civic
Well-known member
as an unbeliever are you trying to compare him with calvin ?
The suppression of reason, logic, common sense and morality in Calvinism
- Thread starter civic
- Start date
Nope. Good try
What does "did not enter my mind" mean?
civic
Well-known member
the same thing with you when something never entered your mind.
Biblelesson
Active member
If you're talking about Paul he was not an unbeliever. He describes himself as:
circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; as to the law, a Pharisee; Philippians 3:5
And as a Jew he believed in the coming Messiah he just didn't believe that Jesus was him.
So He had no idea then? It took Him by surprise.
civic
Well-known member
he was not a believer until his encounter with Christ on the road to damascus. thats when his life changed, when he became born from above, a new creation in Christ- the old has passed and all things became new. His old man was crucified with Christ and he lived for Him from that point forward in obedience to Jesus.
civic
Well-known member
Questions to me don't solve your problem with the text, its a diversion.
What does it men that their sins never crossed His mind ?
The passage destroys the reformed view of determinism, predestination, sovereignty etc........
that everything that comes to pass is ordained by God is clearly at odds with that passage and many others as well.
hope this helps !!!
civic
Well-known member
Leighton Flowers lays out of thoughts about the ever present claim by Calvinists that no one represents their views correctly:
1) SOME ARE NOT EDUCATED ON THE ACTUAL CLAIMS OF THEIR OWN SCHOLARS
Many who bring the accusation of strawmanning either (1) do not rightly understand Calvinism and Calvinistic scholar’s ACTUAL CLAIMS or they (2) do not really affirm the ACTUAL CLAIMS of John Calvin and other notable Calvinistic scholars, but have adopted a much milder, more palatable, and arguably inconsistent form of the systematic. (If it is the second, however, I cannot help but wonder why would they not stand with me in opposition to the ACTUAL CLAIMS of Calvinism rather than accusing me of not understanding it rightly?)
…
2) NOT EVERYONE IS CUT FROM THE SAME CLOTH:
There are some Calvinists who simply disagree with Edwin Palmer’s quote above, as they should. There are moderate Calvinists, high Calvinists, ultra Calvinists and hyper Calvinists (the last of which most Calvinists would disavow completely). There are some who affirm God’s provisional atonement for all people and God’s sincere desire for every individual to repent and believe; but others who do not. There are some who affirm God’s genuine love for every individual, while others only describe his feelings toward the non-elect as wrath-filled hatred.
…
3) DEFINING THE TERMS:
This issue is closely related to the first. Many people even in the same camp use different terms that often carry various connotations and implications. For instance, when I say “responsible” I actually think it means that someone is “able to respond” (silly me). Yet, when some use the word “responsible” they simply hear “justly punishable even if one is unable to respond.”
…
4) CORRECT BUT NOT PALATABLE:
…It is when our theological rhetoric is taken out of the classroom and applied in the real world. Some people cannot stomach it, while others revel in its disdain as a badge of honor, almost as if the more offensive their views are to others the more likely they are to be correct.
…
5) RATIONALIZATIONS AND LOGICAL IMPLICATIONS:
“The doctrine of Total Depravity – when the consequence is drawn that, since we are totally depraved, our idea of good is worth simply nothing – may thus turn Christianity into a form of devil-worship.” –CS Lewis, The Problem of Pain, pg. 29
Was CS Lewis attempting to directly accuse all Calvinists of worshipping the devil? I seriously doubt it. It is more likely that he was attempting to draw out the logical implications of the Calvinistic claims regarding their teachings on total inability. John Wesley makes a similar claim in a sermon about double predestination in which he teaches Calvinism makes God out to be worse than the devil, because the devil would not deceptively pretend to want all to be saved (link). Yet, we know that Wesley was close friends with Calvinistic brothers (like Whitfield) and won the respect of many great Calvinistic believers (see note at the end of this article). How can Calvinists get along with someone who implies their doctrine leads to devil worship? I think those who have studied these issues at length better understand how this is possible.
…
6) NEFARIOUS MOTIVATIONS:
When you disagree with someone about something so intimate and personal as the biblical teaching of grace and salvation it is easy to allow yourself to start believing there must be something seriously wrong with them.
