Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

"Argument by Verse"

It's not foreknowledge but a guess on past experiance. :lol!: [at least in Drews case]

Drew will try and dodge :scatter: , using a paraphase translation to establish his skeptical beliefs, if there is such a thing. We need to be aware of the kind of posts Drew has made in the past and avoid him. Look up Drews past posts and you'll find he attacks almost every fundamental doctrine the Christian Church [catholic/prot] has professed.

This is no longer the ol' "Arminian vs. Calvinist" debate, for the Arminian and Calvinist agrees on God's ability to determine the future. The RC and EO agree with the Calvinist that God knows the future.

:turn-l: Instead of going around and around, I ask you, the reader, to review this thread.

Peace [to the reader], I'm not to bid God speed [2 John 1:11] to Drew.

jm
 
Drew said:
JM said:
JM wrote:
Drew, as you have stated before you do not believe the Bible can be the final authority

Response: Unless my memory is faulty, I have never stated such a thing. Please provide the post where I stated this.

Quoting Drew: “However, the content of the Scriptures need to be integrated with, and interpreted in light of, the personal and collective "lessons of life" that arise from the mere fact of living in the real world. These lessons, in my view, should help us properly interpret the Scriptures.â€Â

And

“The reason lies in the rather obvious fact the Scriptures are expressed in human language, and human language necessarily makes reference to extra-scriptural sources in order to construct meaning. The very meaning of words like "faith", "love", "pre-destined", "free will", etc. are brought to the process of extracting meaning from the Scriptures. The words and expressions that make up the Biblical texts derive their meaning from "cultural" sources that lie "outside" the Bible itself.â€Â
And this is supposed to be evidence that I do not hold the Bible to be the final authority?

I do not know how more simply it can be expressed: Scripture is made up of words, words have meanings that are not magically injected into our brains - such meanings are constructed out of the content of our life experience - what happens to us, what we read, what we hear from others, what meaning our culture applies to such words, etc.. When we read texts like "seek the Lord" and "love your enemy", where do you think the content of such concepts as "seek" and "love" comes from? How do we know what the word "love" actually means?

One of the "emperor has no clothes" statements of some evangelicals is that Scripture does not require interpretation. Just a little thinking should convince anyone that the chain of events that begins with the reading of a text and ends with the reader attributing meaning to that text necessarily involves all kinds of sophisticated acts of interpretation that cannot help but be influenced by factors that are extternal to the Scriptures.

And, of course, my holding such a view has nothing to do with whether I accord Scriptures the final authority. I do indeed accord Scriptures with final authority on matters of doctrine - I just have gotten past the naive fantasy that the meaning they impart to us is not informed by the content of "cultural" factors.

Double talk.
 
JM said:
Peace [to the reader], I'm not to bid God speed [2 John 1:11] to Drew.

Here is the text of 2 John 1:11

Anyone who welcomes him shares in his wicked work.
This is a moderator saying this.

Which readers are prepared to make an actual intelligible case that I am engaged in wicked work? Which readers will show that my arguments on this and other topics are Biblically incorrect?

I have, on numerous occasions in this forum admitted that I have been wrong. I am happy to do so, but please give me the credit of an actual explanation of why I am wrong.
 
JM said:
Drew said:
JM said:
JM wrote:
Drew, as you have stated before you do not believe the Bible can be the final authority

Response: Unless my memory is faulty, I have never stated such a thing. Please provide the post where I stated this.

Quoting Drew: “However, the content of the Scriptures need to be integrated with, and interpreted in light of, the personal and collective "lessons of life" that arise from the mere fact of living in the real world. These lessons, in my view, should help us properly interpret the Scriptures.â€Â

And

“The reason lies in the rather obvious fact the Scriptures are expressed in human language, and human language necessarily makes reference to extra-scriptural sources in order to construct meaning. The very meaning of words like "faith", "love", "pre-destined", "free will", etc. are brought to the process of extracting meaning from the Scriptures. The words and expressions that make up the Biblical texts derive their meaning from "cultural" sources that lie "outside" the Bible itself.â€Â
And this is supposed to be evidence that I do not hold the Bible to be the final authority?

I do not know how more simply it can be expressed: Scripture is made up of words, words have meanings that are not magically injected into our brains - such meanings are constructed out of the content of our life experience - what happens to us, what we read, what we hear from others, what meaning our culture applies to such words, etc.. When we read texts like "seek the Lord" and "love your enemy", where do you think the content of such concepts as "seek" and "love" comes from? How do we know what the word "love" actually means?

One of the "emperor has no clothes" statements of some evangelicals is that Scripture does not require interpretation. Just a little thinking should convince anyone that the chain of events that begins with the reading of a text and ends with the reader attributing meaning to that text necessarily involves all kinds of sophisticated acts of interpretation that cannot help but be influenced by factors that are extternal to the Scriptures.

And, of course, my holding such a view has nothing to do with whether I accord Scriptures the final authority. I do indeed accord Scriptures with final authority on matters of doctrine - I just have gotten past the naive fantasy that the meaning they impart to us is not informed by the content of "cultural" factors.

Double talk.
Really? How is it double talk? If my post is meaningless or internally inconsistent or otherwise faulty, presumably you will be able to articulate an explanation.
 
