More Thoughts

Its been a while since I posted on here, and there are a couple of things that have been running through my mind, so I figured to kind of deal with them here, that way I can reference back to it. One of the amazing things about blogging ;-)


One common claim I hear against the Reformed view (i.e Calvinism) is the matter of interpretation. For example " That is just your interpretation, everyone is entitled to their opinion". Now to deal with this argument (if one would call it an actual argument)


Both of these statements are correct. Indeed it is my interpretation from scripture and everyone is, in fact, entitled to their own personal opinions. The problem is that, by positing these two statements consecutively, the person thinks that they are refuting the argument.

i) In reality they haven't they have only made it more difficult for not only the Calvinist, but also for themselves. This argument is mostly heard from those who are unaware of their own traditions ( I talked a little bit about that subject here ) . In their attempt at dealing with Calvinism, they instead obscure the matter, what they are really doing here is saying " I'm not going down by myself I'm taking you with me".

ii) If what they are saying is true ( which according to their own assertion, we cannot know because of its subjectivity) , then they themselves are in a bit of a problem. For if any matter in Scripture was limited to subjective interpretations, then how can anyone know they are interpreting anything correctly. According to these principles, the mormon or JW or any cult for that matter could ask the question " Hey, aren't I entitled to my own interpretation? This is what I got from it so surely I won't be punished for it, because of my sincerity! " .

iii) So I would ask the one who makes these objections to follow these principles to their logical conclusions and see if you can, on the other hand, proclaim the gospel clearly to unbelievers. Consider James 1:6-8. This is what he means when he refers to someone who is "double minded" .


"Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change. Of His own will he brought us forth by the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures. "
( James 1:17)

God has not left His people in the dark, He has freely given His people a clear revelation from the Law, the Prophets, the Wisdom literature, and ultimately His Son! The problems occur when we as creatures try and reinterpret what He has freely given and suppress the truth in exchange for lies. This is what Adam and Eve did in the garden. By trying to belittle God's Word " Do not Eat from the Tree" to their subjective interpretation, they exchanged the Truth of God for the lies of Satan and thus the fall. Let the Scriptures speak.

1) Do The Scriptures indicate an Autonomous ( Apart from God) Freedom of the Will (John 8:34)

2) Can a sinner come to God of His own ability, or does God need to be the One who initiates?
( John 6:37,39,44)

3) Does God elect a people for Himself? (Romans 8:28-30) Is it according to anything that they do? (Ephesians 1:4-6) (Ephesians 2:8-10)

The Importance of Distinctions

I met this individual below on Triablogue, under the post "Fragging James White" He seems to have this belief that just because one makes a distinction in his position on what the Scriptures teach, then this person is violating 1 Corinthians 12-17 . But the fact of the matter is, we do consider ourselves Christians. The emphasis that Calvinism makes and what this gentleman is missing is 1 Corinthians 1:10 which states:

" I appeal to you, brothers, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment."

Would this gentleman honestly be able to say that he has the same mind and the same judgement as a Mormon (who also label themselves to be Christian)? Or would he much more prefer to emphasize unity, and not throw out any labels because in his mind, any label given to someone other than just christian is wrong.

Lets be honest, we all have our traditions. My tradition comes from that of Biblical Christianity. I ascribe to the Westminster Confessions of Faith. This is what I believe and confess to be Biblical Christianity. One cannot just use the name Christian, or say "I believe the bible" because it does not encompass what you believe about the bible. I believe the "WCF" and the "5 Solas of The Reformation" are orthodox conclusions that can be drawn from the text of the Scripture. This is the tradition in which I ascribe to.

Yet this individual seems to be unaware of his own traditions and his own presuppositions that he takes into the text of scripture. He seems to believe that when he takes on the label of Christianity, that he doesn't have to make any distinctions about what he believes about the text of Scripture. He assumes that what he believes is what the bible teaches and there needs to be no exposition, exegetion, or explanation from the Text of Scripture about what he believes.

