Israel

[MahogonySnail]

"even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world"

It's important to realise where the choosing is taking place. The choosing is taking place "in him", that is, in Christ. Post-fact - after accepting the call to believe in Christ. We are not individually chosen before the foundation of the world, apart from Christ. Only Christ was. In Christ, we are chosen before the foundation of the world.

Paul is very careful in his statements to put "in him" , otherwise it would read "even as he chose us before the foundation of the world" which is basically Calvinism. Paul knew the dangers of beliefs such as Calvinism and the way he worded his letters is to guard against such misrepresentations of the truth.

 

[QuestionTime]

We're ganging up on poor Phil here.

Anyway, here's another thought of mine. Calvinists are very adamant that men cannot choose God. They are willing to say God will refuse men grace and allow them to enter hell before they will say that a man can choose God. Okay fine.

But why can't God take a man who is totally corrupt and blind, and give him the ability to choose? Why is this so difficult? Why can't God give a reprobate the ability to choose? What is so blasphemous about that? Evil man can't choose, the Spirit comes upon the man, man is able to choose. Bingo!

I would rather say this than to say that God refuses to give anyone grace. If a man were to refuse to save some people - while choosing to save others - when he has the ability to save them all, the man would justly be labeled a criminal for allowing those to die that he could have saved. Why then would God not be labeled a criminal when He is said to do the very same thing? I just can't understand it.

Quest

 

[MahogonySnail]

God has made humans to be intelligent and rational creatures. He has given us the ability to make decisions. I think it is not beyond human capability to choose God. This is confirmed by the scriptures which says God hopes people will seek and find Him. "God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us." Acts 17:27. The way is open, God is ready to be found, but we must make the choice to seek and find him.

 

[Rogue]

I'd just like to say, Phil, that characterizing someone as an opposing faction just because they disagree with you is biblically unacceptable and divisive. Shwagga has said himself on more than one occasion that he is not "Arminian" and yet you continue to try and label him as such.

Can we not just disagree in love as brothers and sisters of one Father? Calvinist, Arminian...does it really matter?

I say no. The Scriptures talk about God not choosing Jew or Greek, but everyone. I think that applies to "theological groups" too. Furthermore, when Jesus taught the people, he never tried singling them out as being part of a certain group. When people disagreed with his message, he corrected them in love, he did not label them. As our example, I believe we should follow his lead on that.

 

[phil36]

"even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world"

It's important to realise where the choosing is taking place. The choosing is taking place "in him", that is, in Christ. Post-fact - after accepting the call to believe in Christ. We are not individually chosen before the foundation of the world, apart from Christ. Only Christ was. In Christ, we are chosen before the foundation of the world.

Paul is very careful in his statements to put "in him" , otherwise it would read "even as he chose us before the foundation of the world" which is basically Calvinism. Paul knew the dangers of beliefs such as Calvinism and the way he worded his letters is to guard against such misrepresentations of the truth.

Of course we are3 in Him Mahogony,, I think you statement does not hold its own water. And you are wrong the statement would not say what you said.. Again learn to understand Mahogony.

Phil

 

[phil36]

We're ganging up on poor Phil here. Phil can handle it.

Anyway, here's another thought of mine. Calvinists are very adamant that men cannot choose God. They are willing to say God will refuse men grace and allow them to enter hell before they will say that a man can choose God. Okay fine. Your still havent grapsed the concept of Grace, no one says God refuses grace to all, thats a falsness even Calvinists dont believe that.. your arguments are starting to sound childish now QT. Plus according to you there is no orioginal sin and.. and I will Highlight this. You have said apart of grace is God obeying the law through us, this is truly false and you have refused to answer, but now that a few others have joined the debate you feel safe to say what you want. so back to the question ..How do you come to the belief God Obeys the Law through us?????

But why can't God take a man who is totally corrupt and blind, and give him the ability to choose? Why is this so difficult? Why can't God give a reprobate the ability to choose? What is so blasphemous about that? Evil man can't choose, the Spirit comes upon the man, man is able to choose. Bingo! Now your starting to sound like a Calvinist.. excellent QT.