Forgive me for being in bold here. I like to think of it as bold for the Lord. Unfortunately, I can‘t be brief for the Lord, apparently. I may have to split this post. It shouldn‘t take you any longer to read it than it took me to typo it. LOL.
I’ll do what Drew or typo won’t and look at the verses listed.
Really? I fully expected you to read most of my list and answer at least half of it but then, I’ve been wrong before. I’m happy to see you “wasted†a good deal of your time on my “silly†word search list. It’s always good to have a study of God’s word, though and pouring water into a basket at least washes the basket.

Isa 45:19 I have not spoken in secret, in a dark place of the earth: I said not unto the seed of Jacob, Seek ye me in vain: I the LORD speak righteousness, I declare things that are right.
No mention of ability on the part of man, this is assumed.
The ability of man is not the issue here. God is declaring that he did not ask them to seek him in vain. Your doctrine makes God a liar and a phony hypocrite in more places than can be listed here.

Pro 8:17 I love them that love me; and those that seek me early shall find me.
The assumption is on the person ALREADY loving God, the enmity [hostility] toward God that Paul mentioned, has ALREADY been removed. They seek because they love, they love because they have been given the will to do so.
You make that assumption because of your preconceived philosophy. There is nothing in the text that suggests that is the case.
Isa 55:6 Seek ye the LORD while he may be found, call ye upon him while he is near:
lol! Did you even read the chapter or just post after doing a quick search? These folks were in covenant ALREADY v. 53. Read the chapter and weep.
It’s not that funny, for you. Verse 3 says do this (listen and come to God) and your soul shall live and then he would make an everlasting covenant with you so, no, they were not already in covenant and they had not been born of the Spirit. Verse 7 specifically calls them wicked and unrighteous, not covenant folks. These are people that, just like any other human being, must repent of their own free will and choose to come to God.

Psa 22:26 The meek shall eat and be satisfied: they shall praise the LORD that seek him: your heart shall live for ever.
Psa 27:8 [When thou saidst], Seek ye my face; my heart said unto thee, Thy face, LORD, will I seek.
Was David a believer? This is really say typo, you didn’t “study to shew thyself approved.†You simply did a search on the word “seek,†didn’t you…in v. 1 David has ALREADY made a profession of faith. I would quote v. 1 but I want you to look it up.
You skipped Psalm 22. David is talking about the meek, not himself. I suppose you are going to simply interpose your chain link salvation equation and say that God made them meek, then made them praise and seek God? Don‘t bother. It makes no sense to normal people who haven‘t had their brains riddled with ricocheting rationalizations. That‘s not how it reads.
Psm 27:1 is in present tense, he is my salvation. In verse 27, David is recalling how it happened. When God said, “Seek my face,†David’s heart responded with a ‘yes, I will.’


Psa 34:10 The young lions do lack, and suffer hunger: but they that seek the LORD shall not want any good [thing].
The samething, v. 1 a profession has been made. Please, use context when quoting, this is really a waste of my time.
Where has a profession been made except in your imagination? Read the entire chapter 34. The picture is all about the humble, contrite and righteous people seeking God and how he delivers them. Verse 18 is a killer for your doctrine. The Lord saves such as have a contrite spirit. Duh. And we thought he flipped a coin. Don‘t worry, I don‘t mind wasting your time, as long as you are teaching something.

Pro 28:5 Evil men understand not judgment: but they that seek the LORD understand all [things].
Assumption of ability. Nothing about the will, enslaved to sin or not, is mentioned.
Just another one of those verses about those who seek God that you have to brush aside. I don’t know why you can’t just understand it as written.

Isa 26:9 With my soul have I desired thee in the night; yea, with my spirit within me will I seek thee early: for when thy judgments [are] in the earth, the inhabitants of the world will learn righteousness.
Once again, assumption of ability is made without establishing that man, in his natural state, has the ability. Paul tells is in no unclear terms that “no one seeks God.†You know what they say about assuming?
Why are you assuming that man, in his natural state, can’t do what God says he should do, must do, and does do on a regular basis? Are you possibly confusing the expression ‘the flesh’ with the body and soul of the living, breathing human being?

Isa 51:1 Hearken to me, ye that follow after righteousness, ye that seek the LORD: look unto the rock [whence] ye are hewn, and to the hole of the pit [whence] ye are digged.
I love this verse! It speaks to God’s aggressive pursuit of His elect in bringing them back in line! AMEN. God is calling His elect “Hearken to me.†This is conquering Grace. Back it up a bit, remove the chapters and verses that man added, in 50:8 we find Isaiah is speaking of his close relationship to God [“He is near that justifieth me…â€Â]
We agree it’s a great verse. The rock here I believe is Abraham, verse 2. God is speaking to those in Zion who seek him who came from those who were brought out of the pit of Egypt, see v.10-14. Again there is no reason to assume that God had to insert the will to seek him. It is normally taken to mean what it says. Does it say, “ye that God caused to seek righteousness?†And even it it did, there are many, many ways that God can influence a person without twisting their will.