1) SOME ARE NOT EDUCATED ON THE ACTUAL CLAIMS OF THEIR OWN SCHOLARS
Many who bring the accusation of strawmanning either (1) do not rightly understand Calvinism and Calvinistic scholar’s ACTUAL CLAIMS or they (2) do not really affirm the ACTUAL CLAIMS of John Calvin and other notable Calvinistic scholars, but have adopted a much milder, more palatable, and arguably inconsistent form of the systematic. (If it is the second, however, I cannot help but wonder why would they not stand with me in opposition to the ACTUAL CLAIMS of Calvinism rather than accusing me of not understanding it rightly?)
…
2) NOT EVERYONE IS CUT FROM THE SAME CLOTH:
There are some Calvinists who simply disagree with Edwin Palmer’s quote above, as they should. There are moderate Calvinists, high Calvinists, ultra Calvinists and hyper Calvinists (the last of which most Calvinists would disavow completely). There are some who affirm God’s provisional atonement for all people and God’s sincere desire for every individual to repent and believe; but others who do not. There are some who affirm God’s genuine love for every individual, while others only describe his feelings toward the non-elect as wrath-filled hatred.
…
3) DEFINING THE TERMS:
This issue is closely related to the first. Many people even in the same camp use different terms that often carry various connotations and implications. For instance, when I say “responsible” I actually think it means that someone is “able to respond” (silly me). Yet, when some use the word “responsible” they simply hear “justly punishable even if one is unable to respond.”
…
4) CORRECT BUT NOT PALATABLE:
…It is when our theological rhetoric is taken out of the classroom and applied in the real world. Some people cannot stomach it, while others revel in its disdain as a badge of honor, almost as if the more offensive their views are to others the more likely they are to be correct.
…
5) RATIONALIZATIONS AND LOGICAL IMPLICATIONS:
“The doctrine of Total Depravity – when the consequence is drawn that, since we are totally depraved, our idea of good is worth simply nothing – may thus turn Christianity into a form of devil-worship.” –CS Lewis, The Problem of Pain, pg. 29
Was CS Lewis attempting to directly accuse all Calvinists of worshipping the devil? I seriously doubt it. It is more likely that he was attempting to draw out the logical implications of the Calvinistic claims regarding their teachings on total inability. John Wesley makes a similar claim in a sermon about double predestination in which he teaches Calvinism makes God out to be worse than the devil, because the devil would not deceptively pretend to want all to be saved (link). Yet, we know that Wesley was close friends with Calvinistic brothers (like Whitfield) and won the respect of many great Calvinistic believers (see note at the end of this article). How can Calvinists get along with someone who implies their doctrine leads to devil worship? I think those who have studied these issues at length better understand how this is possible.
…
6) NEFARIOUS MOTIVATIONS:
When you disagree with someone about something so intimate and personal as the biblical teaching of grace and salvation it is easy to allow yourself to start believing there must be something seriously wrong with them.
Biblelesson
Active member
What you're talking about was when Paul became a Christian. All practicing Jews are believers, They believe in the promise God gave to Abraham. They look forward to the Cross. Clearly seen In Genesis 22.
22 Some time later God tested Abraham. He said to him, “Abraham!”
“Here I am,” he replied.
2 Then God said, “Take your son, your only son, whom you love—Isaac—and go to the region of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on a mountain I will show you.”
3 Early the next morning Abraham got up and loaded his donkey. He took with him two of his servants and his son Isaac. When he had cut enough wood for the burnt offering, he set out for the place God had told him about. 4 On the third day Abraham looked up and saw the place in the distance. 5 He said to his servants, “Stay here with the donkey while I and the boy go over there. We will worship and then we will come back to you.”
6 Abraham took the wood for the burnt offering and placed it on his son Isaac, and he himself carried the fire and the knife. As the two of them went on together, 7 Isaac spoke up and said to his father Abraham, “Father?”
“Yes, my son?” Abraham replied.
“The fire and wood are here,” Isaac said, “but where is the lamb for the burnt offering?”
8 Abraham answered, “God himself will provide the lamb for the burnt offering, my son.” And the two of them went on together.
civic
Well-known member
Paul was not saved until his Damascus experience. There is no salvation apart from faith in Christ in the NT.
I'm asking for clarification on your view which apparently you prefer to hide.
What does it mean "it never crossed His mind"?
