Skip to comments."Sexually Inclusive Christians" Celebrate Victories, Push for More
Posted on 08/30/2003 5:48:16 PM PDT by xzins
click here to read article
Please explain the date reference??
Call it what you like, but it is better than outright lying about Calvinist beliefs. Can you name any true public Calvinist who is antinomian? Just one. Can you name even one confession that teaches both the Doctrines of Grace and antinomianism? Being that you can't, either you don't understand that which you criticize, or you are engaging in a deliberate slander.
Furthermore, can you name any confession or published ST by a five point "Calvinist" who teaches a rejection of personal responsibility? In my experience, it is the "Free Will" Theorist who teaches either legalism or the true "The Law Was Nailed To The Cross" antinomianism.
Noodle this out a bit, if what the student of reformed theology is true, then the same God who brings about faith and belief (via election/regeneration) will also bring about sanctification to perfection. (Romans 8:30; Eph 1:4-5). Compare this to Free Will Theory (FWT) that places the burden of salvation on one who hates God (Roman 1:20), is a mortal enemy of God, rebels against all that God says can never please God (Romans 8:6-8), slaves to Hell and sin(Romans 6:19-20; Eph 2:1-3), can't understand the Gospel, consider it foolishness (1 Cor 2:14), and are blinded to the Gospel command to repent (2 Cor 4:4), and would prefer for rocks to fall and crush them than to bow the knee (Rev 6:16). Somehow everyone who comes to Christ must first make God a liar. Then this person grades his own test and gives himself an 'A'. This is accomplished because the FWT says "I believe in Jesus". Well what constitutes belief? What if the Jesus that the FWT claims to believe in has nothing in common with the Jesus found in Scripture? Quite possible, actually inevitable.
Jeremiah 17:9 "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked; who can know it?"
Yet the FWT claims to believe the same God that said that the unregenerate has no hope in believing on his own. For the FWT, to believe in Jesus means that you can't believe the Bible. That is an inescapable paradox.
Now returning to the article. I bet that it would be impossible to find a true five point Calvinist who teaches that the saved can engage in the hedonism and vile perversity that regularly is tolerated and accepted in the FWT community. The passages referenced above are prooftexts that indicate that many of those who claim to "believe in Jesus because of their own Free Will" will also use that same free will to believe anything else that they want to believe.
It is clearly a play on the Wiccan words "blessed be."
"You tolerate that woman Jezebel."
Free will cannot change the natural laws of cause and effect. Free will allows you to jump off a cliff but not to defy gravity.
They do come up with some doozies, don't they?
Wonder how soon this catchy appelation will come up in the Sunday New York Times crossword puzzle.
Isa 64:6 But we are all like an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are like filthy rags; we all fade as a leaf, and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away.
Rom 7:18-19 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) nothing good dwells; for to will is present with me, but how to perform what is good I do not find. For the good that I will to do, I do not do; but the evil I will not to do, that I practice.
Care to amend those words? Or is Scripture lying?
Those verses you quoted were spoken from a position of someone who was experiencing true humility and unworthiness before God. They do not mean that people should give up trying to serve the will of God, if that's what you're trying to imply.
I've seen very interesting statistics - I may have them somewhere; I'm REALLY bad at computer use and so it's hard for me to save or find anything, :( - but the social fabric actually began to fray at the same time TV became available and widely watched. Every soical indicator - crime, divorce, sexual immorality, unwed motherhood, and some others - were at a basically flat line until the mid 50's. The watching of TV and all those social ills went up at the same rate at the same time.
The mass indoctrination of population? What are the values, beliefs, and philosophies of the small group of people who write the TV shows, produce them, and write the "news"? A tiny percentage of the population is feeding the minds of the vast majority.
BTW, I've had a TV a total of about 1 or 2 years in the last (figure it out) - since I left home at 16 (early 50's now.)
I can see that you have a lot of knowledge concerning finer points of various Christian sects, that I am ignorant of, so I would appreciate it if you could explain your position more clearly, in slightly more simple layman's language, for people like me who are not knowledgeable about the FWT people and five point Calvinists. I apologize if I misunderstood you in my last post to you.