Jer 29:13 And ye shall seek me, and find [me], when ye shall search for me with all your heart.
Back up a couple of verses, “For I know the plans I have for you, declares the LORD…†ESV God’s plan, man’s response once they’re free. This isn’t AMWay.
That’s not what it says. It says God is going to visit them after 70 years and bring them out of captivity again and then, if they’re ready to seek him with their whole heart, he won’t turn away from them but will listen to their prayers. They were in time-out, and God wasn‘t going to pay attention to their whining until their punishment was completed. That was God‘s good plan for Israel. Captivity was one way he affected their attitude.

Hsa 10:12 Sow to yourselves in righteousness, reap in mercy; break up your fallow ground: for [it is] time to seek the LORD, till he come and rain righteousness upon you.
Hosea is a prophet speaking to God’s people, telling them to soften up there hard heartedness and return to God’s way. Dr. John Gill wrote, “for his grace; as the husbandman seeks, prays, and waits for rain, when he has tilled his ground, and sowed his seed, to water it, and make it fruitful, that he may have a good reaping time, a plentiful harvest; and as there is a time to seek for the one, so for the other.â€Â
I do believe that it is the Lord himself telling the people it is time to seek the Lord, not the other way around. Be not deceived, whatsoever a man sows, that shall he also reap. Is that what Dr. Gill means here? It is confusing the way he has put it, isn’t it.

Amo 5:4 For thus saith the LORD unto the house of Israel, Seek ye me, and ye shall live & 14 Seek good, and not evil, that ye may live: and so the LORD, the God of hosts, shall be with you, as ye have spoken.
This is getting silly. The above is speaking to the evidence of your faith, not the works upon which one is saved, but the fruit of that faith. If you don’t continue in faith and have no evidence of faith, then you have no faith to speak of.
I agree that your explanation is “silly†because you’re assuming again that ’faith’ is some tangible substance that God pours into the heart. We do agree that faith without works is dead. Faith is the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen, but that is not an invisible goo that jells the human will around God‘s. If you act a certain way in response to some situation, your actions show you believe when you act in faith. This is a great chapter to put your mind in order. No less than 6 times here God admonishes them to not seek evil but to turn and seek him. Verses 14 and 15 clearly show the future is not a closed system.

Zep 2:3 Seek ye the LORD, all ye meek of the earth, which have wrought his judgment; seek righteousness, seek meekness: it may be ye shall be hid in the day of the LORD'S anger.
As you may or may not know, “all ye meek of the earth†is better translated as “all you humble of the land.†ESV This land is Judea. This verse is speaking to believers who are among apostate believers, read the book. This is laughable.
Are you still laughing like the rejoicing city that dwelt carelessly? It MAY be that the Lord will hide you in the day of his anger IF you seek meekness, humbleness and righteousness. Does that sound like they had free will to choose either humility or pride? You have the thing inside out and upside down. IF they continue to choose righteousness, THEN they are God’s faithful. If the same people get careless and choose to do evil, they will be counted with the unfaithful. If the unrighteous turn from their evil, and do righteously, God will count them as the faithful. This is too easy and you’re just making a mess of it.

Mal 2:15 And did not he make one? Yet had he the residue of the spirit. And wherefore one? That he might seek a godly seed. Therefore take heed to your spirit, and let none deal treacherously against the wife of his youth.
Read v. 13. This verse has nothing to do with this subject. Dr. John Gill wrote “And did not he make one?.... That is, did not God make one man, and out of his rib one woman? did he not make man, male and female? did he not make one pair, one couple, only Adam and Eve, whom he joined together in marriage? or rather, did he not make one woman only, and brought her to Adam to be his wife? which shows that his intention and will were, that one man should have but one wife at a time; the contrary to which was the then present practice of the Jews:
You’re right. This one got by me. I tried to eliminate all those that didn’t apply. This began with the search results of the word, ‘seek’ but I thought I had removed the chaff. But you had fun, so it wasn‘t a waste of your time at least.

Mat 6:33 But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.
This is instruction to believers and seeking the will of God in forming His Kingdom.
This was given to the multitude and is part of the gospel to the world. See Matthew 28:20

Mat 7:7 Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you:
In v. 6 Christ uses the term “dogs.†Believers are never called dogs, Christ is speaking to the already saved.
Are you saying that the multitudes that came to hear Jesus were already saved or that Jesus casts his holy pearls to dogs and swine? I don‘t get your point. Does Jesus tell the world that if they seek they shall find or not? Are they already saved if they seek so they can seek and be saved if they believe what God is going to make them believe? Are you really so warped by this mindset that you can‘t see how convoluted your circular reasoning is?

Act 17:27 That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us:
This is a Gospel plea for repentance with no mention of ability, it’s assumed.
Scroll up. “You know what they say about assuming?†I like the words, ‘though he be not far from every one of us.’

Hbr 11:6 But without faith [it is] impossible to please [him]: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and [that] he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.
And the Arminian claims faith has no merit! Hebrews 11 clearly details the merits of faith, “so and so did this by faith and got that…etc.â€Â
Who says I’m an Arminian? I don’t even know how to spell it either. I’m not helping you stuff your straw man. I believe in faith. I believe in works of faith. That is how we come to please God so he places us in Christ to save us and make us his adopted sons.
Is heartfelt repentance pleasing to God? Yes.
Does heartfelt repentance result in a changed nature?
No, it can’t, “for those in the flesh cannot please God.â€Â
“Those who are in the flesh†does not mean ’those who are in their human bodies’. It means those who, having a choice to live in the evil lusts of the flesh, pride and self-centeredness or to follow the ways of God, choose to live after the flesh. Those who live after the flesh have the ability to change their minds and seek God. Would you say to your child, "If you climb Mt. Everest this morning, I‘ll take you fishing this afternoon" ? Give God a little credit, would you?