Socillions would consider themselves to believe what Christ taught, and label themselves to be Christians. Would Andrew agree that Christ taught Himself to be just a man, and not God? If he did not then he would have to make a distinction, but he would betray his own argument to label himself Trinitarian, because it doesn't take on the name Christ. Also if you look in the bible (as he makes this argument later on) you won't see this word in the bible. So would he deny himself to be a Trinitarian?










"Resequitur, don't insult my intelligence. Of course I know what Calvinism is and what it teaches (and the diversity that exists within the Calvinist community). I am also familiar with Arminianism and its disagreement with Calvinism. I wouldn't be critical if I didn't first make some effort to understand."

Sounds like you have a chip on your shoulder

"I know Dr. White and his books. I have even listened intently to his debates though there was frequently periods lacking Christian grace. That doesn't mean that I sympathize. Nor does it mean I sympathize with his opponents."

What do you mean by Christian grace? Do you mean by making distinctions to what is and what is not biblical Christianity? Or does he lack Christian Grace because you don't agree with him? Anyone can make statements like this but please present when you think Dr. White has lacked Christian grace. Also, please be aware that the man is human, and has sinful tendencies. Just because he calls someone like Dr. Caner to present adequate documentation to these so called debates as a call for presentation of the truth does not mean he lacks Christian grace, please make distinctions, sir.

" Respectfully – for you to imply that I'm coming from an uninformed position shows arrogance."

Your arguments betray you. You are arguing like an uninformed individual.

"Even so, thank you for directing my attention to the Bible and for setting out the standard for what it means to be a Calvinists. If one needs only believe that God intends to conform those he foreknew into the image of Christ, than I must also be a Calvinist!"

Again you argumentation betrays you, this is the reason you will have questions asked on whether you know what Calvinism is


"Since Calvinists are Bible believing, they must also believe that it was Israel God foreknew (Romans 11:2, Psalm 94:14) and who He predestined (Isaiah 42:6; 49:6). Calvinists much also believe that God elected Israel Ezekiel 20:5,Acts 13:17,Deuteronomy 4:37 and promised to never to cast them away Romans 11:2."

Sure Calvinists believe that God foreknew Israel but here there needs to be a distinction made that you aren't making

"But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel; This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring." (Romans 9:6,8)

Paul describes that the children of promise are those who have been foreknown, predestined to conform to Christ, called,justified, and glorified.

Do you agree? Those who disagree call this "Calvinism". It is a theological position that assumes this position in Scripture. You fail to hear the distinction being made. Yes we refer ourselves as Christians but guess what? So do mormons. Are they Christians Andrew? or does their need to be distinction made in order to avoid the muddling of unorthodox cultic teaching. Again a Mormon would call themselves Christian, do you welcome them to preach in your pulpit because they come into the church under this name?

We take on the name Calvinism to avoid having to pronounce each and every single position of Scripture.


"Then why would one call oneself a Calvinist, rather than a Christian, since Calvin's role is inferior to Christ's? "

Yep, Mormons call themselves Christians, so do Jehovah's witnesses. How do you avoid being lumped together with unchristian beliefs?

It isn't about roles. It is about accurately describing Orthodox Christianity with precision. The point you seem to be missing


"Given your excellent advice to consider who stands in scripture, I've checked, and been unable to find Calvin or Calvinism in scripture, but I was able to find Christ, and God's promises to his chosen (who appear to be Israelites rather than Calvinists)."

And again, with this type of argumentation you employ, it is very hard to take you seriously. There are no distinctions being made, you are just trying to sneak in your presuppositions into Paul's distinction in Romans (see above) to somehow strawman our position.

"Understandably, I've had a hard time pinning that Calvinist label on and having it stick, though according to your standard – I am one."



Not with the type of argumentation you employed above.

The Pot's rejection of the Potter

This is a response to a post of a confused family member, {Source} who upon unbelief, has rejected his Creator God in the way we are told in (Romans 1:18-32). As Christians, it our moral duty to contend for the faith that was once for all delivered for the saints (Jude 1:3) . So I will provide a response to glorify God, and His Son, Jesus Christ, who came as a ransom for sinners. My response will be in blue, and Scripture quotation in red.