I am not trying to be challenging, I am out of my field of understanding when discussing Christian sects.
I can't understand why you insist that Santorum's statement - and the many Americans who agree with him - want to have police on a "seach and destroy" mission against behavior which is practiced in secrecy. This is a straw man argument. The whole purpose of anti-sodomy laws is to keep such behavior out of the mainstream, out of the public view. That way fewer people will be seduced into it, and if such sodomy practitioners try their skills in, say, public bathrooms they can then be arrested. Why don't you see this? Why are you so attracted to the idea of sodomy and/or same sex acts being protected?
Yes, God gave man a gift and you are trying to steal it or destroy it.
You must be very proud of yourself.
Not true, Jorge...his comments were aimed at the anticipated Supreme Court ruling. It was speculated that, much as Roe V Wade was decided upon a "constitutional right to privacy," anti-sodomy laws could be overturned on the same basis. He correctly said that if anti-sodomy laws could be overturned on the basis of a "privacy right," then no law limiting sexual activity could pass constitutional muster. That includes pedophilia, polygamy, incest, and animal sex.
This is not the same as supporting anti-sodomy laws. Justice Thomas said that while he did not support anti-sodomy laws and considered them to be "stupid," he could find no basis for declaring them unconstitutional.
Sorry to be the one to break it to you...not everything is about you, and not everybody thinks the way you do. There are people who are restrained by questions of legality.
Like we talk about Dan Quayle now?
This Comment Removed by Moderator
Better a heathen than a heretic.
It could turn around real fast. Really, it could.... ;x ...Certainly doesn't look like it from this view, though.
Besides the serious health issues which arise by having multiple partners, the Vatican, has condemned gay marriages:
The Vatican has condemned same-sex unions as deviant and a threat to society in a fresh attempt to halt the growing momentum towards legalising gay marriage in North America and Europe.
The Holy See urged Catholic lawmakers to vote against bills that would recognise gay marriage in a strongly worded document approved by Pope John Paul II- causing anger among gay rights activists across Europe.
"Marriage exists solely between a man and a woman...Marriage is holy, while homosexual acts go against the natural moral law," said the 12-page document by the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
"Legal recognition of homosexual unions or placing them on the same level as marriage would mean not only the approval of deviant behaviour...but would also obscure basic values which belong to the common inheritance of humanity."
The document also denounced gay couples adopting children: "Allowing children to be adopted by persons living in such unions would actually mean doing violence to these children."
It was the second time this year the Vatican instructed Catholic lawmakers to vote against bills legalising gay marriage.
Church authorities have also repeatedly condemned homosexuality in more general terms this year, although they say chaste gays should be welcomed into the Church.
In March, the Vatican released a new glossary of sexual terms which said countries which allowed gay marriages were inhabited by people with "profoundly disordered minds". LINK
Cervone affirmed her lesbianism as a "gift of God." She confessed she has a hard time attending the Catholic Church, because the "church is not where we find freedom. It's where we go to hide."
The gift of God is the Holy Spirit, which is present in every true believer. Those who want to destroy our confidence in God and reject God's word are not true believers, but enemies of God. Whoever follows Jesus teachings and believes He is the only way to forgiveness and eternal life will receive this gift, and not by legislating corrupt behavior.
In regards to "sects of Christianity", I am more of the opinion that one "sect" generally has a different personality than another. A true "church" is made up of individuals professing a common faith. How the charismatics conduct their affairs different from certain Baptists or Presbyterians is another matter, since I have been "forced" in a way to fellowship with presbyterians when I don't fully accept their covenant theology. We do agree on that which truly matters and that is why I would worship with those who teach infant baptism when I would be more inclined to a believer's baptism.
