\
I do not know what that is, but that is neither scripture nor Calvinism. Who said they needed to be blinded? God can blind people anytime He likes for any reason He so chooses without ever having to need anything. The appraisal of Post 172 compromises divine aseity. That's a problem on your end, not the monergists'. Neither do I know where you got the idea blindness is a mercy against further accountability originated. The poster who broached the matter of mercy was doing so in relationship to teaching in parables, not making people blind. Do not assume I share that perspective. Monergism is not monolithic and each monergist has his or her different take within the belief God alone saves and does not use the faculties of the sinfully dead and enslaved sinner to do so. I never argued the parables were used as a means for mercy.

Labels like "ridiculous," "twisted," and "perverse" commit the logical fallacy known as the appeal to ridicule. Simply labelling something "X" does not speak to the veracity of a position (or lack thereof) in any way. There are several fallacies in your posts but the forum's tos require me to limit my criticism to only one. I am, therefore, going to ignore the strawmen for the time being and ask you to refrain from further ridiculing. You just got done saying you did not intend offense and would endeavor to treat others as they've treated you (a godless standard, btw. when it comes to returning evil for evil). Please refrain from unsubstantiated labeling.

Which brings me to another very important point. This is your op, not mine. The onus is on you, not me, to assert and defend this op. ANYONE who posts an op takes on that burden when they post the opening post. An op (the person writing the op) has no idea how much agreement the post will have, how many people will reply, or what the respondents will bring to bear on the op. There is always the potential form numerous matters to be addressed. Therefore, if ten different people bring ten different critiques it is then up to you to address the differences and not treat every criticism as if they are identical. Do not treat each poster's replies identically, and do not treat the posters the same, either.


My point of view is that.....

• Sin blinded people first. Sin radically changed the human creature, severely compromising his or her faculties to the point of his having no interest and no ability to see the problem or come to God on his/her own for a solution to the problem s/he cannot see..... unless God first acts to treat all of those problems. And that, btw, is not a point of view limited to Calvin. It was first expressed as a formal position by Augustine, hundreds of years before Calvin was born, and it is also a position held by the synergist Arminius.
• Once a person is dead in sin God can do whatever He likes with the person. Rather than let any sinner continue living for even a nanosecond after s/he has sinned, God could have designed creation so that the instant a person sins that person drops dead, their body instantly disintegrates, and all record of their ever having existed is erase from the history of creation. God is almighty. He can do that if He so chooses. He did not do that, but He could. You nor I have no justification for complaining about that if that were His choice. As it is, for some yet to be disclosed reason, God permitted the sinner to continue breathing and living after any and every act of disobedience. God did so as an act of mercy and He did so solely for His purpose(s), not that of the sinfully dead and enslaved sinner.
• Sin kills. Every sinner is dead in transgression and dead in sin.
• Sin also enslaves.
• The matter of
• The op does not specify any scriptural foundation. It should. The op alludes to the use of "parabolic" by which a reference to the parables is, presumably, intended. The problem is most, if not all, of the parables have their roots in the OT. Jesus did not invent them out of nothing. They were all intended for his first century Jewish audience, not Gentiles living two millennia later. Therefore, any argument 1) not couched in the OT, 2) not couched in the 1st century audience's understanding, and/or 3) couched in modern psychology fails. This is one of the reasons Flowers' views fail so frequently. He's a shoddy exegete who relies more of the ECFs (or at least that is the assertion of Provisionism) than scripture.
• The chief parables in question appear to be those in which Jesus late provides an explanation to the disciples, commenting the keys/mystery of the kingdom have been given to them while others remain seeing but never perceiving. Jesus is quoting from Isaiah so, again, any explanation not attending to the Isaiah reference is going to be wrong.
• There are overarching contexts to the use of parables and the inability of the original audience to understand them. These contexts have nothing to do with Isaiah. When it comes to salvation from sin, one of the overarching contexts is the Christological covenant relationship in which everything written in the Bible occurs. This is another area Flowers completely misses. Huge gaping hole in his soteriology. We can discuss this covenant aspect here or under the op authored but one thing we cannot do is deny the already existing Christological covenant.
• Lastly, for now, monergism is simply the belief God alone saves and does so without using anything sinful to save from sin (including the sinner). As one notable monergist famously said (and I am paraphrasing), the only thing we bring to our salvation is the sin from which we are being saved.