Agnostic says:

"Looking back on the days when I was baptized in the name of the Lord, I’ve come to realize that I did it under false pretenses. For the longest of time I never fully understood why it was so important to the church members, family, and friends to under go this rite of passage. To fully give yourself to a deity who wants you to believe in him, and worship him for all eternity. In fact, how can an eight year old boy truly comprehend such a big commitment? "

Resequitur says: Children can definitely understand the gospel message, perhaps not as fully as that of someone who has grown in grace for a huge chunk of his life, but the child can understand it sufficiently for salvation. Christ says Himself in Matthew 19:14 "Let the children alone, and do not hinder them from coming to Me; for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these." and again in Matthew 18:3 "Truly I say to you, unless you are converted and become like children, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven." Even in Deuteronomy 6:7, the Israelites were commanded "You shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, and when you walk by the way, and when you lie down, and when you rise."

So the question isn't whether or not an eight year old child can understand such a big commitment, because if God has regenerated His soul (John 3:5-8) he will understand fully via The Holy Spirit (John 14:16-18) . Now again, he may not understand like someone who is far along in their walk but he will understand sufficeintly.

"It seems like, to me, when I was that age I just wanted to be viewed like all the others who’d been baptized not too long before I did. Most certainly when I did get baptized I felt no different, no spiritual lifting that one supposedly feels when they have been purged of their sins for that instance in time."

Baptism is not what purges you of your sin. It is God's grace through faith in Christ Jesus (not of ourselves, but a gift of God, {Ephesians 2:4-10} ) that purges you of your sin. Baptism is an outward sign of an inward work of The Holy Spirit. The outward cleansing of baptism represents the inward regeneration of the Holy Spirit. Simply being baptized is not what saves you from God's wrath

"I truly felt no sensation when I gave myself to the lord. Now, eleven years later I’ve cast aside my beliefs of the Lord and Savior I supposedly took an oath to the moment I was dove under water by the preacher. "

1) Whoever told you to look out for a warm fuzzy feeling to confirm your salvation misled you into believing something that isn't so. Salvation isn't a subjective feeling or emotion. It is confirmation and confession of an Objective truth only by the work of God Himself. (Romans 3:23-26), (Romans 8:9-17)

2) Your oath was a false confession, as you have stated earlier you did it under false pretense, just as Judas committed his life to Christ for the purposes of popularity and political power over the Roman government. This was not clear the moment you confessed Christ but God's judgement has been made clear now (1 John 2:19)

3) This is made all the more clear in this statement that you make "Did I truly believe God had enter my heart when I said I was ready? No, I honestly didn’t. In fact, it’s all rather hazy in memory. I distinctly remember the preacher handing me a pamphlet about the two roads diverging. One path leading to heaven, and the other to hell."

But where would I, an Agnostic stand in the eyes of the Lord? Would I be condemned to eternal damnation like those who have ruthlessly taken lives, slaughtered the innocent, stole riches, and things far more severe? I sit and think for hours on end about how a person such as Ghandi, a man of true virtue, and knowledge. A man who, for a majority of his life helped others for a living. Though because of his religion, his choice in faith, would he took be condemned to an eternal nightmare? Is he no better than Hitler in God’s eyes? Surely not, but indeed by the eyes of man he is a saint. A man who was great, and wise.

Romans 1:20. 1)Again you assume that you don't have enough against you to condemn you. But my friend let me tell you that you do, and even more so that you read this text of scripture "For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.You will not escape God's wrath by playing ignorant, you have clearly perceived it. But you suppress this knowledge to continue on in unrighteousness (Romans 1:18) .

