The Lord Jesus Christ IS God's ELECT...

[Hitch]

Here you're confounding NATIONAL election (Israel to be the head of the Nations), and by WHOM the promised son (which Isaac is a type) would come from.. with Election into the BODY OF CHRIST..

Two completely different things.. and we already know that National election (being an Israelite) is not the BASIS of God's election.. because it is by FAITH.. there's a difference between being an Israelite and being a part of the Israel of God. So it IS conditional.. upon FAITH.. just like it is in the NT.

It's also a little ironic that most Calvinist's are amillennial and reject the future restoration of the nation of Israel.. and even base their false doctrine of election largely upon Romans 9 which is NATIONAL in its context.. Christians are not to be ignorant of the mystery pertaining to that nation and yet again.. most are amillennial and do just that. It's no wonder why most seem to be wise in their own conceits.. ie, how they're the elect etc etc etc..

How many of Calvin's titles have you read personally Even?

 

[Eventide]

How many of Calvin's titles have you read personally Even?

Not a single one.. I wouldn't waste my time.

Are you implying that I don't understand the basic aspects of Calvinism qand TULIP ? Or things like Amillennialism because I haven't read anything by Augustine ?

 

[Hitch]

Not a single one.. I wouldn't waste my time.

Are you implying that I don't understand the basic aspects of Calvinism qand TULIP ? Or things like Amillennialism because I haven't read anything by Augustine ?

It's no wonder why most seem to be wise in their own conceits.. ie,

You havnt a clue, but by all means continue to glory in your ignornace, its always brings a chuckle.

 

[Eventide]

It's no wonder why most seem to be wise in their own conceits.. ie,

You havnt a clue, but by all means continue to glory in your ignornace, its always brings a chuckle.

Same to you Hitch. Enjoy your Amillenialism.. lol

 

[Hitch]

That's spiritual in nature.. and it is easily understood.. even with the carnal mind.. that doesn't mandate that it is accepted as true.. there are many people on earth who understand the basic fundamental aspects of the Christian faith and who are not in Christ.. The author Mark Twain once said.. "It's not what I don't understand in the Bible that bothers me, it's what I do understand.. that bothers me." There's nothing totally depraved about that comment.. and if anything, I would say that it is a result of CONVICTION.. exactly what the Spirit of God does in the WORLD today..

What is the source of this 'conviction' ?

So imo.. this completely detroys the entire first premise of the Calvinist.. that men are totally depraved and can't understand the basic truth of the gospel.. and everything a Calvinist believes is based upon these false premises..

 

[Eventide]

What is the source of this 'conviction' ?

I don't know, I'm totally depraved when it comes to things like Calvinism.. lol..

What's wrong.. the Amillennial discussions getting a little boring for you.. ?

 

[ivdavid]

You see unconditional election right through the Bible.
God chose/elected Israel as His own nation and people - unconditionally.
God chose/elected Isaac as the child of promise before he was born - unconditionally.
God chose/elected Jacob to be served by the elder before he was born - unconditionally.
On what basis were these people chosen - nothing inherent in them. Purely God's sovereign will.

Here you're confounding NATIONAL election (Israel to be the head of the Nations), and by WHOM the promised son (which Isaac is a type) would come from.. with Election into the BODY OF CHRIST..

Where have I made that connection here - please do not be quick to assume - ask, clarify and then refute.

The purpose here is to show how God works when He chooses anything - He doesn't base it on the object He's choosing - it's purely His sovereign will. I am not speaking about election in Christ or election of Israel in particular - just simply the act of God's choosing in the above cases - it's dependent on only His sovereign will. Are we agreed upon this?

Now, if you're agreed upon the above, tell me what's to stop Him from electing people to be saved? What goes against that? You'd say that there is a condition in faith and I'd say that faith itself is given by God, so it's not a condition - and we'd have to start discussing that - which is what I'd like you to do.

I've replied to your posts in such a way that I get across my points AND I respond to every point you've raised. Is it too much to ask the same courtesy in return?

let's get back to the analogy -
Mr.X and Mr.Y hear the Gospel. Mr.X believes and Mr.Y does not. Now, remove all factors,causes,parameters that are common to both Mr.X and Mr.Y. So for instance, the Gospel which was preached, is a necessary correlated factor in man's salvation but since it's common to both Mr.X and Mr.Y, it cannot be the differentiating cause in their responses.

