Posted on 12/29/2001 1:02:06 PM PST by AndrewSshi
Why Do calvinists not answer questions, but just go off and quote a lot of what other people wrote. Have they actually realized if they do not have volition, (which may or may not be what they mean by, "free will,") they cannot think, and therefore can know nothing, since whatever thoughts they have are predestined and may or may not be true but since they have been predestined to believe they are true, they can never know for sure if they are or not.
Before you begin accusing someone of a heresy, you should ask if that is what they beleive, then you won't make the mistake of make a huge argument against something not remotely related to an individual's beliefs.
If anyone would care to go back and demonstrate how the Bible verses quoted to do not what anyone can see they plainly say, please do. I am not interested in the teaching of men, that's what got the Pharisees in so much trouble, much like the denominational Parisees of today.
Matt. 15:9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. (Read Augustine, Calvin, Luther, etc.)
Mark 7:7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. (Read Augustine, Calvin, Luther, etc.)
Col. 2:22 Which all are to perish with the using;) after the commandments and doctrines of men? (Read Augustine, Calvin, Luther, etc.)
Tit. 1:14 Not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth. (Read Augustine, Calvin, Luther, etc.)
Hank
And Calvin could say, "Imagine that, [I became] an Augustinian [merely] by reading the Bible!" :D
An intellectually honest, teachable spirit, in whom is the Holy Spirit, who will be reading the Bible like a Berean, could never arrive at the Pelagian, or Semi-Pelagian, conclusion.
The Truth of God has been nailed down in this thread and the only thing left to those professing Christians who hold to man-centered religions is either to:
[1] Attack the messenger: Make *personal* [ad-hominem] attacks against a person's character rather than his contentions. or ....
[2] Attack the Bible: (a) It *contains* the infallible Word of God, but it is full of irrelevant noise and has some errors, so each of us must be careful and let the Holy Spirit speak to our spirit as to what's true and what isn't, and how to properly interpret it. Or (b) It was written by men -- therefore is not infallible -- therefore we can't use it for doctrinal Truth, only for moral teaching. Each person has his own "walk". All religious paths lead to God. Or (c) The Bible is some of the infallible Word of God, but God reveals "ADDITIONAL" (new) truth to the one "infallible agent of Christ", who gets to "interpret" the Bible FOR us, and also to interpret what "traditions of the church" are "correct".
"For is God the God of the Jews only?"
St. Paul tells you exactly what "works of the Law" means in this passage: it's the ceremonial Law of the Sinai Covenant, most especially circumcision.
The Holy Spirit is incapable of self-contradiction. Any theology which dismisses James 2 by setting Romans or Galatians up in contradiction to it is a false theology. Unless, of course, you're prepared to argue, as Luther did, that James is not Scripture at all.
This is not even an appropriate question, Hank, so why should I answer it?
Go back and read all of the Predestination threads. You will discover that I rarely quote Calvin or Luther or Augustine.
I do happen to know what the important Bible teachers have noticed from the Bible. But so what? I am merely open-minded enough to read their sermons thoughtfully to see if they are Scripturally correct.
I don't think you are very open-minded. You just scoff at the Bible teachers in Church history, refusing the consider even the possibility that they were sometimes a lot more insightful than you and your own denominational movement. That's not a spiritually noble attitude. It is demonically smug.
Sometimes the smugness is just characteristic of a weirdly carnal, unteachable Christian. Ah, but some "carnal Christians" aren't Christians at all.
(For example, you defend the institution of your "priesthood" on the basis of OT Law. But the Book of Hebrews tells you that you need to stop doing this. The OT was typological. Its institutions are not normative for the Church. This is seen in the very fact that the New Testament specifically declares that ALL true believers are priests. Your determination to continue the OT system militates against this.)
Besides, I don't think Luther ever clearly denied that the Epistle of James is in the Canon of Scripture. Some of his warmest, most practical sermons were from the Epistle of James. And there were quite a lot of these sermons.
Luther did refer to the Epistle of James as "an epistle of straw." I will not try to defend his statement. But I will point out that he was ultimately maintaining what I have maintained throughout this thread. The Epistle of James is necessarily subordinated to the systematic-theological Book of Romans. You can't sum James and Paul and come up with a proper doctrine of justification.
A statement posed by you and answered in the Pelagianism post: If you think Jesus was teaching that sinners sin because their nature makes them sin, you have no idea what sin is. Do you think sin is something that happens to you, and that God judges people for what happens to them? Find a good concordance and find out how many times the Bible says people will be judged according to their works. Do you just throw those verses out out?
Now, I do not throw out verses. Quote specific verses. But make no mistake, what you have said was directly addressed by the article. A verse for your consideration:
Romans 7:18 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.
Now, if this verse is true, and it is, then the natural man, who does not have the Spirit of God within him, does not even have the ability to do good. Oh, and BTW, the verses you quoted in your post do not help your position, but they do help Matchett-PI's and mine and docs and every other sincere Bible reader on this thread!
"I am the vine, ye are the branches. He that abideth in Me and I in Him, the same bringeth forth much fruit, for without Me ye can do nothing. If a man abide not in Me, he is cast forth as a branch and is withered; and men gather them and cast them into the fire, and they are burned. If ye abide in Me, and My words abide in you, ye shall ask what ye will, and it shall be done unto you. Herein is My Father glorified, that ye bear much fruit; so shall ye be My disciples.
Always about the glory of God! Are you now going to condemn me for quoting what Somebody Else wrote?
Now, if this verse is true, and it is, then the natural man, who does not have the Spirit of God within him, does not even have the ability to do good...
...Are you now going to condemn me for quoting what Somebody Else wrote?
First, I never condemn anyone and certainly not for quoting Scripture. I also do not accuse people of being insincere. I believe you are sincere. People can be sincerely mistaken.
Neither nature or "the natural man" is mentioned in chapter 7 of Romans. That is something you added. It is interesting that nature is so misunderstood, especially since Paul makes it so very clear. For example,
Rom. 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature.
Here Pual indicates that sin is against nature, not the result of it.
Rom 2:14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
Here Paul shows that mans nature can lead him to obey God's law. How is this possible if it is "totally depraved."
1 Cor. 11:14 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?
Now Paul has nature teaching what is shameful, and what is not. Interesting the Paul would pick something totally depraved and helplessly evil to illustrate decency.
As for Pual's words about his inability to do that which he would do, there is no reason to suppose a sinful nature from that. Sin is addicting and enslaving, and those who have chosen it, become it's helpless slaves.
John 8:34 Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin.
Rom. 6:16 Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?
2 Pe 2:19 While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption: for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage.
Is mankind deprave? Yes, by choice. We are all, before we are saved, servants of sin, by choice, and guilty of that choice. When Paul says, "his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness," it would be meaningless if man was required by his "sinful nature" to sin. There would be no question of "obeying" sin, because he would have no choice in the matter at all. But, in fact he does have a choice, and always chooses wrong, and is thus brought into bondage to sin. And it is this bondage that Paul was decrying.
Hank
The only difference between Paul in Romans 7 and a natural man is the Spirit of God. And all a natural man has is the inability to do good.
I'm going to have to go back into our posts as I haven't a clue what was discussed. I've been busy on another thread....
Question
True, or False?
I'll await your response.
What say you, oh silly sagacious one in the South?
You crack me up, Rommy. How about this one from sophomore year: Can God create a weight he cannot lift?
...silly, pseudo-sagacious sophisms in the South....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.