2) Ghandi went to hell because he had no justification for the sins he committed, "All have sinned and have fall short of the glory of God" (Romans 3:23). In Ghandi's rejection of the Lamb provided by God, he confirmed his condemnation. And on the Last day when the Son of God asks him "why should I let you into my heaven" Ghandi may posit "I've done all of these good works Lord!" but The Lamb that was slain on behalf of those who were given to Him will respond "You are not dressed in My righteousness,(Matthew 22:11-12) Now depart from me you evil doer, I never knew you!"(Matthew 7:23), (Matthew 22:13) and Ghandi will be cast into everlasting punishment on behalf of his sins and his rejection of the only propitiation suitable to God.

3) "Is he no better than Hitler in God’s eyes? Surely not, but indeed by the eyes of man he is a saint."

You presuppose that Man is the ultimate judge, leading to the worship of the creature rather than the Creator. Jesus Christ has been giving all authority over heaven and earth, Ghandi's denial of the Judge's seat does not relieve Him of his lawlessness. For Ghandi has clearly broken the 1st commandment! Not only does he break the 1st commandment, he spits upon the very pardon that the Judge has offered him for breaking it!

I sit in wonderment at how long ago, before the time of Jesus had been born, and philosophers had no true knowledge of the God we know. Some say we do, others do not. Judaism is not the oldest religion, in fact it’s not nearly as old as Hinduism, but that’s irrelevant now. Christianity, a newer religion now points that we’ve always known God, but if that were true, why is Judaism not the oldest religion?

1) Judaism points to Christ. Christ is the fulfillment of the Old Covenant. Jesus Himself (being a Jew) taught from the Old Testament, (John 5:39) e.g (Isaiah 53:5) . In fact, the author of Hebrews dedicates a whole epistle explaining how Christ is the fulfillment of all things hoped for in Judaism. He is the Jewish Messiah that Isaiah, Ezekiel, Jeremiah, and King David wrote about!

2) How does Hinduism being older than Judaism have to do with it being more true? Hinduism may have had some establishment of religion in writing before Judaism did but that does not contradict the Old Testament account. You have to remember that the events in Genesis were not written down until God commanded Moses to write them down in 1496 B.C. before then it was word of mouth among the Jews. The Indus Valley Civilization did not begin until 9o years after the birth of Noah, while there was no compilation of any religious documents by any Hindus until 200 years before King David's reign of Israel. So it is very misleading to say that Hinduism was the first religion. This is simply begging the questioin.

Why was there not a bible created until far later in time? Truth be told, I have no idea. I believe that there is something out there that is deemed to be a deity, and maybe perhaps Hinduism is correct with there being a universal consciousness that is God. That everything around you is God. Maybe they’re wrong. Who’s to truly know? My standpoint in faith is utterly disastrous at best. I linger on the border of what if, and what is. A truly confused being I am, but I’ve got many more years before I can decipher what I believe in.

1)The reason for this is because you have some unchecked Presuppositions. You impose skepticism others while presupposing that you know that you can't know. I've pointed this out to you a couple of times and have told you why this doesn't work, its contradicting! The Bible began its authorship with Moses, and he wrote the first 5 books of the bible with some help by his successor Joshua (appointed by God). Another presupposition you have is that God's Word is not true, and that He has no activity among His people. But there are authentications that the bible has that it passes to confirm its Authority! This is why we are left without an excuse.

3) Let me quickly tackle some of the issues with Hinduism.

a) The problem with monism, the idea that everything in reality is made up of the same substance, whether it be matter, mind, or anything else. Such as The Beatles song " I am The Walrus". " I am he as you are he as you are me and we are all together". Monism meaning all is one. This name that Hindus give to supreme reality is Brahman. An objective definition Brahman outside of vague definitions of "oneness" just doesn't work. Houston Smith defines it " “On the whole, India has been content to encourage the devotee to conceive of Brahman as either personal or transpersonal, depending on which carries the most exalted meaning for
the mind in question.” So The basic composition of this supposed ultimate reality is left subjective opinion. Contending that reality is “oneness” first requires a person to ignore the fact that reality appears to contain distinctions. There is a sharp contrast here between
Hindu doctrine and human experience. Human beings must operate as if real differences exist in the world. After all, isn’t there a difference between Hinduism and other religions? The Hindu is declaring a unique (or different) faith while theoretically positing everything in fact is one (i.e. the same). The Hindu response to this is that even though reality appears to contain distinctions, this appearance is really just maya, which means illusion. While this answer is in accord with the concept of monism it also undermines an individual’s assurance of its truth. If "all is one" then apparent distinctions between both physical and mental states are illusory also. This calls into question not only one’s perceptions about any religious knowledge but every other aspect of human experience as well. It is not practical “to live day after day in a world where chairs seem real and your mother seems real and love seems real and to keep insisting they’re just maya.”