I would rather say this than to say that God refuses to give anyone grace. Again a false hood of Calvinism, based on your lack of knowledge or some If a man were to refuse to save some people - while choosing to save others - when he has the ability to save them all, the man would justly be labeled a criminal for allowing those to die that he could have saved. Why then would God not be labeled a criminal when He is said to do the very same thing? I just can't understand it. You have said this before in different manners. Your still thinking God should think like you Have you not read the end of Job? Obviously not.

Quest

Anyhow quest, you have felt safety in numbers when Mahogony started, yet you cant even explain your method of grace. that """"" God obeys the law through us""" thats not even Biblical

Phil

 

[phil36]

I'd just like to say, Phil, that characterizing someone as an opposing faction just because they disagree with you is biblically unacceptable and divisive. Shwagga has said himself on more than one occasion that he is not "Arminian" and yet you continue to try and label him as such.

Can we not just disagree in love as brothers and sisters of one Father? Calvinist, Arminian...does it really matter?

I say no. The Scriptures talk about God not choosing Jew or Greek, but everyone. I think that applies to "theological groups" too. Furthermore, when Jesus taught the people, he never tried singling them out as being part of a certain group. When people disagreed with his message, he corrected them in love, he did not label them. As our example, I believe we should follow his lead on that.

Hi Rogue,

If you would like to re read the post you will see that I did not call Him arminain but rather His soteriology is Arminian. You have shown that you do not understand the difference.

Does a Messianic Jew not believe in Justification by Faith alone? if they don't then they must be back to what paul called anathema (cursed), Now just to help you a bit Rogue, if you believe in 'Justified by Faith alone' then you are one of two camps.. (Soteriologicaly speaking) either Arminian or Reformed and slight variations of this.

Also according to your self there is neither jew nor Greek all one in Christ, so really there is no such thing a a meassianic Jew, he is a Christian, just like me and you. do you run around calling yourself an American Christian, Do I run around caling myself a Scottich Christian or a Gaelic Christian of course not we are one in Christ.

Thirdly you have misred Paul if you believe everyone and use the argument of ' neither greek nor jew nor free nor slave' that is a totla misunderstanding of what that text is saying.

So before you accuse me of not being brother, please be more informed of the subject matter, I know he calls himself a messianic Jew, does that somehow make them totally different from the beliefs of Evangelical Christians? Be more informed rogue.

Thank you

Phil

 

[MahogonySnail]

Phil have you never realised yet that you follow a man (Calvin) rather than Christ alone?

 

[phil36]

Phil have you never realised yet that you follow a man (Calvin) rather than Christ alone?

Thats about the siliest thing you have said so far Mahogony.. Reformed theology is not Calvin.
I think you need to learn abit more before coming out with comments like that..

Who was it that said 'In Christ alone'

Calvinists don't follow Calvin the man, that is just silly point scoring Mahogony and childish, and ill - informed.

Phil

 

[MahogonySnail]

Reformed theology is such a broad term it's hard to know what a reformed person would actually believe. I do believe the "TULIP" in all its variants, from moderate to extreme, fits under the reformed category as well. In essence it generally means "non -catholic".

No Catholic for example, would disagree with Calvinism that we follow Christ alone. Hopefully all Christians believe that. That should be a no brainer. The point is, Christianity is full of fragmentations who follow a particular theologians or man's teaching about it. When we say we follow Calvinism, it is really Calvin's name we are exalting not Christ's.

Now Calvin himself wrote some good stuff, but it's only one interpretation of the bible. I don't recall Calvin being given a more powerful Holy Spirit than anyone else. Unless you can point to a particular verse in the bible that mentions the name of Calvin or Arminian I can only conclude that as their names are not in the bible, both are unbiblical. As such we shouldn't disregard alternative interpretations of the bible just because they dont fit within a Calvinistic (or Reformed, if you like) framework.

But unfortunately in your mind it appears we are either in your "reformed" camp or not. As such, your mind still dwells in the realm of carnal divisions which Paul spoke about.

 

[phil36]

Reformed theology is such a broad term it's hard to know what a reformed person would actually believe. I do believe the "TULIP" in all its variants, from moderate to extreme, fits under the reformed category as well. In essence it generally means "non -catholic".

