To you it has been given to know...

[XrzrX]

Knowing the wheat and the tares will grow together until the end, you can’t know the condition of any heart, heck, scripture says you can’t even know or understand your own heart.

But we can. God doesn't give us "new faulty hearts". The dead man's heart couldn't be trusted.. yours can. It's each other's hearts we can't know, and this is the tragedy of Calvinism, and as much as I despise having to say it, it's my belief it rises very, very close to the level of Heresy. As I mentioned in the other thread on heresy, the logical conclusions of many doctrines are tantamount to heresy even when "death, burial and resurrection" are affirmed. The Mormons claim the Gospel, as do RCs, as do many Hebrew Roots cults. Calvinism steals many believers hope.. a Hope that is enshrined in the Gospel for "All who call on the Name of the Lord". When one becomes a stumbling block to that Hope, they are a wolf.. and the Flock cannot abide wolves.

 

[XrzrX]

The devil sure does not know who the reprobate are so he is doing his job to make sure the gospel don’t stay around very long to take root. But that’s just the wayside. Some seed fell among the vines and others, stones also. The seeds that fell among the thorns and rocks took root quickly, showing quick signs of life.
As the gospel is proclaimed in the world there are those who could care less, they hardly even hear it, they understand nothing (the wayside) then there are those who hear it and they seem to be all for it (vines, thorns, rocks) They take it and run just to give it up later. The devil didn’t pick these up because they grabbed it quickly. And of course God would heal them if they would see and believe. But they cannot as the prophecy tells (Matt 13:14-16).

The devil can’t take the seed from the good soil. And it “proves itself to be good” which is not the case of the other grounds. The wayside is hard and proves itself to be reprobate quicker than the vine, thorns and stony hearts.

Why do the others grounds fall away eventually? Well John gives us a clue in 1 John. Because they are not of us, if they were they would have remained. But to show they are not, they left.

Why does God allow the reprobate to hear the gospel? That’s what you’re really asking, right? Why are you concerned about just the wayside?

"They went out from us, but they were not really of us; for if they were of us, they would have remained with us; but they went out, so that it would be manifested that they all are not of us." I believe this verse is speaking of actual "Israel of God" vs "national Israelites". It speaks to those that (to this day) claim "seeds of Abraham" as membership of Israel. The slander against Jesus, and Paul and Christians is that we "started a new religion".. but, John highlights that it's not Christians who started a new religion, it's the Jews that abandoned what was Always true Israel. But, to the point, again.. the question stands, it's redundant for Satan to steal Any seeds at all, according to their belief they have zero chance of sprouting period. It's nonsensical. Same with using parables, completely unnecessary.

 

[makesends]

Simple question..
Why would Jesus use parabolic language to obfuscate a Message that the unregenerate were totally incapable of understanding anyway?

So that they are without excuse. They were given every opportunity, but chose to rebel.

To shut up every dissenting voice. They were told, and refused to hear. For those who measure according to free will, there will be no excuse—they are measured against their own theology.

You may as well ask the same question as those who claim Calvinists/Reformed have no cause to obey or do anything, since que sera, sera. It is the same self-deterministic mindset that puts us on a level with God's determinism. It completely ignores the fact that God is first cause, and uses means to accomplish whatever he has ordained, to include both the evil will and good will of the unregenerate and the born again.

 

[XrzrX]

So that they are without excuse. They were given every opportunity, but chose to rebel.

To shut up every dissenting voice. They were told, and refused to hear. For those who measure according to free will, there will be no excuse—they are measured against their own theology.

You may as well ask the same question as those who claim Calvinists/Reformed have no cause to obey or do anything, since que sera, sera. It is the same self-deterministic mindset that puts us on a level with God's determinism. It completely ignores the fact that God is first cause, and uses means to accomplish whatever he has ordained, to include both the evil will and good will of the unregenerate and the born again.

Here is the "means" argument, and "first, secondary causes" argument. Can you see how this falls short? There is no need for "means" by Definition. There is ZERO possibility of the unregenerate to understand or be saved. You guys make at least this doctrine painfully simple. It's pure redundance.. and why would there have to be any "excuse", again, ZERO ability, zero possibility. This is sadly where you guys paint yourself into a corner.