Hebrews 11 does more to support the Calvinist then the Arminian or Open Theist view.
Only in your mind because you have reinvented the concept of faith. You assume that whenever faith is mentioned, it is a substance like flubber that is applied to your heart and makes you do things for God. The problem is that you’re too anal when you read these symbolic expressions of God putting faith into man’s heart when it‘s like me putting an idea into your head. I don‘t spiritually invade your brain and grab your mind and fill it with ideas you had no thoughts about. When my granddaughter was about three, she said to me, “I think I’ll change my mind. You take my mind and I’ll take yours.†It was too cute to forget. But she was only three. For an adult, it‘s pathetic.


Deu 4:29 But if from thence thou shalt seek the LORD thy God, thou shalt find [him], if thou seek him with all thy heart and with all thy soul.
For those that don’t know, Deuteronomy is a detailed instruction manual for God’s people, a redeemed people, a believing people. The rebukes can be found in this book, but ability to accept God as saviour is not mentioned.
It doesn‘t need to be mentioned. The ability to seek God is implied by the fact that God says to seek him. When man lives only for his own pleasure and glory, he‘s not interested in giving glory to God. When he has an incurable sickness or a friend dies, perhaps he will be shaken to see his own mortality and seek God. Tragedy is one tool God uses to turn us to himself. Sometimes it is the goodness of God that leads us to repentance. You can lead a hoss to water, but you can‘t make him drink. God can, but he can‘t force him to drink of his own free will, can he.

Psa 40:16 Let all those that seek thee rejoice and be glad in thee: let such as love thy salvation say continually, The LORD be magnified.
Read the Psalm for context: v.1/ David was already saved v.2/ he was singing praise to a God that saved him v.3/ God is directing his praise…etc. If you read the following Psalms you’ll find the similar context in each one. I see no need to keep going, here’s the list.
I see no need to keep going either…. just for your benefit, at least. You pre qualify all seekers as saved to begin with. Adding this huge prerequisite to every verse is not handling scripture honestly. No truth is going to pass through your doctrinal filter unless it‘s watered down to your liking.

Psa 69:32 The humble shall see [this, and] be glad: and your heart shall live that seek God.
Here we see the heart that seeks God is made alive, not the other way around.

Psa 83:16 Fill their faces with shame; that they may seek thy name, O LORD.
Here we see how God uses circumstances to turn people to himself.

Psa 105:3 Glory ye in his holy name: let the heart of them rejoice that seek the LORD.
Psa 105:4 Seek the LORD, and his strength: seek his face evermore.
Here is the Calvinist god, winding up his toys for his own amusement, :roll: or these people have free will.

Psa 119:2 Blessed [are] they that keep his testimonies, [and that] seek him with the whole heart.
As JM would say, Blessed are the blessed for they shall be blessed.

Psa 119:45 And I will walk at liberty: for I seek thy precepts.
No, no, David, you’re seeking his precepts because God set you free to seek his precepts, otherwise you'd hate him, trust JM on this.

Psa 119:155 Salvation [is] far from the wicked: for they seek not thy statutes.
No no.. salvation is far from the wicked because they can’t seek his precepts. :evil:

Psa 119:176 I have gone astray like a lost sheep; seek thy servant; for I do not forget thy commandments.
Just say baaaah. God will carry you back or you were never saved to begin with. :wink:

Psa 9:10 And they that know thy name will put their trust in thee: for thou, LORD, hast not forsaken them that seek thee.
No no, they seek him because he has caused them to, and that’s why they trust him and know his name, right, JM? David should get his theology straight before he leads a lot of people to believe that they have power to seek God of their own free will.

2Ch 31:21 And in every work that he began in the service of the house of God, and in the law, and in the commandments, to seek his God, he did [it] with all his heart, and prospered.
He was already in the “service of the house of God.â€Â
So everyone who is in the service of the house of God can be “assumed†to be saved and seeking already?

2Ch 34:3 For in the eighth year of his reign, while he was yet young, he began to seek after the God of David his father: and in the twelfth year he began to purge Judah and Jerusalem from the high places, and the groves, and the carved images, and the molten images.
See 2 Kings 22 lol, you guys kill me.
No, your doctrines are killing you. We’re trying to show you the error of your way to save your soul from death.

Ezr 6:21 And the children of Israel, which were come again out of captivity, and all such as had separated themselves unto them from the filthiness of the heathen of the land, to seek the LORD God of Israel, did eat,
Read, “And the children of Israel, which were come again out of…†they were faithfully following God’s religious feasts and observances. No mention of ability or inability found here.
If you climb Mt. Everest this morning, I’ll take you fishing this afternoon, I promise.

Ezr 7:10 For Ezra had prepared his heart to seek the law of the LORD, and to do [it], and to teach in Israel statutes and judgments.
v. 9 reads, “…according to the good hand of his God upon him.†God’s hand was ALREADY UPON HIM.
Common understanding of English would render the idea that the ’for’ beginning verse 10 would mean that *because* he prepared his heart, God’s good hand was upon him. English isn’t a second language for you, is it?