As far as my pov goes, that'll do for the time being, but there is one more very, very important note to be made and that is the fact discussion about salvation are built on sound exegesis, not appeals to extra-biblical sources (like Calvin or Flowers). This is hugely problematic for any synergist because scripture has very, very little to say about atheists. It has very, very little to say about anyone living outside of a covenant relationship with God. This places an enormous burden on the synergist because it is very difficult to find a verse in the Bible about someone who has absolutely no belief in God and no belief in sin. This is especially true when using the New Testament epistolary because most of the epistolary's commentary on salvation is written about those already saved, not how the unsaved, unregenerate non-believer gets saved. The epistolary is written about the faith of the saved, not the faith of those lacking faith. This is another commonly occurring error in Flower's rationale. He takes verses written to the saved about the saved and he applies them to the unsaved. He does that a lot.

You will not be permitted to do so. If you do it, I will point out the mistake with an expectation you correct the mistake, discard the verse and find another to support your argument. I will stay fixed on you correcting the mistake until either the mistake is corrected, or you prove unwilling/unable to do so. You are not going to like it but that is how those specific exegetical errors should be addressed. It will prove frustrating for you because 1) you're going to realize how difficult it is to make a case for synergism from the NT, especially the epistolary and 2) you're going to realize just how shoddy Flower's arguments are.

So..... let's jump back into the discussion of this op. Am I correct in thinking this op is about Jesus' speaking to the disciples when he tells them they've been given the keys to the kingdom, he explains the parables, and he uses Isaiah to explain how (most of) his audience were ever seeing but never perceiving and ever hearing but never understanding? Is that the foundation of this op's inquiry? If not, then explain it to me so there is no ambiguity or confusion. State your thesis (and try real hard to make it consistent with actual monergism, instead of a strawman).

Point taken.

I hope that is true but if the op is solely a troll, then say so. Just say so. I know how to respond to trolls.​

 

[His clay]

Hi XrzrX,

I've read some of the first page of discussion, but I have not read the rest. In post #3 you listed 3 verses, "Matt 13:11/Mk 4:11/Lk 8:10."

However, your opening post here is also referencing other verses that Calvinists operate from. You bring up "totally incapable of understanding anyway" Am I guessing correctly that you are getting this from 1 Cor 2:14? "The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned."

I'm just trying to get my ducks in a row before I give any substantive response.

@XrzrX
I have yet to see a response to this post. I know that you are busy with other posters, and it is easy to overlook.

 

[XrzrX]

Great. However, the problem is not being addressed; it's being talked around. I asked about the supposed contradiction, and the answer was,

​

​

[/indent\​

I do not know what that is, but that is neither scripture nor Calvinism. Who said they needed to be blinded? God can blind people anytime He likes for any reason He so chooses without ever having to need anything. The appraisal of Post 172 compromises divine aseity. That's a problem on your end, not the monergists'. Neither do I know where you got the idea blindness is a mercy against further accountability originated. The poster who broached the matter of mercy was doing so in relationship to teaching in parables, not making people blind. Do not assume I share that perspective. Monergism is not monolithic and each monergist has his or her different take within the belief God alone saves and does not use the faculties of the sinfully dead and enslaved sinner to do so. I never argued the parables were used as a means for mercy.​

​

Labels like "ridiculous," "twisted," and "perverse" commit the logical fallacy known as the appeal to ridicule. Simply labelling something "X" does not speak to the veracity of a position (or lack thereof) in any way. There are several fallacies in your posts but the forum's tos require me to limit my criticism to only one. I am, therefore, going to ignore the strawmen for the time being and ask you to refrain from further ridiculing. You just got done saying you did not intend offense and would endeavor to treat others as they've treated you (a godless standard, btw. when it comes to returning evil for evil). Please refrain from unsubstantiated labeling.​