b) Hinduism’s doctrine of karma essentially implies an impersonal universe. Since karma itself is seen judging man’s actions there is no place for any personal judge. It leads one to wonder how karma, with its ability to distinguish “right” from “wrong” behavior in a universe where all is “one” came into being in the first place? And how can there be moral law without a moral lawgiver? Notions of a moral lawgiver usually lead one back to the subject of God.

Presuppositonal encounter

This is a conversation I just recently had with an unbelieving family member. He considers himself to be agnostic. I wanted to post this as a guide to what a basic presuppositional encounter looks like, and how this is the methodology that is the most biblical approach. I am by no means a pro or any of the like. But it is our moral duty as Christians to be prepared to make a defense for the hope that is within me, with gentleness and respect (1 Peter 3:15-16)

Anonymous

Hey.

If you're not busy I'd like to ask a favor.

2:47pm Resequitur

Whats that?

2:48pm Anonymous

Mind sharing your testimony with me.

2:48pm Resequitur

My testimony?

2:48pm Anonymous

Yeah.

You know, the reason why you believe.

2:50pm Resequitur

Well, the reason I believe is because God has granted it to me to be able to believe. I will tell you the strife that He used to give me no other option but to believe in Him

2:50pm Anonymous

So you simply believe because he allows you to believe?

2:51pm Resequitur

Let me tell you what I mean by that. and then Let me tell you why I believe it is impossible to "not" believe in God

2:52pm Anonymous

Alright.

2:54pm Resequitur

Okay, first of all, I have faith in Jesus Christ because God has given me the faith to believe in Him. In John 6:44 Jesus Christ Himself tells the unbelieving Jews "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day."

and then later in John 6:65 "And he said, This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father. "

So I tell you by God's Grace enables me to believe in the Son of God

which is salvation

Now let me tell you why I believe that it is impossible to disbelieve in God

2:57pm Anonymous

Okay.

2:58pm Resequitur

In Romans 1:18 Paul posits "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth"

"For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them."

"For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without *excuse*.

"For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened."

"Claiming to be wise, they became fools,"

and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles. `'

3:01pm Resequitur

From this we examine that all men believe in God. The fact of the matter is that they exchange the truth of God for a lie so they surpress the truth that God has given them and exchange it to continue on in unrighteousness

Unrighteousness being sin

3:02pm Resequitur

So as a result, to show His Wrath, God hands them over into their foolish thinking and they cannot make sense of the world regarding their presuppositions which are to ultimately set themselves as the total authority over truth and deny God

but instead set themselves up at God

3:04pm Resequitur

so when you are an "Atheist" or agnostic" this is what you are really doing, ignoring God's revelation, and worshipping yourself the "Creature" rather than the "Creator" God

3:06pm Anonymous

But the Agnostic don't really worship anything. More simply they say that it is impossible to speak of something that we have know true knowledge, thus they simply ignore the topic.

While Atheist disbelieve in all things that have faith, or proof.

3:08pm Resequitur

Again thats why I say, the agnostic would rather back up into skepticism and posit "We cannot know" when really you would have to ask the question "How do you know we cannot know?" Again the agnostic DOES know, he would just rather surpress the Truth in his sin and ignore what God has clearly revealed

3:09pm Resequitur

The atheist contorts the evidence and truth to fit his worldview, because his mind is darkened, Therefore until his heart has been regenerated by The Holy Spirit, he will not accept any evidence that is inconsistent with what he holds to be truth

3:11pm Anonymous

But, who's to define what truth really is?