Ezr 8:22 For I was ashamed to require of the king a band of soldiers and horsemen to help us against the enemy in the way: because we had spoken unto the king, saying, The hand of our God [is] upon all them for good that seek him; but his power and his wrath [is] against all them that forsake him.
This is ridiculous. This is a quote from the king, not from God, and once again ability is inserted and assumed.
Objection over ruled. You’re calling the king a liar. And I thought we knew what 'assumed' does right from the git-go.

And I quote: When a person makes the bold claim that human beings have a 'free will' then you may want to ask them to define terms by asking,"Free from what?" "Free from sin?", "Free from God's decree?" No, neither. So what do people actually mean when they claim man has a free will? I think many persons mean to say that man is free from external coersion. In this we all can agree, but just because someone is free from coersion does not mean his will is free. There are other ways in which man's will is not free. If the natural man make choices BY NECESSITY then he also lacks a kind of freedom. We might want to consider whether the Bible uses the expression 'freedom' to describe any fallen man. And the answer is no, not UNTIL Christ sets us free (Rom 6). Jesus says that prior to grace, persons are 'slaves to sin'. And, last time I looked, a slave is not free. If man is in bondage to a corruption of nature, as the Scripture attests, then he is not, in any sense, free as the Bible defines it. That is, until the grace of God in Christ sets him free. It would be correct to say man HAS A WILL and that his choices are VOLUNTARY (not coerced) but this does not make the choices free. Fallen man chooses sin of NECESSITY due to a corruption of nature, and this is just as much a form of bondage of the will from which we need to be set free by Christ, and a more properly biblical way of expression. Just because we make these choices, of necessity, does not alleviate our responsibility. If we borrow $5 million and squander it in a week of wild living in Las Vegas [like our condition of debt after the fall], our inability to repay the debt does not alleviate us of any responsibility to do so (see Rom 3:20). So I contend that whenever speaking about the concept of "free will," because of the confusion surrounding it, we should only define freedom as the Bible does: that man's will is not free, but rather is in bondage to sin. Clearly the Bible affirms that apart from a supernatural and merciful work of the Holy Spirit to change our naturally hostile disposition to God, no person would ever receive Christ (John 6:65). And Just as water does not rise above its source, so unspiritual men do not think or act spiritually (1 Cor 2:14). - J.W.H

Since Jesus lead captivity captive, and said, if the Son shall make you free, you shall be free indeed, and if I be lifted up, I will draw all men unto me, and Paul said, know ye not that to whom you give yourselves to obey, his servants you are, whether to sin unto death or of obedience unto righteousness, and we know that Jesus is the Savior of all men, specially those that believe, and that God is no respecter of persons but in every nation he that fears him and works righteousness is accepted with him and he has, to the Gentiles, granted repentance unto life, why can’t we know that God has completely conquered sin and freed man from it and IF we will choose to, he will strengthen us to overcome it in our lives and live eternally? That's the good news...that we have been set free, and bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's. How can they know without a preacher?


As Paul told us, “no one seeks God.†Dr. James White who continues to seat on the translation community for the NASB tells us that in the literal rendering it means, “there is no God seeker.†Those are powerful words. The only person that seeks God is a person who has been called into a relationship with God, the hostile fallen nature removed, they are “set free indeed.â€Â
All those verses being filtered through just basically one or two lines from a couple of David’s songs that say ‘none’ seek after God! Weird. I can think of at least 2 explanations that fit with the rest of scripture, and neither of them are Calvanistic. If we look at Genesis 6 we even find ‘some seeking God before the flood;’ And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth,… God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually… But Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord… Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God. Not a very big percentage; eight out of how many thousands or millions? But to say; ‘no, not one?’ Let’s look at Psalm 14. The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good. The LORD looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, and seek God. They are all gone aside, they are [all] together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one. The fool is the one David speaks of. The LORD looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any (fools, workers of iniquity) that did understand, and seek God. Not a single man who was a foolish worker of iniquity sought after God. The expression, ‘children of men’, is either (1) in contrast to ‘my people’ in verse 4 and 'my people' being Jacob’s clan, verse 5. Or, (2) ‘my people’ are included in the ‘children of men’ and they are in a state of apostasy at this point in their history. Which would explain why Paul was quoting from this psalm or one like it when he said that there was no advantage of being either Jew or Gentile, since we have before proved that either one can act the fool, as noted by David in his psalm lyric. Is that so hard to understand? Only if your mind has been polluted by false doctrine.


"Reformed definition of free will: "The power to choose according to one's strongest motive, nature and character." In the unregenerate, to freely choose evil. In the regenerate, to freely choose God and the good." - Byron Curtis JM
"The power to choose according to one's strongest motive, nature and character." I don’t think I mind this part of your definition. How much do we invest in our children to build godly character and pure motives and a loving, humble, and forgiving nature? How much do we admonish our friends and family and even our ungodly neighbors?
 
My response to this thread is found in Scripture.

1 Timothy 1:3-11

3 As I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus, when I went into Macedonia, that thou mightiest charge some that they teach no other doctrine,

4 Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do.