​

Which brings me to another very important point. This is your op, not mine. The onus is on you, not me, to assert and defend this op. ANYONE who posts an op takes on that burden when they post the opening post. An op (the person writing the op) has no idea how much agreement the post will have, how many people will reply, or what the respondents will bring to bear on the op. There is always the potential form numerous matters to be addressed. Therefore, if ten different people bring ten different critiques it is then up to you to address the differences and not treat every criticism as if they are identical. Do not treat each poster's replies identically, and do not treat the posters the same, either.​

​

​

My point of view is that.....​

​

• Sin blinded people first. Sin radically changed the human creature, severely compromising his or her faculties to the point of his having no interest and no ability to see the problem or come to God on his/her own for a solution to the problem s/he cannot see..... unless God first acts to treat all of those problems. And that, btw, is not a point of view limited to Calvin. It was first expressed as a formal position by Augustine, hundreds of years before Calvin was born, and it is also a position held by the synergist Arminius.
• Once a person is dead in sin God can do whatever He likes with the person. Rather than let any sinner continue living for even a nanosecond after s/he has sinned, God could have designed creation so that the instant a person sins that person drops dead, their body instantly disintegrates, and all record of their ever having existed is erase from the history of creation. God is almighty. He can do that if He so chooses. He did not do that, but He could. You nor I have no justification for complaining about that if that were His choice. As it is, for some yet to be disclosed reason, God permitted the sinner to continue breathing and living after any and every act of disobedience. God did so as an act of mercy and He did so solely for His purpose(s), not that of the sinfully dead and enslaved sinner.
• Sin kills. Every sinner is dead in transgression and dead in sin.
• Sin also enslaves.
• The matter of
• The op does not specify any scriptural foundation. It should. The op alludes to the use of "parabolic" by which a reference to the parables is, presumably, intended. The problem is most, if not all, of the parables have their roots in the OT. Jesus did not invent them out of nothing. They were all intended for his first century Jewish audience, not Gentiles living two millennia later. Therefore, any argument 1) not couched in the OT, 2) not couched in the 1st century audience's understanding, and/or 3) couched in modern psychology fails. This is one of the reasons Flowers' views fail so frequently. He's a shoddy exegete who relies more of the ECFs (or at least that is the assertion of Provisionism) than scripture.
• The chief parables in question appear to be those in which Jesus late provides an explanation to the disciples, commenting the keys/mystery of the kingdom have been given to them while others remain seeing but never perceiving. Jesus is quoting from Isaiah so, again, any explanation not attending to the Isaiah reference is going to be wrong.
• There are overarching contexts to the use of parables and the inability of the original audience to understand them. These contexts have nothing to do with Isaiah. When it comes to salvation from sin, one of the overarching contexts is the Christological covenant relationship in which everything written in the Bible occurs. This is another area Flowers completely misses. Huge gaping hole in his soteriology. We can discuss this covenant aspect here or under the op authored but one thing we cannot do is deny the already existing Christological covenant.
• Lastly, for now, monergism is simply the belief God alone saves and does so without using anything sinful to save from sin (including the sinner). As one notable monergist famously said (and I am paraphrasing), the only thing we bring to our salvation is the sin from which we are being saved.

​

As far as my pov goes, that'll do for the time being, but there is one more very, very important note to be made and that is the fact discussion about salvation are built on sound exegesis, not appeals to extra-biblical sources (like Calvin or Flowers). This is hugely problematic for any synergist because scripture has very, very little to say about atheists. It has very, very little to say about anyone living outside of a covenant relationship with God. This places an enormous burden on the synergist because it is very difficult to find a verse in the Bible about someone who has absolutely no belief in God and no belief in sin. This is especially true when using the New Testament epistolary because most of the epistolary's commentary on salvation is written about those already saved, not how the unsaved, unregenerate non-believer gets saved. The epistolary is written about the faith of the saved, not the faith of those lacking faith. This is another commonly occurring error in Flower's rationale. He takes verses written to the saved about the saved and he applies them to the unsaved. He does that a lot.​

​

You will not be permitted to do so. If you do it, I will point out the mistake with an expectation you correct the mistake, discard the verse and find another to support your argument. I will stay fixed on you correcting the mistake until either the mistake is corrected, or you prove unwilling/unable to do so. You are not going to like it but that is how those specific exegetical errors should be addressed. It will prove frustrating for you because 1) you're going to realize how difficult it is to make a case for synergism from the NT, especially the epistolary and 2) you're going to realize just how shoddy Flower's arguments are.​