3:11pm Resequitur

God

Jesus Christ exclaimed I am the way the Truth and The Life

3:12pm Anonymous

Yes, and Descartes claimed I think, therefor I am.

3:14pm Resequitur

Well, we both know that Descartes was a autonomous human being. If you say "Truth exists" then you have to believe it to be Objective, otherwise you could not impose it on anyone else

3:14pm Anonymous

Yes, I know.

3:15pm Resequitur

that is why subjective truth does not work

its silly

3:15pm Anonymous

So, you mean to tell me that since the dawn of man, we have always known the existence of God?

3:15pm Resequitur

Yep, the first man was Adam remember?

3:16pm Anonymous

And that those who thought different were merely being foolish?

3:16pm Resequitur

Yep.

they would much rather live in sin than to believe in God

3:17pm Anonymous

I know, but there's a loop in Genesis.

3:17pm Resequitur

Whats the Pseudo problem?

3:18pm Anonymous

I have always wondered, and I'm sure that you might have an answer, but when Cain was banished, how it is he found others outside of Garden when Adam and Eve were the first humans?

What do you mean?

3:19pm Resequitur

Because Adam and Eve were still reproducing when Cain and Abel were growing up, go look at the line of children Adam had, The bible doesn't put everything in order

I mean sometimes things appear to be a problem, but if you look at it enough it really is our interpretation of the passage thats the problem

3:21pm Anonymous

I've seen the line, but the people that follow all of those time lines don't match up.

3:22pm Resequitur

Thats because the timelines are just there to give you an idea, not to give a perfect guide on to when everything went down

What is important is the Theology of whats going

3:23pm Anonymous

And I think that's what makes it so confusing.

The bible to me seems like the perfect guideline to how to live your life, but faith is different.

3:25pm Resequitur

No the bible isn't just a guideline to "Do things this way and you'll be fine" it is a book to reveal That God's wrath is being shown to all mankind and that He has provided redemption through His Son Jesus Christ

3:25pm Anonymous

The feeling one gets when they have faith is different than information from passages. It's like knowledge over instinct.

3:26pm Anonymous

Or well instinct over knowledge.

3:26pm Resequitur

Faith is more than belief brother, It is a gift from God that provides a way to know God

it is like the eyeballs of the heart

and they have to be opened by God Himself

3:29pm Resequitur

and the faithless (unbelievers) are onsidered to be "dead in their sins" and "blinded from the truth"

Which another means of God showing His wrath

3:30pm Anonymous

But does the bible not provide you information of the existence of God? It gives you knowledge of it, but what if one knows not of this knowledge, would it not be faith that ties them to their belief in God?

3:31pm Resequitur

The Bible Presupposes the existence of God, because it is "God's Word" through it He commands everyone everywhere to repent and believe upon Christ. It isn't a suggestion, it is a command

3:33pm Resequitur

We are sinners, and God must punish it, whether it be in His Son on the Cross, or it be an eternity in Hell

3:37pm Resequitur

now, the reason you came to me and asked me why should you believe is because God has given you the mercy ask the question, therefore you should repent and believe in Christ and he will be the propitiation and satisfaction for the sins you have committed against God

3:42pm Anonymous

I merely wanted to know why you believed. Or rather how. It was more of a way of finding out truth.

For I know even if I were to be back in the eyes of God, I would not change my ways as I should. I do not have the will or want to.

3:44pm Resequitur

Well, I will pray that God will have the grace and replace your heart of stone with a heart of flesh, regardless He will be Glorified

3:44pm Anonymous

And I thank you for taking time out of your day to do such a thing.

3:45pm Resequitur

No problem man, Praise God

3:45pm Anonymous

So, one question.

How many people in our family know of my choice of religion?

3:45pm Resequitur

shoot

Not sure

3:46pm Anonymous

For I have seen the way that some of my old friends from church have shunned me for the choices I've made.

I couldn't help, but feel like your Christmas prayer had a bit of direction towards me.

