Why is the Word of God not so Sharp on Forums?

[Eternally-Grateful]

Hebrews 4:12 NIV; For the word of God is alive and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.


I get it; the things of God are Spiritually understood. But that's not what I mean. We're Christians, right? When we use Scripture and Sound Doctrine on each other, why doesn't it work like it's supposed too? Why do people never change for the better; Theologically Speaking? Sure, we can believe differently on things that aren't as important as the Fundamentals and Orthodoxy; but dang it, when it's important we should agree...

I use a 'Shared Belief' tactic. It works; until it doesn't. When I use a shared belief to prove my point, this is when it drives me crazy that people still won't change. Let's say this shared belief is a Bible Verse, or several Verses we agree about their meaning. But when I use them against my dueling partner; all of the sudden, those shared beliefs no longer matter...

So why is it true that the Word of God doesn't change a Christian Poster's thoughts about God honest Truth?

I see it this way

Everyone thinks there interpretation is the right one. Very few people from what I see actually come to learn and listen to others..

so when you have two or more groups saying they are following God.. well then you have what I see in most chatrooms. Chaos and pride running rampant..

 

[Hazelelponi]

In a sense, all "Calvinists" believe in double predestination (in the sense that one's destiny is fixed, in advance, not based upon foreseen works); however, normal "Calvinists" believe that God has actively predestined the elect for salvation; whereas, he merely passes over the non-elect, leaving them in the default condition for rebellious sinners.

Actually, the difference is when was the fall decreed, and other such considerations.

Not whether the elect were deserving. It's study.

Since you're putting quotes around the word Calvinist I'll leave you to it. Clearly I missed something. When I don't understand what that is I prefer to walk instead of arguimg with people who won't be clear.

 

[Josheb]

Yes, I'm curious now also.

Though I would like to think so, it's quite possible not everyone is, just like in a church.

Yes, but the point was to examine the presuppositions underlying the op. It's usually best to ask, rather than assume and @ReverendRV is very capable. While I also took other approaches, presuppositionalism can be very powerful. There is also the ever-existing irony of the Reformed perspective in which we fundamentally believe that which exists does so because that is exactly how God wants it in any given moment and it all, in some way or another, serves His purpose and His purpose alone. Therefore, if His word is not - for whatever reason - "sharp" on Christian forums then it is fundamentally because God Himself has seen fit to make it that way. Our anthropomorphic explanations may (or may not) have some veracity but they don't provide a complete explanation apart from divine providence. But, if I understood the op correctly, then part of its unstated purpose is to prompt self-examination, not rankly speculative criticism of each other.

 

[Josheb]

I'm a someone.

LOL!

Are you sure?





.

 

[David1701]

Actually, the difference is when was the fall decreed, and other such considerations.

That's about infralapsarianism vs supralapsarianism, etc.

Not whether the elect were deserving. It's study.

I said nothing about whether or not the elect are deserving (we're not).

Since you're putting quotes around the word Calvinist I'll leave you to it. Clearly I missed something. When I don't understand what that is I prefer to walk instead of arguimg with people who won't be clear.

I put inverted commas around the word "Calvinist", because it's a misnomer and I don't like using it. I accede to using it sometimes, because it avoids having to go into detail about what I believe about soteriology. "Calvinism", so-called, does not stem from Calvin (e.g. T.U.L.I.P. is the acronym used to summarise the biblical responses of the Synod of Dordtrecht, to the objections by the Remonstrants, against God's sovereignty in salvation).

 

[Hazelelponi]

put inverted commas around the word "Calvinist", because it's a misnomer and I don't like using it. I accede to using it sometimes, because it avoid

You could have made the polite correction without snobby quotation marks.

Just being real. I would never have referred to you as such again.

All you needed was to mention it.

 

[David1701]

You could have made the polite correction without snobby quotation marks.

Just being real. I would never have referred to you as such again.

All you needed was to mention it.

You have misunderstood my intention.

My inverted commas were not "snobby"; and I was not correcting you, nor were they intended as quotation marks. I don't know about American usage, but, in Britain, at least when I was taught, several decades ago, inverted commas can have several uses and are not limited to quotations (e.g. they can be for unusual or special uses of a word: "Calvinism" would normally refer to some set of beliefs coming from Calvin, but, since they don't, I consider that usage to a special use of the word - hence the inverted commas).

I often put "Calvinism" or "Calvinist" in inverted commas (even if I'm the only person using the term).

I was not annoyed with you, nor correcting your usage. I am not offended, if you use the term, because I know what you mean.

 

[John Bauer]

In a sense, all "Calvinists" believe in double predestination (in the sense that one's destiny is fixed, in advance, not based upon foreseen works); however, normal "Calvinists" believe that God has actively predestined the elect for salvation; whereas, he merely passes over the non-elect, leaving them in the default condition for rebellious sinners.

Actually, the difference is when was the fall decreed, …

No, that refers to the supralapsarian vs. infralapsarian controversy—both sides of which believe in some kind of double-predestination, whether active-passive ("normal") or active-active ("hyper").