So you see, I'm not referring to perhaps the 99.9% common factors that play a role in man's salvation - I'm very specifically referring to that 0.1% differentiating cause. So my statement in the quote above was not referring to the entire 100% salvation-factors and the flesh's contribution in that - I'm referring to this very narrow differential cause and saying that this differential cause is not the flesh's works. Do I need to word it differently for you to understand more clearly?

So the question is - What is that differentiating cause that resulted in Mr.X believing? Man's own ability/wisdom/goodness/understanding in the flesh or God's grace in the Spirit's working in Mr.X? With respect to this, re-read my previous posts and reconcile the issues raised.

 

[ivdavid]

NOW, we already KNOW for a fact that Adam could hear the voice of God and that he could understand it.. and we also know that this is SPIRITUAL in nature..

What are you trying here? This is just not possible - you can never try proving your stance - you can only try disproving my stance. I'll show you why -

Eventide: "Man believes".
ivdavid: "Man believes because God enables him to believe."

Eventide: "Man hears God's voice".
ivdavid: "Man hears God's voice because God enables him to hear."

Eventide: "Man understands spiritual truths".
ivdavid: "Man understands spiritual truths because God enables him to understand".

And so on...get the drift. I am building on what you say - I am adding to your premise. If you point to your premise as true, I will always supplement it with God's action and agree it is then true. And I hope you are not assuming that God is limited to act only in regenerated people. He can cause anyone to will and act according to His good pleasure.

You cannot prove a negative. You cannot prove that man's action is NOT caused by the Spirit's working in him. You can only disprove what I state as my proof/evidence. That's the way you disprove my positive premise - you just cannot prove a negative. Plain logic - nothing complex. So, feel free and take your time to reconcile the issues I've raised in my previous posts.

That's spiritual in nature.. and it is easily understood.. even with the carnal mind.

Are you sure? Pay attention to Scripture.
1Co 2:14 But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

I am stating the case that the carnal man/the flesh can do nothing good. I have put up 6 Points in post#152. Reconcile all six points with consistency, whenever you can, after reading the clarification in post#156. I don't see any point in us beating around the bush without finishing this core issue - the flesh profits nothing.

 

[Eventide]

What are you trying here?.

I'm not tring anything.. I just gave you a few biblical facts to show how total depravity is nonsensical from the Calvinist pov. Aren't Calvinists like the only people on earth who believe this about the state of man..?

Could Adam hear the voice of God after he fell in disobedience.. ?

Did Adam understand what God was saying to him ?

Do you think that this is some static event in the bible or would you see it as more of a living and powerful example of God calling all men in Adam today..?

How about the TRUE LIGHT which lighteth EVERY MAN that comes into the world.. in your opinion is that Spiritual in nature ?

Now if your PREMISE for everything that you read in the bible is that God had to regenerate first, then don't waste your time.. I've heard it for many years now and I know it's pointless to have any discussion when every basis for your commentary is filtered through the TULIP.

 

[Eventide]

Are you sure? Pay attention to Scripture.
1Co 2:14 But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

I am stating the case that the carnal man/the flesh can do nothing good. I have put up 6 Points in post#151. Reconcile all six points with consistency, whenever you can, after reading the clarification in post#156. I don't see any point in us beating around the bush without finishing this core issue - the flesh profits nothing.

Here's another case of taking a verse and applying it across the board as if its context demanded it.. but no, this is with respect to the deep things of God.. not the simple fundamental truths of the gospel, which are still spiritual in nature.

This is why we have multitudes of professing Christians (who as you know may NOT be in Christ at all) who are led to believe that their church is the one true church.. it simply shows that there is no spiritual understanding of the nature and depth of what the church of God is..

But again, everything you read in the bible needs to be filtered through John Calvin first..

 

[Eventide]

you can only try disproving my stance.

There are some things that are impossible..

1. For God to lie..

2. For a Calvinist to be proven wrong.

lol..

 

[Hitch]

I don't know, I'm totally depraved when it comes to things like Calvinism.. lol..

What's wrong.. the Amillennial discussions getting a little boring for you.. ?

Yawn another chick too afraid to answer.

 

[Eventide]

Yawn another chick too afraid to answer.

Yeah. I'm shivering here in fear.. and I'm clueless though according to you. So there's no need for me to waste any more of your time or mine.