No Catholic for example, would disagree with Calvinism that we follow Christ alone. Hopefully all Christians believe that. That should be a no brainer. The point is, Christianity is full of fragmentations who follow a particular theologians or man's teaching about it. When we say we follow Calvinism, it is really Calvin's name we are exalting not Christ's.

Now Calvin himself wrote some good stuff, but it's only one interpretation of the bible. I don't recall Calvin being given a more powerful Holy Spirit than anyone else. Unless you can point to a particular verse in the bible that mentions the name of Calvin or Arminian I can only conclude that as their names are not in the bible, both are unbiblical. As such we shouldn't disregard alternative interpretations of the bible just because they dont fit within a Calvinistic (or Reformed, if you like) framework.

Stop trying to back track.. you made a nonsical statement... now you are trying to get out of a whole that you dug for yourself Mahogony.


Now Mahogony you obviously don't understand soteriology, and why you believe what you do.. when you learn this you will have a better understanding of the matter at hand.

The whole bible is a framework of Covenant, of course unless you disagree????

As I say, find out how you believe what you believe and then come back and debate in an informed manner, not just silly point scoring diatribe.

Phil

 

[phil36]

When we say we follow Calvinism, it is really Calvin's name we are exalting not Christ's.

This is another no brainer, Calvin expounded the truth of the bible, and you may disagree with him, thats up to you. He had a very high Christology. unlike others I could mention.

You dont seem to grasp that everything you believe is by the reformers who where moved by the Holy Spirit to bring the truth back to people. unless you are not Evangelical Christian. you maybe a Liberal or RCC?

Yet again, you don't realise Calvinist is just terminology, I am in Christ. a Christian

 

[MahogonySnail]

This is another no brainer, Calvin expounded the truth of the bible, and you may disagree with him, thats up to you. He had a very high Christology. unlike others I could mention.

Let's be clear. He expounded his truth of the bible. And doing so with faulty interpretation of early church writings, namely Augustines. Here you are basically exalting Calvin again. I think he had some good things to say. But I don't think that's a reason to exalt him above any other theologian. Which is what he was - a theologian. He did have a nasty temper I believe and contributed to the death of a man. He was basically despotic. He may have talked the talk, whether he actually walked the talk enough for us to be proud to claim we follow his teachings that bear his name, is another matter. I leave that to your conscience.

You dont seem to grasp that everything you believe is by the reformers who where moved by the Holy Spirit to bring the truth back to people. unless you are not Evangelical Christian. you maybe a Liberal or RCC?

You can't seem to cope with not labelling christians as belonging to a particular theological strand or group. soteriology is in the realm of natural man's mind trying to understand God. I'm a simple christian believer who has studied the bible since I was 5 years old and read as widely and extensively as I can. I'm not afraid to step outside my level of understanding and consider the "other side". There are wonderful believers in all "camps". I do think you are being a bit naive to hold to your one single theological arguments against all others. There is nothing exactly heretic about what the others have said, for the 'free will " argument. And we could find great men of God and theologians who are just as weighty when it comes to scriptural interpretation, as your beloved Calvin. In fact I'd say the non-reformed would outnumber the "reformed" by quite a number. Why do I believe in free will ? Not just because it is to me the most common sense view, but because when the bible says in Joshua 24, "choose this day whom you will serve". I really believe what it says, that we can choose. This verse alone disproves your point. The fact that this question is being posed to evil and rebellious people, proves that they have the capability to choose good or evil of their own free will. There were absolutely no calvinists in the bible, old or new testament.

I also find a free will view is the most sustainable view when we consider church history. There would be a contradiction in your beliefs if you hold to the Nicene creed and canon of scripture, yet reject the free will arguments which the proponents of the Nicene creed, and canon of scripture, believed - and preferring a 15th centuary theologian named Calvin. I've never seen any convincing arguments that those who gave us the canon of scripture, and the Nicene creed, actually believed in Calvinism.
As a non-Calvinist, it's personally comforting to know the free-will beliefs are traceable and consistent back to the first centuary church.