3:48pm Resequitur

Well, that isn't me brother, It is the Spirit of God, I won't shun you off or anything even though I may not approve of your lifestyle, you are always welcome in my home or to the church I go to

3:48pm Anonymous

I'm aware of that, though I do find it highly offensive that some do things like that.

3:49pm Resequitur

Well, we are all sinners in daily need of the Grace of God. Ephesians 2

3:49pm Anonymous

I know, but I know some seem to act like they are, how do I put it, higher up than others.

3:50pm Resequitur

well, like I said, we are sinful human man, and we are all prone to pride

3:50pm Anonymous

It's a tenseness in the air that I feel when I meet someone who I was once close with, or friends with, and they are daily giving praise.

True enough.

3:51pm Resequitur

any good that comes from any man is by the common grace of God

3:52pm Anonymous

It's quite a hardship to deal with when one shuns you merely from a choice of opinions and ideals.

3:52pm Resequitur

I agree, I've been there, trust me :)

but God does not see that as an excuse, The Christian will be held accountable for it and so will the nonbeliever

Anonymous

Well I cannot deny the existence of Jesus, I never have. There's too much proof of it.

3:56pm Resequitur

indeed

3:56pm Anonymous

You can't go through a history book without it being mentioned at least once.

3:58pm Resequitur

Nope. I actually have a nice little book(actually a couple) I can let you borrow and show you all the non Christian references to Jesus Christ, if you would like

3:58pm Anonymous

No, it's quite alright.

This conversation was sufficient enough.

3:59pm Resequitur

alrighty, sounds good

4:00pm Anonymous

Well, thank you for the time you took out of your day for this.

4:00pm Resequitur

Well, thats what i'm here for, If you need anything else just ask away :)

4:01pm Anonymous

I shall.

I'll talk to you soon.

4:01pm Resequitur

k bro take care and God bless

4:02pm Anonymous

You too.

Trouble with Defining Predestination

A couple of weeks ago I started skimming through a book written by Dr. Frank Page called "Trouble With The Tulip". There are very many problems with his eisegesis of the many texts that he cites throughout the book and I do not plan on doing a full critique of the book (not yet anyways). But I do want to do a short critique on his attempt at trying to force an interpretation of predestination into Romans 8, and Ephesians 1 that simply just isn't there.

On pg. 56 he begins with quoting from 2 Peter 3:9 , 1 Timothy 2:3-4 , and 1 Timothy 4:9-10 as if they disprove God's election. But this is a general error made on the part of Arminians and have been dealt with numerous amount of times, and I am not going to repeat what has already been said. A simple reading of the these verses in context would solve any Pseudo-Problems that the Calvinist has.

But what I really wanted to get to in this post is his eisegesis of Romans 8:28-30 and his misunderstanding of predestination. To Quote him:

"Many people ask me, "How can anyone say that God has Predestined some to hell, and some to heaven?" Many who believe such as misguided doctrine point to Romans 8:28-30 for proof.

"And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose. For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified."

Again let it be said that these verses present the truth of God's Word . They must not be avoided and certainly must not be misunderstood

Predestination if a divine act of the Lord whereby He makes redemption or adoption certain for the believer. Ephesians 1:5 says that "God has Predestined us to be adopted as His sons through Jesus Christ, in accordance with His pleasure and will."

Remember that predestination deals with the certain accomplishment of one's adoption or redemption. When you are saved you are made a son or daughter of God the moment of your salvation. However, even though you belong to the Lord Jesus now, you have not arrived at the goal which God has predestined you to, which is adoption or final redemption. This is what Paul is talking about in Ephesians 1:5. The ultimate redemption does not occur the moment of salvation , but at the resurrection of our bodies. This is clearly stated in Romans 8:23 when it says " Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the first fruits of the Spirit groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies." Yes it is true that our souls are redeemed at the moment of salvation, but our ultimate redemption and adoption will take place when we have redeemed souls and redeemed bodies. Our adoption or final redemption is certain since every believer is certain to arrive at that goal! Yes, I believe in predestination! The Scripture is clear that the ultimate redemption and therefore adoption of human beings is made certain by the Lord. Until that occurs we have been given the wonderful "spirit of adoption" which is referred to in Romans 8:15" - Frank Page "Trouble with the Tulip" pg 56-57