Enjoy the Amillenial threads though..

 

[ivdavid]

I just gave you a few biblical facts to show how total depravity is nonsensical...
How about the TRUE LIGHT which lighteth EVERY MAN that comes into the world.. in your opinion is that Spiritual in nature ?

And I just told you how it's logically impossible for you to prove a negative - you're just repeating yourself. Read post#167 slowly to see why you cannot prove that God does NOT work all good things in men. You can only disprove the evidence I've given, that the flesh profits nothing [posts#152,153]. And note, as I said in the previous post, God need not have to regenerate to cause man to will and to act - He didn't regenerate the donkey through which He spoke.

With regards to John 1:9, this refers to something in common with every man - part of common grace. Read post#156 to see that I'm not referring to common factors, just the differentiating cause.

But again, everything you read in the bible needs to be filtered through John Calvin first..

I hope you read through the second part of post#154.

but no, this is with respect to the deep things of God.. not the simple fundamental truths of the gospel

Where is this distinction made - back up with a wholesome approach that this is what this verse implies. Bible interprets Bible - so build a case from Scripture that points to this interpretation only and not any other.

Don't do this, Eventide - I implore you. This is a slippery slope. You begin tweaking what the Word plainly says to what you want it to say - you'll end up far from the truth. What's the difference between you here and the John Calvin you accuse from your perspective. Isn't this just your interpretation having the final say.

I wouldn't mind the above if it helps explain all parts of Scripture instead of just proof-texting. Which is why I've given so many different Scriptural references in post#152 and the intent behind my stance in post#153. What is at stake for you - what are you trying to defend by saying that the flesh can attain unto something good?

I am not trying to trump you - that is not my intent. I need you to face up to some truths even though they may not go down well with your preconceived notions. Don't waste time replying to these posts - just focus on the Scriptural ones [Post#152 in particular with post#156 as clarification].

 

[Eventide]

Don't do this, Eventide - I implore you. This is a slippery slope. You begin tweaking what the Word plainly says to what you want it to say - you'll end up far from the truth.

This could be one of the most laughable things I've heard from a Calvinist.. as if everything you write isn't filtered through TULIP.. are you serious..?

What's the difference between you here and the John Calvin you accuse from your perspective. Isn't this just your interpretation having the final say.

Not at all.. we both share what's called an opinion.

How about you.. is what you believe your opinion and could you be wrong about what you believe ?

 

[Eventide]

Using your premise.. why don't you disprove what I've been writing..

How about disproving that the Lord Jesus Christ is the elect of God.

How about disproving that all in Adam are under the same condemnation..

How about disproving that Adam could hear and understand the voice of God after he fell in disobedience..

How about disproving that Christ is that true light which lighteth every man that comes into the world..

 

[ivdavid]

Using your premise.. why don't you disprove what I've been writing..

I'll try explaining the situation more clearly to you with a very crude simplified analogy - make an effort to understand... ask me for clarifications where you need them.

This is called the 'correlation does not imply causation' logical fallacy - .

Mr.A - Without the car key, you cannot start the car. Therefore, the key starts the car.

Mr.B - That's a logical fallacy. The key cannot be turned unless you, the driver, turn it - therefore it is you, the driver, who starts the car.

Mr.A - What part of my premise is not true? Can you disprove any part of my premise?

Mr.B - I cannot disprove your premise because your premise is true and I too agree with that. But it is your conclusion that is logically flawed and that is where I'm adding the extra premise to resolve the flaw.

Mr.A - How is my conclusion wrong? Can you start the car without the keys?

Mr.B - Well, since I'm the driver who has control over the keys and since I'm fully able to turn the keys, your question becomes hypothetical and therefore invalid in a logical discussion. Your conclusion is wrong because you have assumed that starting a car can have no other cause except the keys.

Mr.A - But you still haven't proved what I've said is false...

Mr.B - And I never will - because what's false in your argument does not involve your stating an untruth - it deals with your denying the truth. What part you hold is true but when you deny the entire truth, then what you hold needs to be concluded differently and there it becomes false. Instead, evaluate what added truth I have given you and the flaws in your conclusions(not premise) - test its validity and then draw your final conclusions.