​

So..... let's jump back into the discussion of this op. Am I correct in thinking this op is about Jesus' speaking to the disciples when he tells them they've been given the keys to the kingdom, he explains the parables, and he uses Isaiah to explain how (most of) his audience were ever seeing but never perceiving and ever hearing but never understanding? Is that the foundation of this op's inquiry? If not, then explain it to me so there is no ambiguity or confusion. State your thesis (and try real hard to make it consistent with actual monergism, instead of a strawman).​

​

I hope that is true but if the op is solely a troll, then say so. Just say so. I know how to respond to trolls.​

It's clearly not a troll, and the fact such a simple question could be viewed as one defies logic. This is what happens in these contentious doctrinal divides, people can't see clearly. It's not a trick question! Asked why He taught in parables, He said "so that SEEING they may not SEE..". Now, this Calvinist "demure" is exhausting... and like Mormons and RCs and any number of error bearers, you Deny... what you believe. ANY iteration of Calvinist holds that the unregenerate Cannot 'see'. and this passage Destroys that. Again, we need a 5K page philosophy thesis to 'jargon' our way out of it. The onus is hardly on me to explain this contradiction.

 

[Arial]

Common grace is given to all humanity. A conscience, a law unto themselves.. a provision to respond to God commands, in faith.. a gift. We believe the 'ability to choose' is the grace, given to humanity. Still 'not of ourselves', but not 'meticulously contrived'. It's a real choice.. and had God not been gracious to give us a conscience, we'd be animals.

You borrow a term often found in Reformed theology----"common grace"---and then redefine it to suit your belief. But what you describe as common grace, is not what it is.

Common grace is not a grace that makes it possible for everyone to believe, even though that is also how the RCC thinks of it. But it is a semi-Pelegian belief that was condemned as heresy by the western church at the Second Council of Orange in 529.

Common grace is better understood according to how the Bible presents it (Ps 145:9, 16; Matt 5:45; Acts 14:16-17; John 3:27; Ps 104:13-15).
Uncommon grace or specific grace is for his covenant people (Eph 2:8-9).

 

[XrzrX]

Could have fooled me.


Elsewhere you have called everyone Judaizers too.

Do you want to know how I feel? Since feelings seem important to you:

“I am for peace, but when I speak, they are for war.”
—Psalm 120:7

^^^^

I brought you into a space where iron sharpens iron, not where swords are drawn to cut down the brethren. Your words have grieved me—and I am to blame for every insult you make to the brothers because I invited you here.

All you do is try to cut down the people who offered me love and friendship and a place to talk about my faith and people who like to talk about it.

And you come swords drawn hoping to kill and maim those I have chosen to love.

I have always been naive and too trusting. You have pointed that out to me again, naive and too trusting, because I thought you were something different entirely. I thought you were a Christian, and I invited you to a place I see as a garden, and you brought the chainsaw.

All is in God's decree, but it does make me cry anyway, as I wouldn't invite someone who would do this knowingly,

As standing before God I am actually sorry for the insults the brothers and sisters have to endure because of this.

If I've grieved you it certainly weighs on me, but I'm no 'enemy'. You saw exactly how I address error with what you termed as "Jezebels" in the other forum (an accurate description btw).. and I don't call Calvinists 'Judaizers'. There is similarity in the fact it's error within the Body, 'fox in the henhouse" if you will, but it's not about name calling, it's just about Truth. This is why I asked if it was indeed a Calvinist forum, we don't 'mix well'. Idk what kind of history you've had with the Church, but you mentioned coming to faith somewhat 'recently' in the last few years. Hurt by the world and found peace in this enclave of the Body. The irony is, within the Church, many have come out of this denomination with 'church hurt'.. and most that have cite it's "cultic' tone. And it's exactly the same with Dispensationalist, Messianic Jews (Hebrew Roots) and any number of the "Isms" of Christianity. It doesn't have to be that way. It breaks my heart to see believers sucked into what really amounts to 'radical doctrines' of Any denomination. And if I ever wield a chainsaw it's to cut down doctrine, not people. Now, Monergism itself is not an 'evil doctrine', it is supported in scripture.. likewise the Synergist position has support also. This general 'disagreement' is not so contentious as to be irreconcilable. But, more often the hyper Calvinist position seems to prevail and it's very destructive. It's shipwrecked people's faith. I oppose it as much and in the same way I would a so called 'progressive theology'. My motivation is not to roll in and crash about harming 'brothers and sisters', my heart Is for brothers and sisters. I've spent alot of years studying the word.. and theology, and when I see others being drawn into error it's mighty hard to remain silent. I feel protective, as you do for "friends".. I do for all believers that are "trusting and naive". Now, there are fine people here.. intelligent and thoughtful, I'm not 'against them'. Don't mistake my animosity toward doctrine for disdain of people.