So here we see Dr. Page doing a lot of jumping around from Romans to Ephesians instead of giving us a complete thought of each text of scripture. If you want to define predestination properly you must go to the scriptures that talk about predestination, which he did and I admire. But what he didn't do is finish the author's flow of thought. He jumped back and fourth and to and fro, which is a really good way to get a meshed up view of the authors intent. Let us examine his argument piece by piece. My responses will be in red and scripture in green like above.

Many people ask me, "How can anyone say that God has Predestined some to hell, and some to heaven?" Many who believe such as misguided doctrine point to Romans 8:28-30 for proof."And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose. For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified. "Again let it be said that these verses present the truth of God's Word . They must not be avoided and certainly must not be misunderstood

Well, calvinists point to this text as an explanation of God's election, because Paul (being guided by the Holy Spirit) writes this to comfort those in persecution (Roman 8:18-25), while at the same time revealing the truths in God's election. So this is why he writes "And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose." So here Paul completes his explanation of what is known as the "Golden Chain of Redemption". "For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified. "

Now to clear up any confusion of this chain, we must note that we nor Paul are saying " We have been justified nor glorified from eternity. " Not that he justified them from eternity, this isn't true ; and if it were, it would also follow that he glorified them from eternity, which would be crazy. It means that there is a regular sequence of events--the predestination precedes and secures the calling, and the calling precedes and secures the justification. The one is connected in the purpose of God with the other; and the one, in fact, does not take place without the other. The purpose was in eternity; the calling and justifying in time.

Now note here Dr. Page does not offer any explanation or exegesis of Romans 8:28-30. He just hops right into Ephesians 1:5 to try and explain away Romans 8:28-30

"Predestination if a divine act of the Lord whereby He makes redemption or adoption certain for the believer. Ephesians 1:5 says that "God has Predestined us to be adopted as His sons through Jesus Christ, in accordance with His pleasure and will."

"Remember that predestination deals with the certain accomplishment of one's adoption or redemption. When you are saved you are made a son or daughter of God the moment of your salvation. However, even though you belong to the Lord Jesus now, you have not arrived at the goal which God has predestined you to, which is adoption or final redemption. This is what Paul is talking about in Ephesians 1:5. The ultimate redemption does not occur the moment of salvation , but at the resurrection of our bodies."

Notice how he skips right over Ephesians 1:4. Also notice that if he didn't his argument would crumble. Lets look at what it says

"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 through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will,to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved."

Both of these events have been described to take place "Before the foundation of the world". So we see that Dr. Page just butts right into the middle of Paul's thought and adds an extra-biblical definition.

The ultimate redemption does not occur the moment of salvation , but at the resurrection of our bodies. This is clearly stated in Romans 8:23 when it says " Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the first fruits of the Spirit groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies." Yes it is true that our souls are redeemed at the moment of salvation, but our ultimate redemption and adoption will take place when we have redeemed souls and redeemed bodies. Our adoption or final redemption is certain since every believer is certain to arrive at that goal! Yes, I believe in predestination! The Scripture is clear that the ultimate redemption and therefore adoption of human beings is made certain by the Lord. Until that occurs we have been given the wonderful "spirit of adoption" which is referred to in Romans 8:15"

Here we see that Dr. Page is equivocating Predestination with adoption as sons. So lets say for instance that Dr. Page is correct in this interpretation and we read through Ephesians 1:4-5.

"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 through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will,to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved."

According to his interpretation we are Predestined for adoption to be predestined => eternity. Thanks goodness that is not what the text is saying . It is saying "He predestined us for adoption through Jesus Christ". This happens "before the foundations of the world". So as we see in Romans 8:28- 30 Predestination => Glorification. Not some infinite action of Predestination for adoption to Predestination and ect. That would be the logical conclusion of Dr. Page's argument.