When it comes to the differences between those who believe in the the Doctrines of Grace (5 pt Calvinism) vs the American Religion (a hodge-podge of Arminianism, Pelagianism, and gnostisicm) beyond superficiality, there is little in common. We share a belief in a Trinity, but the Trinity of the American Religion (adopted by many 'Bible' churches, Southern Baptist organizations and by the many independants who claim to be "seeker sensitive") has very little to do with the Biblical Trinity.
Those of the Reformed faith (aka "Calvinists") worship a Sovereign God, whose Will is unthwarted by the creation. The American Religion, characterized by various Free Will theories, say that God is powerless to save and that salvation is completely up to man, governed by an alleged "free-will" choice. The former says that man is unable, the latter says that God is unable. The former says that God chooses, the latter says that man chooses. The former says that God's Will prevails, the latter says that Man's Will prevails. The former says that God's salvation is 100% effective for some (the 'elect'), the latter says that salvation is hypothetical for 100% of the people.
Calvinists believe that man's default state is born in sin, naturally rebellious deserving Hell and without God intervening in each individual's life all would perish. The American Religion says that man's default state is sinlessness, ie. a child needs no savior and if died would merit heaven because sin is only sin when consciously practiced. Heaven is man's to lose, not to gain. This is where FWT breaks off into various sub groups. Some think that one must "Choose Christ" in order to be saved. Others think that one must "Reject Christ" in order to be damned. Then you have those who reject even a Hell so salvation/condemnation is nothing more than where one sits at the table.
Calvinists recognize that after salvation, one's earthly troubles increase; the American Religion teaches that after salvation one's earthly troubles diminish. It is the latter that brings us these tradegies of Health & Wealth prosperity doctrines since the original premise is that Life with Jesus is supposed to produce temporal increase, despite Christ's claim that "In this world you will have tribulation.". From the spiritual aspect, Calvinism is opposite of the American Religion again. Calvinists generally believe that while the physical world is in battle, there is spiritual peace that comes from the Paraclete. Clearly the American Religion believes that through a complex system of quid pro quo, Jesus is the Great Santa Claus that know who has been bad or good and puts a Lexus in the driveway for those who prayed harder, or who showed the most self reform. As for spiritual peace, there is always the Christian Psychologist and the various Counseling and 12 Step Programs available at the church. Feel pain in your life? Take a pill and stop beating your spouse.
Calvinists view God with awe and reverence knowing that all things work for good to those who are within His will. Even salvation requires a change of heart before belief and faith can take place. IOW, The Spirit indwells prior to salvation. The American Religion says that man's heart is already good enough to recognize the gospel and to place within itself conviction. The indwelling of the Holy Spirit is optional (though strongly advised) and is sought through that complex system of good works in order to merit indwelling. The reformed teach man's heart is a mess and needs cleaning by the Spirit, the American Religion teaches that man needs to clean-up his heart first before the Spirit will come in.
In short, Calvinism is Theocentric. The American Religion is Anthropocentric. Calvinism recongizes God's Sovereignty for God's Glory. FWT/American Religion feels that it is all about man. It is man who is sovereign and it is man who receives the glory of salvation. Jesus Christ is nothing more than a Plush Toy Genie Jesus to the saved, and through the teachings of Dispensational Premillennialism (Pessimillennialism coined by others) Jesus Christ ironically "loves" the reprobate through remarkably profound violence and destruction.
It is hard to find two more dissimilar religions that claim to use the same textbook. It may be that the American Religion uses their Bible as a stage prop and couldn't care less to the contents unless fragments could be looted to compose pithy choruses, chants and bumper stickers.
"An enemy sowed weeds amongst the wheat."
I hope they stick to their principles.
Except that God's Will is bound to His Counsel, and man's will is bound to sin and death. Just as much as we would not expect God's Will to change, we have the same expectations for man. Now what does this have to do with the concept of "free-will"? No one here is denying that personal beings have a will, or is that the point, just bring up red herrings?
Both God and man choose for those who are believers
Let's cut to the chase. How many that God chooses do not come to salvation?
The man who accepts and believes in Jesus Christ is then by grace provided efficacious grace by the Holy Spirit to make that faith effective for salvation.