 

[Hazelelponi]

If I've grieved you it certainly weighs on me, but I'm no 'enemy'.

Don't speak to me again. I have you on ignore.

 

[XrzrX]

You borrow a term often found in Reformed theology----"common grace"---and then redefine it to suit your belief. But what you describe as common grace, is not what it is.

Common grace is not a grace that makes it possible for everyone to believe, even though that is also how the RCC thinks of it. But it is a semi-Pelegian belief that was condemned as heresy by the western church at the Second Council of Orange in 529.

Common grace is better understood according to how the Bible presents it (Ps 145:9, 16; Matt 5:45; Acts 14:16-17; John 3:27; Ps 104:13-15).
Uncommon grace or specific grace is for his covenant people (Eph 2:8-9).

I don't need to call it 'common grace' (hardly a heresy), call it what it is.. A Conscience, endowed to every human being ever born.

 

[Hazelelponi]

If I've grieved you it certainly weighs on me, but I'm no 'enemy'.

And P.S. yes you are. Your worse than any enemy. You present yourself as friend and brother when your anything but.

You owe everybody here an apology, you owe them all one.

 

[XrzrX]

@XrzrX
I have yet to see a response to this post. I know that you are busy with other posters, and it is easy to overlook.

It's not what I use, but likely what Calvinists use.

 

[XrzrX]

And P.S. yes you are. Your worse than any enemy. You present yourself as friend and brother when your anything but.

You owe everybody here an apology, you owe them all one.

I've apologized several times.. and am happy to.. I'm human, and make mistakes and am hypocritical at times like everyone.

 

[Hazelelponi]

It's not what I use, but likely what Calvinists use.

If we leave the forum will you go and leave them alone?

I've apologized several times.. and am happy to.. I'm human, and make mistakes and am hypocritical at times like everyone.

If I leave the forum will you leave the people here alone?

They don't deserve to be abused for my own error .in judgement. I mistakenly thought you were a Christian who might enjoy Scriptural discussions.

I was wrong. Now I would like you to leave people alone.

 

[XrzrX]

Great. However, the problem is not being addressed; it's being talked around. I asked about the supposed contradiction, and the answer was,

​

​

[/indent\​

I do not know what that is, but that is neither scripture nor Calvinism. Who said they needed to be blinded? God can blind people anytime He likes for any reason He so chooses without ever having to need anything. The appraisal of Post 172 compromises divine aseity. That's a problem on your end, not the monergists'. Neither do I know where you got the idea blindness is a mercy against further accountability originated. The poster who broached the matter of mercy was doing so in relationship to teaching in parables, not making people blind. Do not assume I share that perspective. Monergism is not monolithic and each monergist has his or her different take within the belief God alone saves and does not use the faculties of the sinfully dead and enslaved sinner to do so. I never argued the parables were used as a means for mercy.​

​

Labels like "ridiculous," "twisted," and "perverse" commit the logical fallacy known as the appeal to ridicule. Simply labelling something "X" does not speak to the veracity of a position (or lack thereof) in any way. There are several fallacies in your posts but the forum's tos require me to limit my criticism to only one. I am, therefore, going to ignore the strawmen for the time being and ask you to refrain from further ridiculing. You just got done saying you did not intend offense and would endeavor to treat others as they've treated you (a godless standard, btw. when it comes to returning evil for evil).​

P.S. It's "Do to others As You Would Have them do to you.." Lk 6:31/Mt 7:12.. not as 'they've done'.