 

[phil36]

Let's be clear. He expounded his truth of the bible. And doing so with faulty interpretation of early church writings, namely Augustines. Here you are basically exalting Calvin again. I think he had some good things to say. But I don't think that's a reason to exalt him above any other theologian. Which is what he was - a theologian. He did have a nasty temper I believe and contributed to the death of a man. He was basically despotic. He may have talked the talk, whether he actually walked the talk enough for us to be proud to claim we follow his teachings that bear his name, is another matter. I leave that to your conscience. Oh deary me Mahogiony the same old same old. I am not exalting Calvin... Christ is the only name to be exhaulted. and obviously by this paragraph you really havent got a clue what you are talking about. and your argument can be said of anyone including you!



You can't seem to cope with not labelling christians as belonging to a particular theological strand or group This is total nonsense I belong to a group who theologically are reformed,, I thought you would have jnown this Mahogony, once again, you either are not a careful reader or are just trying to score points?. soteriology is in the realm of natural man's mind trying to understand God.. It explains somehting though!. I'm a simple christian believer who has studied the bible since I was 5 years old and read as widely and extensively as I can. I'm not afraid to step outside my level of understanding and consider the "other side" I am not afraid either to look outside my own convictions. I have in the last 7 years exstensivley read, RCC, Lutheran,Arminian and of Course Calvinism, And continue to study the bible to the best of my abilities, I am not a scholar just a simple man like you. There are wonderful believers in all "camps" Yes I believe that also, they are bueatiful they are brothers and sisters in Christ. I do think you are being a bit naive to hold to your one single theological arguments against all others I would not say naive, you sound more like a travelling wilbury than an informed bible reader since you where 5. you are the one who sounds naive, since you have been reading the bible for so long you can't even use scripture properly in a debate. There is nothing exactly heretic about what the others have said, for the 'free will " argument I disagree, for it comes on the heals of Pelaginism, and the RCC semi-pelagianism. And we could find great men of God and theologians who are just as weighty when it comes to scriptural interpretation, as your beloved Calvin I wouldnt disagree with that either. In fact I'd say the non-reformed would outnumber the "reformed" by quite a number .That is true, but remember the gentiles far outnumbered the people of Covenant the Jews, and also, it is naive to think because greater numbers believe something they are correct, that is a wrong assumption. look at the RCC, they are the largest Christian group followed by CharismaticsWhy do I believe in free will ? Not just because it is to me the most common sense view, but because when the bible says in Joshua 24, "choose this day whom you will serve". I really believe what it says, that we can choose and who chose those people in the first place, God was wanting them to reaffirm their covenant promises, read Judges??. This verse alone disproves your point very wrong my friend very wrong, because I affirm it as truth aswell . The fact that this question is being posed to evil and rebellious people, proves that they have the capability to choose good or evil of their own free will Your axiom and understanding of the text is wrong. What you have to remember they did not have the Spirit of God in them, maybe you forgot that part?

I also find a free will view is the most sustainable view when we consider church history. There would be a contradiction in your beliefs if you hold to the Nicene creed and canon of scripture This is false, Here is your problem Mahogony, you just don't understand 'free will', yet reject the free will arguments which the proponents of the Nicene creed Mmmm Do they?, once again you have shown ignorance, by what you have said I doubt you have even read the nicene creed, and secondly you show ignorance to the need for this creed!!!!!!, and canon of scripture, believed - and preferring a 15th centuary theologian named Calvin Ahh it wasn't just Calvin,Once again ignorance to the topic, Check out redemptive History in the Old Testament, I assume you have read it?.. I've never seen any convincing arguments that those who gave us the canon of scripture, and the Nicene creed, You have already proven that you havent a clue why the nicene creed was written? actually believed in Calvinism. MMmm it would be Covenant BTW?
As a non-Calvinist, it's personally comforting to know these beliefs are traceable and consistent back to the first centuary church. That is Good for you Mahogony, However as shown above your assurance is based on your own thoughts maybe a few scattered websites, and not really an understanding of redemptive history in Scripture. but that is your choice, is that free will?

So Mahogony, what is free will? since you hold it so dearly. give all an explanation.?