["starting the car" = "believing" ; "key" = "man's ability/goodness/wisdom/will/works in the flesh" ; "Driver" = "God"]


Hope the issue is clarified as are the following too -

Eventide: "How about disproving that the Lord Jesus Christ is the elect of God. "
Nothing to disprove here. We're just not referring to the same thing. Search for "apples and oranges" in post#157.

Eventide: "How about disproving that all in Adam are under the same condemnation.. "
Nothing to disprove here. You're just assuming that God needs some reason in us to choose/elect us. Read the difference between inherent value and God's sovereignty in post#157.

Eventide: "How about disproving that Adam could hear and understand the voice of God after he fell in disobedience.. "
Nothing to disprove here. Refer to the analogy presented above in this post. Also post#174 first para.

Eventide: "How about disproving that Christ is that true light which lighteth every man that comes into the world.."
Nothing to disprove here. I'm focusing on the differentiating causes - not the common causes. Refer to posts#174,#156.

[if you find it difficult going back to these referenced posts, inform me and I'll add links to them.]

 

[ivdavid]

we both share what's called an opinion.
How about you.. is what you believe your opinion and could you be wrong about what you believe ?

Who are we kidding? We both share what's called a belief and a belief is totally different from an opinion. A belief is any premise an individual holds to be true and not false. An opinion is any premise that he has not yet concluded to be true or false - and is awaiting further premises to enable a conclusion.

Right now, both of us have our own beliefs and not opinions - because we're not awaiting further premises to enable a conclusion - we have already concluded from the available premises.

That said, our believing something to be true need not imply that it is indeed true. So what is the model for believing - we hold on to our beliefs as long as we don't find any contradictions.

Your belief ie the premise you hold to be true is - "The flesh profits at least something."
The premise that I hold to be true is - "The flesh profits nothing."
Since these 2 premises are mutually exclusive, both these premises cannot be true at the same time. To evaluate which premise is true, we need to turn to Scriptures to find what God says about this. This has been done in post#152 and other posts that are related to it. It's a simple case of evaluating the evidence and reconciling all contradictions - to see which premise emerges to be true.

And what's the point - I haven't stuck to underhanded hints to make you address the truth of this premise. I have waved red flags all over my posts to get you to respond to my arguments from post#152 and others - So it can't be the case that you've 'missed' them. What am I to go on for if you're willfully ignoring them?

So, I'll make this my last post on this discussion - I have responded to your every point and I'm awaiting your response to the points I've raised over what the flesh profits. I will keep checking this thread and will reply if there are any clarifications to be made or if you're going to respond to the earlier overlooked points. Other than that, all other discussion serves only to distract from the core issue we've identified - and I will not be part of that.

Thank you for your time so far. I wish you will continue this on your part.

 

[Eventide]

Who are we kidding? We both share what's called a belief and a belief is totally different from an opinion.

They're both short of the truth.. unless of course you don't think that your belief or opinion concerning the scriptures could be wrong... could it David.. I'd really like to hear you say that you could be wrong because I've met Calvinists who couldn't.

Your belief ie the premise you hold to be true is - "The flesh profits at least something."

So now you're resorting to false statements.. ? Please show me where I said that the flesh profits anything.. Is this the type of childish thing you do so that you can appear to be correct here.. that's pretty sad but so typical of what Calvinists actually do.

 

[ivdavid]

Please show me where I said that the flesh profits anything..

From post#157 -

... - let's get back to the analogy -
Mr.X and Mr.Y hear the Gospel. Mr.X believes and Mr.Y does not. Now, remove all factors,causes,parameters that are common to both Mr.X and Mr.Y. So for instance, the Gospel which was preached, is a necessary correlated factor in man's salvation but since it's common to both Mr.X and Mr.Y, it cannot be the differentiating cause in their responses.

So you see, I'm not referring to perhaps the 99.9% common factors that play a role in man's salvation - I'm very specifically referring to that 0.1% differentiating cause. ...I'm referring to this very narrow differential cause and saying that this differential cause is not the flesh's works. Do I need to word it differently for you to understand more clearly?[these percentages are just for argument sake - not that I believe they should be partitioned like this]

So the question is - What is that differentiating cause that resulted in Mr.X believing?
a) Man's own ability/wisdom/goodness/understanding in the flesh
OR
b) God's grace in the Spirit's working in Mr.X?

With respect to this, re-read my previous posts[#152,#153 etc.] and reconcile the issues raised.

If you chose (a), that's where you say that the flesh profits that bit. Clarified?