 

[CrowCross]

Again, that's the "means" (by which He accomplishes His will) argument.. the point is, He doesn't need to "repel" them, again, they have Zero ability to see or hear. It's redundant.

I'n not going to argue over the usage of words.

 

[makesends]

Here is the "means" argument, and "first, secondary causes" argument. Can you see how this falls short? There is no need for "means" by Definition. There is ZERO possibility of the unregenerate to understand or be saved. You guys make at least this doctrine painfully simple. It's pure redundance.. and why would there have to be any "excuse", again, ZERO ability, zero possibility. This is sadly where you guys paint yourself into a corner.

So, once again, you bend God to man's self-important view. Or, maybe better said, you raise man to God's level of causal ability. Well, God is not like man.

The most glaring logical error you make here is to assume that man does God's work. Do you think man can use God to do what man has in mind? God, "from before time began", purposed to bring about every detail of what comes to pass, or he is not God. You illogically have God 'sort of' bringing about things he purposes not to know. It's worse than silly—it is monstrous, to posit such a god.

During time's progression, what God caused from the beginning plays out just as God intended. And just in case you want to make it robotic, or in your description, redundant causes, God is intimately involved in that progression. Time's events come to pass by God having caused them, and by causing them. Now we have triply redundant! —or maybe they are actually all one thing, to God. But no! —we insist that WE are the central player in this story! OUR point-of-view must prevail!

You want scripture? Maybe start with the logical implications of the myriad places, to include Genesis 1, that show God is omnipotent, first cause, and active. Or jump to Romans 9, demonstrating the man is only clay in God's hands, and that ALL depends on God.

 

[Carbon]

But we can.

No friend, not according to scripture. Don't fool yourself, the heart is deceitful. Until we are glorified, we will have these issues.

God doesn't give us "new faulty hearts". The dead man's heart couldn't be trusted.. yours can.

You're obviously not going to listen to me, so I'll give you scripture. Search me, O God, and know my heart: try me, and know my thoughts: And see if there be any wicked way in me, and lead me in the way everlasting. Psalm 139:23-24.

It's each other's hearts we can't know,

No, we cannot know others' hearts either. You got that right. Do you believe you are an exception?
The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it? Jeremiah 17:9.

 

[XrzrX]

So, once again, you bend God to man's self-important view. Or, maybe better said, you raise man to God's level of causal ability. Well, God is not like man.

The most glaring logical error you make here is to assume that man does God's work. Do you think man can use God to do what man has in mind? God, "from before time began", purposed to bring about every detail of what comes to pass, or he is not God. You illogically have God 'sort of' bringing about things he purposes not to know. It's worse than silly—it is monstrous, to posit such a god.

During time's progression, what God caused from the beginning plays out just as God intended. And just in case you want to make it robotic, or in your description, redundant causes, God is intimately involved in that progression. Time's events come to pass by God having caused them, and by causing them. Now we have triply redundant! —or maybe they are actually all one thing, to God. But no! —we insist that WE are the central player in this story! OUR point-of-view must prevail!

You want scripture? Maybe start with the logical implications of the myriad places, to include Genesis 1, that show God is omnipotent, first cause, and active. Or jump to Romans 9, demonstrating the man is only clay in God's hands, and that ALL depends on God.

There is no way to rationalize this.. it's redundant, and contradictory to any iteration of Calvinist doctrine.

 

[XrzrX]

No friend, not according to scripture. Don't fool yourself, the heart is deceitful. Until we are glorified, we will have these issues.

You're obviously not going to listen to me, so I'll give you scripture. Search me, O God, and know my heart: try me, and know my thoughts: And see if there be any wicked way in me, and lead me in the way everlasting. Psalm 139:23-24.


No, we cannot know others' hearts either. You got that right. Do you believe you are an exception?
The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it? Jeremiah 17:9.

Give me a single verse saying the new heart is untrustworthy.