Phil

 

[MahogonySnail]

If we say that man is so evil that he cannot choose God, we must also believe that man is so evil that he is not directly responsible for the evil in himself or the world. This was a heretical view that the first centuary church had to fight against - that man is not directly responsible. For this reason the early church was very much pro-choice. It can only be confronted by affirming the truth of scripture that man does have free will, that God does hold man accountable for his choices for good or evil, and that despite being sinful and evil by nature, it is nothing to do with limiting or over-riding man's ability to choose. In fact the whole of human history starts with a free-will choice - adam and eve given choice to obey or rebel against God by eating the forbidden fruit. As an evangelist, it is very hard to reason with a non-believer that God is the cause of all evil in the world, and at the same time reconcile this view with an idea that God is loving and wants to save. Calvinism does this no favours.

 

[phil36]

If we say that man is so evil that he cannot choose God, we must also believe that man is so evil that he is not directly responsible for the evil in himself or the world Very wrong Mahogony so wrong indeed. This was a heretical view that the first centuary church had to fight against - that man is not directly responsible yes that is very true. For this reason the early church was very much pro-choice your not understanding the stance they where fighting against here. It can only be confronted by affirming the truth of scripture that man does have free will, that God does hold man accountable for his choices for good or evil, and that despite being sinful and evil by nature, it is nothing to do with limiting or over-riding man's ability to choose. In fact the whole of human history starts with a free-will choice - adam and eve given choice to obey or rebel against God by eating the forbidden fruit This is very true and I agree with you.. then something disastouros took place the Fall. As an evangelist, it is very hard to reason with a non-believer that God is the cause of all evil in the world, and at the same time reconcile this view with an idea that God is loving and wants to sav You are very wrong Mahogony and once again you have shown total ignorance to the topic. Calvinism does this no favours This is your biased and ignorant of the fact bias..

Once again you have decided to side step the question and offered a diatribe against reformed theology.

Now, Answer the question , it is a very simple and straightforward question Mahogony?

What is Free will?

Phil

 

[phil36]

Anyhow, I have said before this has been debate down the centuries by greater men than I and you.

So I will leave you with some beautiful Scripture that feeds the soul.


"But I said to you that you have seen me and yet do not believe. All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out."

And

"And he said, "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father."

"even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will"

"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,"

and my favourite

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.

God Bless

Phil

 

[MahogonySnail]

Oh deary me Mahogiony the same old same old. I am not exalting Calvin... Christ is the only name to be exhaulted. and obviously by this paragraph you really havent got a clue what you are talking about. and your argument can be said of anyone including you!

Everytime you put forward Calvinism as the truth over the alternatives, you are basically exalting him. Unless you are blind, can't you see the word Calvin in there?

This is total nonsense I belong to a group who theologically are reformed,, I thought you would have jnown this Mahogony, once again, you either are not a careful reader or are just trying to score points?.

I belong to a group who are theologically Christian. Imagine you lived back 1800 years ago. Would you be happy just being known as a Christian? If not, perhaps reconsider whether you follow Christ, or your reformed group, whoever they may be. I'm not sure what it would achieve by you labelling me was evangelical, RCC or liberal. I thought Christians were supposed to be defined by and follow Christ and the bible alone, and not a particular theological grouping. I'm sure your carnality in dividing Christians up into divisions will be overcome as you mature in Christ.

What you have to remember they did not have the Spirit of God in them, maybe you forgot that part?

How does it matter? Does having the Spirit turn one into a Calvinist? Are you suggesting a person has free choice and free will without the Spirit, and once the Spirit comes the Holy Spirit forces a person to choose one way or the other?

I would not say naive, you sound more like a travelling wilbury than an informed bible reader since you where 5. you are the one who sounds naive, since you have been reading the bible for so long you can't even use scripture properly in a debate

You're funny, I think I've used and made reference to more scripture in my last few posts than you have. Is claiming they didn't have the Holy Spirit the best argument you can think of re: the Joshua scripture? I can't see how it is relevant.

I disagree, for it comes on the heals of Pelaginism, and the RCC semi-pelagianism.