Please refrain from unsubstantiated labeling.​

​

Which brings me to another very important point. This is your op, not mine. The onus is on you, not me, to assert and defend this op. ANYONE who posts an op takes on that burden when they post the opening post. An op (the person writing the op) has no idea how much agreement the post will have, how many people will reply, or what the respondents will bring to bear on the op. There is always the potential form numerous matters to be addressed. Therefore, if ten different people bring ten different critiques it is then up to you to address the differences and not treat every criticism as if they are identical. Do not treat each poster's replies identically, and do not treat the posters the same, either.​

​

​

My point of view is that.....​

​

• Sin blinded people first. Sin radically changed the human creature, severely compromising his or her faculties to the point of his having no interest and no ability to see the problem or come to God on his/her own for a solution to the problem s/he cannot see..... unless God first acts to treat all of those problems. And that, btw, is not a point of view limited to Calvin. It was first expressed as a formal position by Augustine, hundreds of years before Calvin was born, and it is also a position held by the synergist Arminius.
• Once a person is dead in sin God can do whatever He likes with the person. Rather than let any sinner continue living for even a nanosecond after s/he has sinned, God could have designed creation so that the instant a person sins that person drops dead, their body instantly disintegrates, and all record of their ever having existed is erase from the history of creation. God is almighty. He can do that if He so chooses. He did not do that, but He could. You nor I have no justification for complaining about that if that were His choice. As it is, for some yet to be disclosed reason, God permitted the sinner to continue breathing and living after any and every act of disobedience. God did so as an act of mercy and He did so solely for His purpose(s), not that of the sinfully dead and enslaved sinner.
• Sin kills. Every sinner is dead in transgression and dead in sin.
• Sin also enslaves.
• The matter of
• The op does not specify any scriptural foundation. It should. The op alludes to the use of "parabolic" by which a reference to the parables is, presumably, intended. The problem is most, if not all, of the parables have their roots in the OT. Jesus did not invent them out of nothing. They were all intended for his first century Jewish audience, not Gentiles living two millennia later. Therefore, any argument 1) not couched in the OT, 2) not couched in the 1st century audience's understanding, and/or 3) couched in modern psychology fails. This is one of the reasons Flowers' views fail so frequently. He's a shoddy exegete who relies more of the ECFs (or at least that is the assertion of Provisionism) than scripture.
• The chief parables in question appear to be those in which Jesus late provides an explanation to the disciples, commenting the keys/mystery of the kingdom have been given to them while others remain seeing but never perceiving. Jesus is quoting from Isaiah so, again, any explanation not attending to the Isaiah reference is going to be wrong.
• There are overarching contexts to the use of parables and the inability of the original audience to understand them. These contexts have nothing to do with Isaiah. When it comes to salvation from sin, one of the overarching contexts is the Christological covenant relationship in which everything written in the Bible occurs. This is another area Flowers completely misses. Huge gaping hole in his soteriology. We can discuss this covenant aspect here or under the op authored but one thing we cannot do is deny the already existing Christological covenant.
• Lastly, for now, monergism is simply the belief God alone saves and does so without using anything sinful to save from sin (including the sinner). As one notable monergist famously said (and I am paraphrasing), the only thing we bring to our salvation is the sin from which we are being saved.

​

As far as my pov goes, that'll do for the time being, but there is one more very, very important note to be made and that is the fact discussion about salvation are built on sound exegesis, not appeals to extra-biblical sources (like Calvin or Flowers). This is hugely problematic for any synergist because scripture has very, very little to say about atheists. It has very, very little to say about anyone living outside of a covenant relationship with God. This places an enormous burden on the synergist because it is very difficult to find a verse in the Bible about someone who has absolutely no belief in God and no belief in sin. This is especially true when using the New Testament epistolary because most of the epistolary's commentary on salvation is written about those already saved, not how the unsaved, unregenerate non-believer gets saved. The epistolary is written about the faith of the saved, not the faith of those lacking faith. This is another commonly occurring error in Flower's rationale. He takes verses written to the saved about the saved and he applies them to the unsaved. He does that a lot.​