 

[Hazelelponi]

I don't understand how they can make active active into that

 

[John Bauer]

I don't understand how they can make active active into that

It's simply a matter of definition. In other words, hyper-Calvinism just is (among other things) the belief that divine causation is symmetrical between the reprobate and the elect—what R. C. Sproul called "equal ultimacy"—that God's role in the damnation of the reprobate is as symmetrical as his role in the salvation of the elect. So, it's a matter of definition. A Calvinist believes that reprobation is a matter of preterition because sinners need no help in sinning. The person who believes that God works unbelief in the hearts of the reprobate just as actively as he works belief in the hearts of the elect is a hyper-Calvinist.

(This may also be the reason why the Westminster Confession of Faith differentiates between the elect being "predestinated" and the reprobate being "foreordained"—divine causation as asymmetrical.)

 

[Hazelelponi]

It's simply a matter of definition. In other words, hyper-Calvinism just is (among other things) the belief that divine causation is symmetrical between the reprobate and the elect—what R. C. Sproul called "equal ultimacy"—that God's role in the damnation of the reprobate is as symmetrical as his role in the salvation of the elect. So, it's a matter of definition. A Calvinist believes that reprobation is a matter of preterition because sinners need no help in sinning. The person who believes that God works unbelief in the hearts of the reprobate just as actively as he works belief in the hearts of the elect is a hyper-Calvinist. (This may also be the reason why the Westminster Confession of Faith differentiates between the elect being "predestinated" and the reprobate being "foreordained"—divine causation as asymmetrical.)

Okay ... I see it. Thank you.

 

[Arial]

From a popular theological dictionary:

A hyper-Calvinist is someone who either:

1. Denies that the gospel call applies to all who hear, OR
2. Denies that faith is the duty of every sinner, OR
3. Denies that the gospel makes any "offer" of Christ, salvation, or mercy to the non-elect (or denies that the offer of divine mercy is free and universal), OR
4. Denies that there is such a thing as "common grace," OR
5. Denies that God has any sort of love for the non-elect.

Or according to Norman Geisler in "Chosen But Free" a hyper- Calvinist is anyone who believes all five points of TULIP.

 

[Carbon]

Or according to Norman Geisler in "Chosen But Free" a hyper- Calvinist is anyone who believes all five points of TULIP.

Yep thats Geisler al right.

 

[Carbon]

EVERYONE disagrees with me on PSA.
So I just keep inviting them to show me where the Bible teaches about “transferred wrath” (the concept that I couldn’t find).

Not everyone. You have a lot that agrees with you, civic being one of them.

 

[Carbon]

God is angry with sin.

Jesus was made sin for us.

God imputed his righteous anger against sin onto Jesus, as our Substitute.

And that is so obvious in scripture. One has to be in denial to not see it.

 

[atpollard]

Not everyone. You have a lot that agrees with you, civic being one of them.

Since he an I were both given a "time out" for discussing it (a short ban), PSA is clearly an ESSENTIAL DOCTRINE here at CCC, so I will not be discussing the many alternative views of atonement that both predated it and have been advanced since it on CCC in the future.

I will be taking a sabbatical for our mutual well being and Christian witness.

 

[Carbon]

Since he an I were both given a "time out" for discussing it (a short ban), PSA is clearly an ESSENTIAL DOCTRINE here at CCC, so I will not be discussing the many alternative views of atonement that both predated it and have been advanced since it on CCC in the future.

I will be taking a sabbatical for our mutual well being and Christian witness.

For the record, you and civic were not given a timeout. What happened here is that I was trying to work on a few things internally and unknowingly pressed a couple of wrong buttons, which threw things out of control for a bit, mainly because I didn't know what I did wrong. So, not just you and civic but many others experienced the same issues.

Also, for the record, we are not so sensitive and insecure about defending an essential doctrine. So, don't flatter yourself. If you are interested in defending your beliefs in this area, by all means, please do. I sincerely invite you both to. If you would rather take a sabbatical for your well-being, then maybe you should. I know certain things can be devastating.

 

[Carbon]

PSA is clearly an ESSENTIAL DOCTRINE here at CCC,

It is an essential Christian doctrine, period!

so I will not be discussing the many alternative views of atonement that both predated it

This is one area I believe you need some education on. But hey, when and if the time is right.


I wish you well.

 

[Arial]

It is an essential Christian doctrine, period!

This is one area I believe you need some education on. But hey, when and if the time is right.


I wish you well.

There really is no legitimate argument against PSA to be found in the Scriptures.

To deny a penal substitutionary atonement, completely undoes any actual atonement or propitiation accomplished by Christ. His sacrifice would be no more effective to cleanse one of sin than the sacrifice of bulls and rams. It isn't enough for God to simply declare that if Jesus gave his life then he would pardon the sins of all who believe in him. Which is what we have when we remove the actual work of substitution and propitiation that Jesus did.

 

[Carbon]

There really is no legitimate argument against PSA to be found in the Scriptures.

I agree. I haven't seen one yet. It's mostly a denial of the gospel.

To deny a penal substitutionary atonement, completely undoes any actual atonement or propitiation accomplished by Christ. His sacrifice would be no more effective to cleanse one of sin than the sacrifice of bulls and rams. It isn't enough for God to simply declare that if Jesus gave his life then he would pardon the sins of all who believe in him. Which is what we have when we remove the actual work of substitution and propitiation that Jesus did.