Yet the early church, before Augustine, before Pelaginism, was strongly pro-choice. No Calvinists in the early church I'm afraid, except the ones that Calvinists pretend to have existed.

is true, but remember the gentiles far outnumbered the people of Covenant the Jews, and also, it is naive to think because greater numbers believe something they are correct, that is a wrong assumption. look at the RCC, they are the largest Christian group followed by Charismatics

Ironically during the reformation the Arminians were mostly in minority compared to the Calvinists. So yeah if we're going to argue larger is wrong, minority is right, it can go either way. But good point.

and who chose those people in the first place, God was wanting them to reaffirm their covenant promises, read Judges??.

Yet we still have an example of evil and depraved people, who did not have the Holy Spirit, being told to choose God. This would be a technical impossibility according to yourself, as depraved men are not supposed to be able to choose God of themselves. How much more is your view disproven, when we consider these men did not have the Holy Spirit? , and so those who did choose God, would have done so by their own depraved mind's free choice alone.

Your axiom and understanding of the text is wrong. What you have to remember they did not have the Spirit of God in them, maybe you forgot that part?

As I just said, that they did not have the Spirit of God, only further shows how wrong your view is, and affirms the view that evil men,can choose God of their own choice, even without the Spirit.

Here is your problem Mahogony, you just don't understand 'free will',

lol that's a laugh, a person who doesn't believe in free will, telling someone who does, that they don't understand it.

Mmmm Do they?, once again you have shown ignorance, by what you have said I doubt you have even read the nicene creed, and secondly you show ignorance to the need for this creed!!!!!!,

I bet in the last 20 years I have read the nicene creed and recited it more than you have . My point stands - the early church was highly pro-free will. They had to be, to counter the arguments that man was not responsible for evil in the world. I dare say, the Calvinist, due to their warped understanding of God's sovereignty, is forced to conclude the same - that we are not responsible for evil. If you claim we cannot choose to be saved, you must also believe we could not choose to be evil. The Calvinist would say (and I know they do because i have debated hardcore ultra calvinists extensively), that God put the tree of knowledge in the garden of eden, so that man would deliberately fall into sin. But that is God tempting humans with evil, and that's not correct at all according to the bible.

There's plenty of resources to show what the early church believed, like this website:
Free Will - the History of the Early Church - Early Church.com

"The early Christians were strong believers in free will. For example, Justin Martyr made this argument to the Romans: “We have learned from the prophets, and we hold it to be true, that punishments, chastisements, and rewards are rendered according to the merit of each man's actions. Otherwise, if all things happen by fate, then nothing is in our own power. For if it is predestined that one man be good and another man evil, then the first is not deserving of praise or the other to be blamed. Unless humans have the power of avoiding evil and choosing good by free choice, they are not accountable for their actions—whatever they may be.... For neither would a man be worthy of reward or praise if he did not of himself choose the good, but was merely created for that end. Likewise, if a man were evil, he would not deserve punishment, since he was not evil of himself, being unable to do anything else than what he was made for.”

You have already proven that you havent a clue why the nicene creed was written?

I know why the Nicene creed was written. The point is, that unfortunately for you, it wasn't written by Calvinists. Hopefully you can reconcile this contradiction or "conflict of interest" in your theology in your lifetime. ​

 

[phil36]

I bet in the last 20 years I have read the nicene creed and recited it more than you have

Well Mahogony as they say 'Ignorance is bliss' you may have learned it and recited it, but you obviously have no idea why it came about and what it means. Thats why I am shocked to hear you say you have studied it for 20 years.. becuase you don't know what its intentions where

That is why it is pointless debating you

Have a good belss'd day Mahogony.

"he predestined us to be adopted as his sons through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will— to the praise of his glorious grace.


Praise and all Glory to God our Father, Jesus His son and the Holy Spirit. all the Glory to God (not man and his so called free will)

 

[phil36]

I would like to give you a bit of advice Mahogony, don't lean your learning on websites.. any fool can write what they want and how they want.

At least with Scholarly books they can be critiqued by their peers, even you could could make a web page and say what you want and even make it sound convincing!

Phil