​

You will not be permitted to do so. If you do it, I will point out the mistake with an expectation you correct the mistake, discard the verse and find another to support your argument. I will stay fixed on you correcting the mistake until either the mistake is corrected, or you prove unwilling/unable to do so. You are not going to like it but that is how those specific exegetical errors should be addressed. It will prove frustrating for you because 1) you're going to realize how difficult it is to make a case for synergism from the NT, especially the epistolary and 2) you're going to realize just how shoddy Flower's arguments are.​

​

So..... let's jump back into the discussion of this op. Am I correct in thinking this op is about Jesus' speaking to the disciples when he tells them they've been given the keys to the kingdom, he explains the parables, and he uses Isaiah to explain how (most of) his audience were ever seeing but never perceiving and ever hearing but never understanding? Is that the foundation of this op's inquiry? If not, then explain it to me so there is no ambiguity or confusion. State your thesis (and try real hard to make it consistent with actual monergism, instead of a strawman).​

​

I hope that is true but if the op is solely a troll, then say so. Just say so. I know how to respond to trolls.​

 

[XrzrX]

If we leave the forum will you go and leave them alone?


If I leave the forum will you leave the people here alone?

They don't deserve to be abused for my own error .in judgement. I mistakenly thought you were a Christian who might enjoy Scriptural discussions.

I was wrong. Now I would like you to leave people alone.

You're being overly emotional, but, as I am actually a Christian... I'll happily leave the forum if you wish. If I've become a stumbling block to you then that would be best.

 

[XrzrX]

So yes, I'm going to take this as a cue to move on. I do appreciate the discussions, and wish everyone well.
Idk that we'll ever see a resolution to the many disagreements of doctrine, but hopefully we can all agree that God is good.
Praise God!

 

[Arial]

Asked why He taught in parables, He said "so that SEEING they may not SEE..". Now, this Calvinist "demure" is exhausting... and like Mormons and RCs and any number of error bearers, you Deny... what you believe. ANY iteration of Calvinist holds that the unregenerate Cannot 'see'. and this passage Destroys that. Again, we need a 5K page philosophy thesis to 'jargon' our way out of it. The onus is hardly on me to explain this contradiction.

Doctrinally Reformed (the theology, not every individual) does not accept contradictions in the Bible. So when it comes across what appears to be a contradiction, it uses the full counsel of God and especially a consistent doctrine of God as self revealed, and specifically here, soteriology.

As to the doctrine of God, it identifies God revealing himself as absolutely sovereign over all his creation. Not partly sovereign or sometimes sovereign. It finds him to be the cause of everything that is. Nothing is, or lives, or moves, or has its being outside of his command and control. It finds God has an end purpose for everything, and that everything, including within the pages of our Bibles, is intended for the fulfillment of that purpose. The culmination we see in Rev 21. So every doctrine must be based with that in mind.

In the Bible we see clearly the condition of mankind in comparison to him. We see ourselves after the fall, as absolutely helpless to be and do what God created us to do and in need of someone to take our place in the wrath of God and death we deserve, to set us free and remove our enmity towards God. Common grace will not do this, only effectual, specific, saving grace. We see Scriptures that tell us how God does this, applying the work of Christ to an individual. Regeneration by the Holy Spirit and the resulting faith that places us in Christ.

We see in the passage Romans 8:28-30 That those he knew before,he predestined,called, justified, glorified. Throughout the entire Bible we see him choosing people, places, and times. We see the believer repeatedly referred to as those he chose, as called, as the elect, in the epistles.

So we do not throw all that out the window when we come to "so seeing, they may not see" and isolate it from all else, and say that it is proof that the Reformed doctrine is false! And if you would pay attention to what we are saying about it, instead of just poo pooing it as we are contradicting our own doctrine and it contradicts our doctrine. Deal honestly with what we say. Come with a sincere desire to learn why so many and for so many centuries believe what we do.

If you pay attention, you will notice that there is a vast difference in the way the Reformed on here respond compared to your responses to us. We are truly trying to get you to use your mind instead of your emotions (concerning this issue). You are trying to get us to participate according to emotional responses with emotional responses, instead of all of us using our God given ability to reason and think. Do better.

 

[Arial]

I don't need to call it 'common grace' (hardly a heresy), call it what it is.. A Conscience, endowed to every human being ever born.