5 Now the end of the commandment is charity out of a pure heart, and of a good conscience, and of faith unfeigned:

6 From which some having swerved have turned aside unto vain jangling;

7 Desiring to be teachers of the law; understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm.

8 But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully;

9 Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,

10 For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for men stealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;

11 According to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which was committed to my trust.


1 Timothy 6:20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:

2 Timothy 3:16-12 1n fact, everyone who wants to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted, 13 while evil men and impostors will go from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived. 14 But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it, 15 and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.


Since it was my Scripture passage, from the thread, "Hummmm", that was used as the example here, I felt compelled to respond. Ironically, the answer to this thread is found in the above passage. I have no problem answering the verses of others, and I really enjoy studying the Word to find the treasures God has there for His children. So, it doesn't provide any problem when the Holy Spirit lives in us, and when we are seeking God's truth, rather than trying to highlight our own wisdom...which isn't even possible. Scripture, when treated as a whole, is clear. We must approach it by reading the Old in light of the New, as the complete Word. I am learning that we should not add, or subtract, as Scripture teaches...that is important, and we all must be careful when studying not to do this. I think if we truly have a heart to deny ourselves, and follow Christ, we can study the Word and find the ONE TRUTH of God as He wants to reveal it to us, and the Holy Spirit is the way we do that as a corporate church. So, even reading the Word, God has in His All-Knowing power provided a way for us to "see" it with our spiritual eyes, and apply it to our lives. I praise God for that provision, the Lord bless all of you.
 
Hi lovely:

We have very different communication styles and I confess that I often find it difficult to understand your posts.

In any event, I am not sure what you are saying in your most recent post. You say:

Scripture, when treated as a whole, is clear.
Let's assume for the sake of argument that this statement is true. Now let me be clear: when I imply by the preceding sentence that Scripture may not be "clear", I am saying exactly that it might take hard, "demanding-on-the-intelligence" work to ascertain its meaning. This is not to say that there is not a true and meaningful message - just that it might be difficult to discover and hence somewhat "unclear". Fine.

In any event, your post will be taken by readers as a critique of the motives of some of the posters (to be fair, you do not "name names", so far all we know, you may be implying that the Calvinists in the crowd are "trying to highlight their own wisdom" or "deceiving and being deceived").

So who are you referring to and why? Since a fair and reasonable person would not simply declare someone to have these negative characteristics, you must have a case to support your conclusion.

Please tell us, exactly what do you mean when you say that people here are engaging in the kind of "profane and vain babblings" (through your Scripture reference). If you are referring to the less than totally mature exchange between JM and I (for which I take some responsibility) I would agree that the exchange in question was not edifying.

Let me be direct and ask you to be direct in your answer: Are you critiquing the content of the case (as opposed to the occasional personal zinger) of either the "Arminians" or the "Calvinists" or both?

If so, please provide this critique, either by writing new material or referring to something that has already been written.

By the way, I think that everyone involved in this discussion believes that they are "neither adding, nor subtracting, as Scripture teaches". If you claim that one camp is, you need to provide an actual case, not just claim this to be so.
 
Hi Drew,

First of all, I want to reply to your last post that was directly to me. Yes, our styles are very different, and it does pose a communication barrier between us a times. I appreciate you making the effort.

In any event, your post will be taken by readers as a critique of the motives of some of the posters (to be fair, you do not "name names", so far all we know, you may be implying that the Calvinists in the crowd are "trying to highlight their own wisdom" or "deceiving and being deceived").

It can be taken as a critique of all of our motives, and I know many Calvinists, and they are sometimes the worst of the bunch, in this respect. So, I am definitely not excluding them, or anyone else as far as that goes. I think we are all guilty of this when we put ourselves (Our own agendas, or doctrines, etc.) before God's Word in our posts. I will raise my hand as the first one guilty of this at times, though I do try to struggle against this part of my nature now. I think we should come to a topic to highlight God's Word, and not for the sake of just being right. The right, is God's truth, and none other. It has to be the measuring rod for sound doctrine.
For that reason, I think that including verses in our defense of a theology is a must. I was simply defending the use of Scripture in these discussions.

Please tell us, exactly what do you mean when you say that people here are engaging in the kind of "profane and vain babblings" (through your Scripture reference). If you are referring to the less than totally mature exchange between JM and I (for which I take some responsibility) I would agree that the exchange in question was not edifying.

Again, I believe we are all guilty of this, so the response was general. I can not comment as to whether or not you, and JM, were involved in this, because I do not know your motives, or history, and I did not read what you wrote here. I was responding to your opening post alone, and sharing why I thought the use of Scripture was right. I am speaking to the need of using Scripture in these discussions. I think we need to in order to defend the Gospel, as Paul exhorted Timothy to do in 2 Timothy 2:2 , but if we take it further it is to do the good work of God. What is the good work? 2 Timothy 2:24-26 says

24 And the servant of the Lord must not strife; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient,

25 In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth;

26 And that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will.

This is why we discuss doctrine, and theology, and even engage in apologetics, to help others out of the snare of the Devil. The Word of God helps them out, and teaches us. This is a great reason to use verse in defending our theological positions.

