|
|
USER COMMENTS BY CALVINIST UNDERSTANDING |
|
|
Page 1 | Page 9 · Found: 183 user comments posted recently. |
| | | |
|
|
1/26/09 2:16 PM |
Calvinist Understanding | | | |
|
Add new comment Reply to comment Report abuse
|
rogerant wrote: Teachers of Double Predestination include: John Bunyan, .....Wycliffe, Huss, Ridley, Hooper, Cranmer, Ussher, John Trapp, Thomas Goodwin, Thomas Manton (Chaplain to Cromwell), John Owen, Witsius, John Gill (predecessor of Spurgeon), A.W. Pink and MARTIN LUTHER. Read 'um all?Phil Johnson writes: "The term "double predestination" itself is often used in a misleading and ambiguous fashion. Some use it to mean nothing more than the view that the eternal destiny of both elect and reprobate is settled by the eternal decree of God. In that sense of the term, all genuine Calvinists hold to "double predestination" — and the fact that the destiny of the reprobate is eternally settled is clearly a biblical doctrine (cf. 1 Peter 2:8; Romans 9:22; Jude 4). But more often, the expression "double predestination" is employed as a pejorative term to describe the view of those who suggest that God is as active in keeping the reprobate out of heaven as He is in getting the elect in. (There's an even more sinister form of "double predestination," which suggests that God is as active in making the reprobate evil as He is in making the elect holy).." I do not wish to speak for John UK, but I would say, he is referring to the latter sense. |
|
|
1/26/09 8:33 AM |
Calvinist Understanding | | | |
|
Add new comment Reply to comment Report abuse
|
DJC49 wrote: I have been following the "back-and-forth" between you and *rogerant* and have found nowhere his asserting that all we have to do is pronounce woes on the reprobate. This is a fabrication, an idea, that you have conjured up entitrely in your own mind and then have attributed to *rogerant*. What I want to know is: where do you come up with this ... "stuff?" Huh? N.B.: in the greek, "stuff" = σκύβαλον (reference Phil 3:8) DJAre you also Rogerant? I am just trying to figure out why you feel the need to butt in as an apologist for him whenever you feel he is misrepresented? You also adopt an air of superiority in your postings. Presumably, you are a long standing Seminary Professor who has been lecturing on Theology for most of your life? Tell me DJ.. do you agree with Roger's post of 1/25/09 6:44 PM, where he tells us what in his view the gospel is? Now remember, being the impartial person that you are, that he did not say that this is part of the gospel... but that THIS IS the gospel! |
|
|
1/25/09 6:23 PM |
Calvinist Understanding | | | |
|
Add new comment Reply to comment Report abuse
|
rogerant wrote: Ranting and raving? What distinguishes between your posts and mine? Mine are arrogant and yours are gentle? Are you offended by the word reprobate? I am not any different than any other lump of clay apart from God's grace. What distinguishes you from any other? Rant 1: "And it is because of the fact that the reprobate desire not to believe and give thanks to God that God has the right (the divine prerogative) to do with them as He wills."This is a matter of justice, not an arbitrary prerogative. So he will do with them what justice demands. Rant 2: "..The reprobate do not want God's Holy love in Christ and they never will. They despise God's sovereign love and His right to do what He wants with them. ...." This seems a most odd statement, when you have already acknowledged that both lumps deserve the same fate! Would those from the lump unto honor have had a different attitude and viewpoint? If not, why predicate this solely to the reprobate? DJC49 Thanks for your concern. |
|
|
1/25/09 3:49 PM |
Calvinist Understanding | | | |
|
Add new comment Reply to comment Report abuse
|
Mike wrote: "But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, "Why have you made me like this?" Funny thing about this reply by Paul. He shows that a man can indeed resist God by asking such questions as- "Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?" By asking, the objector is replying "against God," according to Paul. Thus resisting him. Mike| New YorkThe passage is not talking about objecting against God... Habbakuk and Job did this. What it is referring to is "resisting God's will" and the rhetorical question "Who hath resisted his will?" becomes meaningless if the answer is anyone who chooses! In that event the Apostle's point is completely lost. Roger I think you are losing the picture. You rave and rant about the reprobate, but if the 2 lumps are from the same clay, which you concede, then they are equally vile before God, and equally deserving of the same end. Surely the point of the passage is that "God will have mercy on whom he will have mercy and whom he will he hardeneth".. in other words the basis of one's election is known to God alone. |