It actually proves no such thing unless your willing to deny is omniscience.
Biblelesson
Active member
I'm not disagreeing with you except on the point of Paul being a believer before his trip to Damascus. Faith in Jesus is what saves us. As a practicing Jew he believed the Messiah was coming. They just didn't recognize the Messiah.
We're talking about when God opened his eyes after first showing him how blind he was not to have recognized Jesus as the Messiah.
The point is perhaps John Calvin had a Road to Damascus moment After having Michael Servetus executed. And how that relates to Paul having Christians executed.
They simply want to disparage a guy who has been dead for 500 years. As if that has any relevancy on the validity of Calvinism.
civic
Well-known member
Don’t get me started on Luther lol
Biblelesson
Active member
Of course we will
I've been waiting for days to talk about Martin Luther. He was a truly remarkable man. I love his stance on Sola Scriptura. Scripture Alone is our final authority for doctrine, church practice, and the Christian life. And In the early years of the Reformation, Luther fought for this. What a Guy!Luther spent his life defending, reading, studying, living, and loving the Bible. He read through the whole Bible two or three times every year, while also studying particular passages or books in depth. He especially loved the Psalms. He maintained a daily reading schedule that covered the entire Psalms in three weeks. Luther taught and lived Sola Scriptura. He's The Man, when It comes to the Reformation.
I would write: "his interpretation of Rom 9 is like a tiger going around devouring free-willers like him." And it does because it is wrongly interpreted to mean HE can do anything HE wants even if it is outside of HIS attributes and purposes.
Sovereignty serves HIS purpose and attributes of being loving, righteous and just, it is not outside of HIS being or above HIS purposes... GOD cannot do whatever HE wants outside of HIS purpose and attributes just because HE is sovereign or, rather, GOD, by HIS sovereignty, DOES ONLY that which a perfectly holy expression of HIS attributes of being loving, righteous and just.
Sovereignty means HE can do, achieve, that which HE wants but HIS desires are completely bound by HIS attributes and purposes.
Some doctrines are created by those that seem to have a good understanding of theological idiosyncrasies but have no experience or knowledge of GOD at all...
praise_yeshua
Well-known member
Really.... I wonder why Paul said....
1Co 15:9 For I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.
Paul MURDERED BELIEVERS. MURDERED.....
Paul rejoiced in the MURDER of Stephen.....
Act 8:1 And Saul was consenting unto his death. And at that time there was a great persecution against the church which was at Jerusalem; and they were all scattered abroad throughout the regions of Judaea and Samaria, except the apostles.
Act 8:2 And devout men carried Stephen to his burial, and made great lamentation over him.
Act 8:3 As for Saul, he made havock of the church, entering into every house, and haling men and women committed them to prison.
Paul well knew the teachings of Messiah.
1Ti 1:13 Who was before a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injurious: but I obtained mercy, because I did it ignorantly in unbelief.
Unbelief.... damns. He refused to accept Messiah. He was a sinner.
It really amazes me to length some people will go to justify sin benefiting THEM.....
Paul mourned his actions his entire life.
I started a thread on Regret and Repentance in this forum. Why don't you participate. Calvinism has NO regrets. NONE.
Last edited:
praise_yeshua
Well-known member
Romans 9 is a story of forgiveness. I've been outlining this recently. Just haven't had time to finish it.
Jacob wrestled with God on his way to meet Esau. Jacob was fearful that Esau would seek to kill him and his family.
You know what Esau did??????
Gen 33:1 And Jacob lifted up his eyes, and looked, and, behold, Esau came, and with him four hundred men. And he divided the children unto Leah, and unto Rachel, and unto the two handmaids.
Gen 33:2 And he put the handmaids and their children foremost, and Leah and her children after, and Rachel and Joseph hindermost.
Gen 33:3 And he passed over before them, and bowed himself to the ground seven times, until he came near to his brother.
Gen 33:4 And Esau ran to meet him, and embraced him, and fell on his neck, and kissed him: and they wept.
They wept together.........
It is amazing how evil men destroy the teaching of forgiveness in Romans 9.
praise_yeshua
Well-known member
Maybe Esau loved Jacob.....
We don't have to guess.
Gen 33:4 And Esau ran to meet him, and embraced him, and fell on his neck, and kissed him: and they wept.