I am well aware of the anthropocentric teachings of man. I choose to get my doctrine from Scripture, not made up by people who are irked by God's Sovereignty. Given that the natural human state hates God (Romans 1:20) is an enemy of God (8:6-8), is a slave to sin, without righteousness, by nature a "child or wrath" in relation to God (6:19-20; Eph 2:1-3) doesn't understand the Gospel message and considers it foolish (1 Cor 2:14) is blinded to the Gospel command to repent of sin by Satan (2 Cor 4:4), and would prefer to be crushed to death by falling rocks rather than bow the knee to God (Rev 6:15-17) is going to overcome all of that from a spiritually dead state and "choose Christ"? Or is your response, in effect, a hand waving denial of clear Scripture?
Many legalistic Calvinists get the cart before the horse, believing that if man believes in Christ through faith in Him, that this usurps God's Soverignty...
First of all, this is a rhetorical question formed out of a presuppositional hypothetical is a logical response to the Free Will Theorist who rejects Scripture and keeps insisting on Free Will as the means of salvation. Since you folks won't accept the Bible, those who believe in the Doctrines of Grace in apparent futility try to reason with you using your own line of argument. (Oh, and the "legalist" Calvinst dig is a nice insertion. Who are these legalist Calvinists? Another strawman fiction?)
Such a theology misses the Soverignty of God because it omits His mandating man to have free will by His decree.
For it to be "theology", it must be a about God. One way in how we know about God is through His revealed Word. Now I know that there is no such Decree in the Canon of Scripture, so I wonder where you discovered this nugget about this alleged Divine Decree of man's Free Will. I could rant about the obvious internal contradiction
Job 15:15-16 "If God puts no trust in His saints, and the heavens are not pure in His sight, How much less man, who is abominable and filthy, who drinks iniquity like water!"
The Bible states right here that God can't even trust Moses, David, Abraham and "the saints". But you want to foist this idea that though God can't trust them, that God is more than willing (by Divine Decree even) to trust His perfect Will and Soveriengty to the wicked and unregenerated man. (excuse me while I laugh)
God neither usurps His decree nor abandons man,
Then may I reaquaint you with Romans 1 which is a chapter that devotes itself to describing the conditions on why God regularly abandons man.
but recognizes faith for righteousness because it isn't a work
That is a red herring also. Faith is a gift from God (see Ephesians 2:8; Gal 2:22-23). Even if it was a "work", it still originates from God. What do you think "God has dealt to each one a measure of faith" means? (Rom 12:3) What kind of self-serving heretic would take something that was given to him by God and claim that he didn't get it from God, but instead made it himself? This question doesn't even address the lunacy of thinking that a person who hates God and considers the Gospel foolish would on his own place his faith in that which he loathes and despises.
Since Christ has already died in sacrificial atonement for all sin, the wrath of God has already been answered.
Then why repent or use free-will for anything if all sin of every person has been paid for? You are saying that God the Father is unjust, in that if His Son paid the price for all sin of every person, 2000 years ago, then if anyone goes to Hell on account of sin then God is demanding double payment for sin. For the wages of sin is death. So riddle me this, how can anyone still be responsibile for the consequences of sin if Jesus Christ paid the price already? You are teaching the worst form of antinomianism in that because of Christ, there is no one who will go to Hell no matter what they think about God.
not to distract from the Calvinist's faith but to encourage him to further study how God also provides for man to have free will and remain obedient to Him while in fellowship with Him.
How arrogant of you! Here you provide absolutely no substantiation for your clearly anti-Biblical claims, then you say that it is the Calvinist's responsibility to make sense out of the irrational babblings of the Free Will Theorist. It appears to me that the Calvinist already has his homework finished and has merely echoed the words of the authors of Scripture. Free Will has no basis in Scripture, (hence the remarkable absence of it in any discussion of it and its hypothetical applicability to soteriology) and has to contradict most of Scripture in order to hold it.
No thanks, I don't need to wrest Scripture, I just need to remain firm.