 

[Carbon]

But we can. God doesn't give us "new faulty hearts". The dead man's heart couldn't be trusted.. yours can. It's each other's hearts we can't know,

Test your thoughts against scripture

and this is the tragedy of Calvinism,

This is a tragedy of Calvinism? Oh goodness, another one obsessed by Calvinism.

and as much as I despise having to say it, it's my belief it rises very, very close to the level of Heresy.

Yeah, I'm sure you despise having to say it.

As I mentioned in the other thread on heresy, the logical conclusions of many doctrines are tantamount to heresy even when "death, burial and resurrection" are affirmed.

The Mormons claim the Gospel, as do RCs, as do many Hebrew Roots cults.

Yes, they do, false gospels at that.

Calvinism steals many believers hope.. a Hope that is enshrined in the Gospel for "All who call on the Name of the Lord". When one becomes a stumbling block to that Hope, they are a wolf.. and the Flock cannot abide wolves.

Please be more elaborate in your explanation. I really tire of the simple arguments that just say things like, "All who call on the Name of the Lord".
They say this with no context and leave out any real meaning. They think they can make it mean whatever they want or apply any way they see best. Is John 3:16 the verse that answers all in your world as well?

 

[Carbon]

Give me a single verse saying the new heart is untrustworthy.

Friend, who is scripture written to?

 

[Carbon]

There is no way to rationalize this.. it's redundant, and contradictory to any iteration of Calvinist doctrine.

Friend, you do not understand Calvinistic doctrine (Calvinism). I'd love to be a part of teaching you, though.

 

[XrzrX]

Friend, you do not understand Calvinistic doctrine (Calvinism). I'd love to be a part of teaching you, though.

And THIS.... is always where this specific question ends. I'm going to ask, answer the question. If your doctrine is correct, you can.

 

[Carbon]

And THIS.... is always where this specific question ends. I'm going to ask, answer the question. If your doctrine is correct, you can.

I'm sorry, the way you worded this is a bit confusing, not sure I understand you. Are you going to ask me a question about Calvinism? Is that it? If so, please go right ahead. I'm waiting.

 

[XrzrX]

Friend, who is scripture written to?

THAT scripture is written to a world before Pentecost, before the indwelling of the Spirit.. old heart.

 

[Carbon]

It's written to a world before Pentecost, before the indwelling of the Spirit.. old heart.

News flash. The saints of the OT were indwelt by the Spirit, and they also were given a new heart.

Next.

 

[XrzrX]

News flash. The saints of the OT were indwelt by the Spirit, and they also were given a new heart.

Next.

That is absolutely incorrect. David begged the Spirit to "not leave Him", Born Again believers don't have to make that plea. In the OT the Spirit 'fell upon', went before, and they could be 'filled' to accomplish God's will that would otherwise be beyond them.. but they were Not indwelled as we are. Eternally, unceasingly.. not until Jesus. That is the 'New Creation'... we are.

 

[Carbon]

That is absolutely incorrect.

I'm sorry you do not know this truth. Salvation was no different than, as it is now. We have always been saved by grace, through faith.

 

[Carbon]

That is absolutely incorrect. David begged the Spirit to "not leave Him",

Read the context.

Born Again believers don't have to make that plea. In the OT the Spirit 'fell upon', went before, and they could be 'filled' to accomplish God's will that would otherwise be beyond them.. but they were Not indwelled as we are. Eternally, unceasingly.. not until Jesus. That is the 'New Creation'... we are.

Who taught you that?

 

[XrzrX]

Read the context.

Who taught you that?

It's clear in the bible. What you are referencing is "they were filled with the Spirit", in the OT when they prophesied or did battle.. and many take that as 'indwelling', it's not the same. Pentecost was the "Giving of the Spirit".. and Paul enumerates how it's different, we are become the Temple of God.. OT saints were not, clearly as there was another Temple. Never in the OT does it say, as it does in the NT that the Spirit 'dwells' in Believers, it is a "New Creation" that 'angels long to peer into'. It is drastically different, and I'm surprised you don't know this. It's foundational brother.
*To be clear, OT saints were 'Saved'.. but not indwelled, yet.