|
|
1/25/09 3:31 PM |
Calvinist Understanding | | | |
|
Add new comment Reply to comment Report abuse
|
Mike wrote: ....I disagree with the premise that if God "passes by" and leaves a sinner in his sinful state, that this requires no intervention on God's part. .... Mike|New York What is your view of predestination and election? Roger In your last post - are you arguing that God made the reprobate the sinners that they became in order to damn them? Will Friedum It is more a problem of perspective. If all of mankind (in their natural state) is in darkness and captives of the devil, hating all that is holy and in love with sin, then how are they to be brought to see their need to forgiveness and a new life? Is moral suasion sufficient in the case of a darkened mind still held in the grip of Satan, a will wedded to the lusts of the flesh, eyes bessotted with this world, and the heart at enmity with God? Can we allow God the exercise of his power to free the individual from all the shackles that prevent him viewing things aright and then coming freely to the Saviour for Salvation? |
|
|
1/24/09 7:23 PM |
Calvinist Understanding | | | |
|
Add new comment Reply to comment Report abuse
|
Mike wrote: ...However, God is omnipotent. Therefore he must be either willing to save, or unwilling to save. Both then would have to be chosen acts of his sovereign will. If he "passes over" the unchosen, leaving them in their natural estate, he has surely positively secured their destruction. ... Mike this is a debate amongst calvinists, so you have to understand that when the Calv. speaks of "positively secure" he means some intervention on the part of God. For God to "pass by" some, requires no intervention.The point is that from Romans 9, the Calv. understands that election to salvation is from eternity, without regard to anything that the sinner does. God is described as a Potter who from the same lump chooses some to honour and some to dishonour, meaning damnation. "Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth". The question then becomes.. "Does God have an active part in this having decreed it, or does he just leave whoever he wills in their sin - gives them up judicially to the fate that they themselves have chosen?". |
|
|
1/23/09 5:43 PM |
Calvinist Understanding | | | |
|
Add new comment Reply to comment Report abuse
|
Castanet wrote: Westminster Confession of Faith. Chapter 14. Of Saving Faith. 1. The grace of faith, whereby the elect are enabled to believe to the saving of their souls, is the work of the Spirit of Christ in their hearts, and is ordinarily wrought by the ministry of the Word; by which also, and by the administration of the sacraments and prayer, it is increased and strengthened. Heb 10:39. Eph 1:17-19; 2:8; 2 Cor 4:13. Rom 10:14, 17. Luke 17:5; Acts 20:32; Rom 1:16-17; 4:11; 1 Pet 2:2. "Faith is the principal work of the Holy Spirit (Institutes 3.1.4). Faith is the proper and entire work of the Holy Spirit (Institutes 3.1.4). We cannot quicken faith in ourselves or predispose ourselves for it in any way. There is not in us any commencement of faith or any preparation of it." John Calvin Commentary John 6:45 And he was Biblically correct! Typical! If you cannot find it in the Bible, go and find it in your confession of faith or your favorite Calv. author and quote them. |
|
|
1/23/09 5:04 PM |
Calvinist Understanding | | | |
|
Add new comment Reply to comment Report abuse
|
Will Friedum wrote: I'm sorry I don't understand. What did I call "works?" I thought I said that faith or belief is not a work. Having re-read your earlier post, I did misunderstand you, and I apologise for any confusion.To answer your question, If "faith" is not a "work", then whether a gift or not, it cannot ever be a "work"! Trust is something that we exercise every day. In conversion, through the Spirit's illumination and convicting power, we for the first time come to place our trust in the Saviour. There is no new faculty created in us: it is the same faculty that we had before but now inclined in a direction which without the Spirit's work it would not have taken. Castanet In answer to your John 6.37, permit me to refer you to John 12.32. |
|
|
1/23/09 10:57 AM |
Calvinist Understanding | | | |
|
Add new comment Reply to comment Report abuse
|
Will Friedum wrote: So if faith or belief is not a deed of the law, and therefore not a work as in "works," then whosoever repents and believes the gospel with his very own free will, after being stirred up by the Holy Spirit and realizing his wretched condition and the eternal consequence of it, is not earning his salvation by works. Is this correct "Calvinist Understanding?" There you go ... you are calling it "works". On what basis? Justify this scripturally, not philosophically. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|