Let me be direct and ask you to be direct in your answer: Are you critiquing the content of the case (as opposed to the occasional personal zinger) of either the "Arminians" or the "Calvinists" or both?

I am critiquing both, all believers really, in light of the first post. So, I was being general, but if I responded more specifically to your first post, I believe I could show you how the two Scriptures you use both support more of a Calvinist theology. I personally do lean that direction in many respects. That was not my point, though. My point was that when we assert a Truth in Scripture, we must give Scripture to support it. Paul was doing that very thing when he used Psalm 53 to support his point about the Jews, and the Gentiles, both being equally, "not good, and not seeking." He didn't have to take the Psalm out of context, or add or subtract, to show this, and he didn't stop to consider that someone may disagree with Him. Which I am sure that some Jews did. Paul asserted a truth in Scripture, and supported it with Scripture to save some from the deception of satan's snare.

As far as the personal zingers, I do not think anyone is excused from this, period, and I think the Scriptures I referenced support that view.

By the way, I think that everyone involved in this discussion believes that they are "neither adding, nor subtracting, as Scripture teaches". If you claim that one camp is, you need to provide an actual case, not just claim this to be so.

As far as claiming one camp is, and one isn't, it should be clear by now that I think both do at times intentionally, and unintentionally. I know I have, and I am glad when someone shows me my mistake, and calls me to the mat on it. It does cause me shame, but it has also taught me to try and approach things God's way. If we approach Scripture without doing this, what will we learn? Maybe neither camp has cornered the market on having all the answers, but maybe both have some. If we concentrate more on the intention we have when we approach the Word of God, and when we are involved in a theological discussion, then the Holy Spirit blesses us with more teaching. This is why it is good to pray before we engage, and to try to see Scripture as a whole. I am not saying that we shouldn't think we are right, or defend what we think is right according to the Bible, but that we should be teachable, and willing to acknowledge when we are wrong, if we are shown in Scripture. Our ego should not get in the way of this. Scripture should bring about repentance, or just simply teach us God's truth, and that should cause us to reject all that is false. We are growing, and we should reject what does not align with the Word of God no matter what camp we are in if we want to continue it it. This is true for the individual, and for all believers as God's church.

The last point I would like to make is that there is a sound doctrine, and that when we are in a discussion, if it can not be supported by the Word of God, then we should assume it is not sound. Scriptural support is a must. I want to clarify. Yes, I believe that we must work hard, and study the Word of God, absolutely. but I think the clarity (the eyes opened to Christ, kind) is given by the Holy Spirit, and is as simple as the Gospel. I could not understand the things I do, apart from Him, and I have never met a believer that said they could. This is the clarity, that I meant, the "eyes opened" kind. The study of the Word is needed to be able to give an answer, to learn, to teach, and so on, but without the clarity of the Holy Spirit it will not work. I think the last reference covers this.


2 Timothy 3:15-17
15 and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.
 
typo,

Quote:
I'm Not Hearing You -- La La La: Just totally ignoring what your opponent has to say and going on to something else is another technique... that has been demonstrated.

Rom 3:11 There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.

Rom 8:7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.

Is it still an assumption? Does the Scripture not teach "THERE IS NONE THAT SEEKETH?" That the carnal/fleshy mind is "ENMITY AGAINST GOD!"

Folks, re-read what I wrote. Look up the verses and see the context.
 
JM said:
We need to be aware of the kind of posts Drew has made in the past and avoid him.
I am more than happy to have people review my posts. I will let the reader judge whether a recommendation to avoid me is wise counsel to protect against heresy or the recommendation of someone who must resort to suggesting avoidance of arguments that successfully undermine his own.
 
JM said:
This is no longer the ol' "Arminian vs. Calvinist" debate, for the Arminian and Calvinist agrees on God's ability to determine the future. The RC and EO agree with the Calvinist that God knows the future.


If the Calvinist God determines everything, then that God knows the future simply because of knowing his own plan. The Calvinist God doesn't have to, and may not, genuinely know the future in the way that free will theists believe in.
 
JM wrote:
typo,

Quote:
I'm Not Hearing You -- La La La: Just totally ignoring what your opponent has to say and going on to something else is another technique... that has been demonstrated.
That is neither what I said or what I did. LOL. Twelve pages explaining in detail why your explanations do not hold up is not exactly “La La La†and “Just totally ignoring what your opponent has to say.†:roll: Maybe I should repost it for you so you can take a good look at it. :lol:

JM wrote:
Rom 3:11 There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.

Rom 8:7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.

Is it still an assumption? Does the Scripture not teach "THERE IS NONE THAT SEEKETH?" That the carnal/fleshy mind is "ENMITY AGAINST GOD!"
All those verses being filtered through just basically one or two lines from a couple of David’s songs that say ‘none’ seek after God! Weird. I can think of at least 2 explanations that fit with the rest of scripture, and neither of them are Calvanistic. If we look at Genesis 6 we even find ‘some seeking God before the flood;’ And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth,… God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually… But Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord… Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God. Not a very big percentage; eight out of how many thousands or millions? But to say; ‘no, not one?’ Let’s look at Psalm 14. The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good. The LORD looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, and seek God. They are all gone aside, they are [all] together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one. The fool is the one David speaks of. The LORD looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any (fools, workers of iniquity) that did understand, and seek God. Not a single man who was a foolish worker of iniquity sought after God. The expression, ‘children of men’, is either (1) in contrast to ‘my people’ in verse 4 and 'my people' being Jacob’s clan, verse 5. Or, (2) ‘my people’ are included in the ‘children of men’ and they are in a state of apostasy at this point in their history. Which would explain why Paul was quoting from this psalm or one like it when he said that there was no advantage of being either Jew or Gentile, since we have before proved that either one can act the fool, as noted by David in his psalm lyric. Is that so hard to understand? Only if your mind has been polluted by false doctrine.