Common grace is not a heresy and I did not say it is. In fact I told you what it is. I gave scriptures that define it according to God. You have provided nothing that shows it is a conscience. Having a conscience is not grace. He created us with one.

 

[Arial]

If I've grieved you it certainly weighs on me, but I'm no 'enemy'. You saw exactly how I address error with what you termed as "Jezebels" in the other forum (an accurate description btw).. and I don't call Calvinists 'Judaizers'. There is similarity in the fact it's error within the Body, 'fox in the henhouse" if you will, but it's not about name calling, it's just about Truth. This is why I asked if it was indeed a Calvinist forum, we don't 'mix well'. Idk what kind of history you've had with the Church, but you mentioned coming to faith somewhat 'recently' in the last few years. Hurt by the world and found peace in this enclave of the Body. The irony is, within the Church, many have come out of this denomination with 'church hurt'.. and most that have cite it's "cultic' tone. And it's exactly the same with Dispensationalist, Messianic Jews (Hebrew Roots) and any number of the "Isms" of Christianity. It doesn't have to be that way. It breaks my heart to see believers sucked into what really amounts to 'radical doctrines' of Any denomination. And if I ever wield a chainsaw it's to cut down doctrine, not people. Now, Monergism itself is not an 'evil doctrine', it is supported in scripture.. likewise the Synergist position has support also. This general 'disagreement' is not so contentious as to be irreconcilable. But, more often the hyper Calvinist position seems to prevail and it's very destructive. It's shipwrecked people's faith. I oppose it as much and in the same way I would a so called 'progressive theology'. My motivation is not to roll in and crash about harming 'brothers and sisters', my heart Is for brothers and sisters. I've spent alot of years studying the word.. and theology, and when I see others being drawn into error it's mighty hard to remain silent. I feel protective, as you do for "friends".. I do for all believers that are "trusting and naive". Now, there are fine people here.. intelligent and thoughtful, I'm not 'against them'. Don't mistake my animosity toward doctrine for disdain of people.

Pure, unbridled, arrogance.

 

[Arial]

A real Gospel, presented as "unavailable" to "certain people" is NOT the Gospel.

Reformed theology does not teach that the Gospel is unavailable to certain people. Are you at all interested in learning what it does teach on the matter?

 

[ElectedbyHim]

Then I can only guess that you also treat them with the same lack of civility as you do us.

Then I can only guess that you do not conduct yourself with the people you care about most, any differently than how you conduct yourself with us.


Consider this: Instead of coming here for the purpose of bashing a whole section of the brotherhood, as though they were less than another whole section of the brotherhood, come trying to understand why they believe what they do. Come willing to listen and to learn, and to debate the issues properly. That means when someone asks you to give your interpretation of specific passages, because if your interpretation is different than theirs, those things can be looked into and debated, using the full council of God.

For centuries, starting with the apostles, Christians believed what we find in the Doctrines of Grace (TULIP). (Not what an opponent thinks they are saying. Not based on an emotional reaction with no examination). For a few centuries after the Protestant Reformation which produced the Confessions of Faith, God fearing, redeemed men and women have held to the doctrinal views in them, all of which were scripturally supported with care. Have you read any of them? Due diligence of teaching was given to the children and adults coming into the community. There was no need of pleading and begging anyone to choose to believe, or to come forward and invite Jesus to be your Lord, and salvation connected to that action alone. They understood that the believing was God's wheel house, not theirs. They understood their wheel house was to faithfully teach from the word of God.

Jesus was central to the teaching. Who he is, what he did, how and why it was necessary that he do it and in the way he did. The cross. Christ and him crucified. What was not central to the teaching and the exposition of the word, was "God only elects some people to be saved." That was not the Gospel they preached. It is not the Gospel that is preached now. Christ and him crucified was the gospel they preached. Election and predestination are doctrines that flow out of who God is and who humanity is in relation to him.

So maybe you should try to understand them by listening to them when they answer your questions, answering them when they ask questions, carrying on an honest and faithful discussion, instead treating them as though they are a heretical cult, and the most disgusting one of all.

So what is your interpretation of Eph 2:8-9.

This is excellent.