As for the statement “That the carnal/fleshy mind is "ENMITY AGAINST GOD!", Drew had already answered that quite well and I didn’t think I could improve on it. I’ll repost it here as well: Drew wrote:
8So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.

I propose that a "contextual" type argument can be made which is at odds with the notion of "total depravity".

Consider verses 1 and 4. They both refer to "walking after the spirit" and "walking after the flesh". In our culture at least, the implication of a phrase like "walk after" entails implicit ideas of "voluntary action" - the metaphor of "walking down a certain road" is generally an expression of free, purposeful action.

With this in mind, verse 5 can surely read an expression of the state of mind one is in after "freely" walking down a certain road.

Same idea with verse 6 - being of these minds is a consequence of a free act to walk after the flesh or after the Spirit, as the case may be.

Now we come the verse that JM has quoted. If one accepts that an initial free choice to walk after the flesh has resulted in a "carnal mind", then, of course, that mind will be at emnity with God. And, by virtue of the very meaning of what a carnal mind is, such a mind cannot be subject to the law of God. But this does not speak to inherent inability, but rather to the natural consequence of a free choice - walking after the flesh.

So in verse 8, those who cannot please God are not in that state due to fundamental inability (e.g. being totally depraved), but rather by virtue of "the consequence of their choice" - people who have (freely) chosen to walk after the flesh cannot, of course, please God in that state

Good post, Drew. To add a note to that, I would say that the same person who chose to walk after the flesh, could repent and choose to walk after the Spirit. Reading the entire chapter in fact shows that.


JM wrote:
Folks, re-read what I wrote. Look up the verses and see the context.
Excellent advice, JM. Finally something I can whole heartedly agree with. :angel:
 
Isa 45:19 I have not spoken in secret, in a dark place of the earth: I said not unto the seed of Jacob, Seek ye me in vain: I the LORD speak righteousness, I declare things that are right.
JM said:
No mention of ability on the part of man, this is assumed.
Pro 8:17 I love them that love me; and those that seek me early shall find me.
JM said:
The assumption is on the person ALREADY loving God, the enmity [hostility] toward God that Paul mentioned, has ALREADY been removed. They seek because they love, they love because they have been given the will to do so.
Pro 28:5 Evil men understand not judgment: but they that seek the LORD understand all [things].
JM said:
Assumption of ability. Nothing about the will, enslaved to sin or not, is mentioned.
The argument provided in respect to each of these verses is basically that certain additional information, drawn from other Scriptures, should be used to qualify the "plain reading" of these texts in a manner that generates a meaning substantially different from that of the plain reading. After all, the way that we use, for example, the word "seek", in our culture anyway, is such that it is indeed legitimate to assume ability.

This is critical: when we say "Fred seeks beer", we do not assume that some external entity needs to press a button to give Fred the ability - we simply assume that he is a free will agent. Whether the writers of these texts had similar world view, I do not know. I will assume that they did for the present. To anticipate an objection: in our culture at least, it is indeed correct to bundle notions of "freedom" in respect to the activity of "seeking". It should be obvious from the way we use the word - when we say "Fred seeks beer" we are implicitly making the assertion that Fred is free to do so. Why? Because our culture implicitly assents that such actions are taken with a degree of freedom. So there is no legitimacy in an objection that "ability" needs to be independently established. We never say: "Fred seeks beer, having been given the ability to do so".

There is nothing really all that objectionable with what JM is doing here, if he provides us with further information. If a case can be made that words like "seek" were used by the authors of Scripture with an assumed understanding that "ability" is a further issue that requires separate justification, then JM's argument is indeed greatly strengthened.

It is incumbent upon JM to make this case, however. And let's be careful - merely pointing to texts that are actually ambiguous (such as Romans 3:11 which has been shown in some recent posts to be consistent with an Arminian reading) does not do the job. Why? The issue may be a little subtle but such a strategy would entail circular reasoning. Here's why (and if all of my preceding material seems confusing, please focus on what follows):

Let's say we have a statement: "Fred seeks beer" and another statement "There is no one who seeks beer". If it can be argued that the context surrounding "There is no one who seeks beer" is such that it could be read in a manner other than its literal reading, then this text cannot legitimately be used to justify the following interpretation of the first statement: "Fred seeks beer, but only if he is given the ability". The reason: an unsubstantiated resolution of the "There is no one who seeks beer" in the direction of a literal (pro-Calvinist) reading is on the exact same footing as an unsubstantiated claim by an Arminian that "Fred seeks beer" means that he does so freely, if the Calvinist were able to establish that this text could be read as not entailing an assumption of ability.

Its a little complicated but I think the above does hold together.
 
Back
Top