Bible Talk > Sound doctrine
predestination
Fat:
--- Quote from: Jack Koons on June 30, 2013, 11:53:12 am ---First of all, the reason for the serpents was because the people were murmuring. God said, to live, they had to look. Yes indeed, it took faith. It took faith that brought about action. If faith does cause action, it is worthless.
Jack
--- End quote ---
First of all I believe you meant to say if faith does not cause action it is worthless, James message.
I do not like to leave post unanswered that may mislead the casual reader. The reason God sent the serpent plague upon the Jews was to bring them to repentance, which it did. And as you pointed out the bronze serpent was held up as their salvation. The fiery serpents sent to plague the Jews was a general call for all the Jews to repent, they did not. But for those who did repent God gave them, by his saving grace, life. This story really has nothing to do with the subject of predestination or effect of calling. There were those in the camps that believed and there were those in the camps that did not believe. WHY< HOW COULD ANT OF THEM NOT BELIEVE AFTER ALL THEY HAD BEEN THROUGH? And I repeat myself this was a test of faith (believing). The question of predestination is about how those who believe came to believe.
Numbers 21:7 So the people came to Moses and said, "We have sinned, because we have spoken against the LORD and you; intercede with the LORD, that He may remove the serpents from us."
Jack Koons:
Fat,
I am going to address (in a little more detail), the "external" and "internal" call. However, since I have come to the realization that your particular view of Calvinism differs from others:
JN Horn posted:
"I am continually amazed in the number of people that believe replacement theology is the same as covenant theology."
You posted:
"Covenant theology is often referred to as "supersessionism," or "replacement theology" by its detractors, due to the perception that it teaches that God has abandoned the promises made to the Jews and has replaced the Jews with Christians as his chosen people in the earth. Covenant theologians deny that God has abandoned his promises to Israel, but see the fulfillment of the promises to Israel in the person and the work of the Messiah, Jesus of Nazareth, who established the church in organic continuity with Israel, not a separate replacement entity."
You also posted:
"This is from John Wesley the Arminian"
Why you would use the words of an Arminian to support calvinism is beyond me.
I would like you to explain how the internal call takes place. This way I can answer your points directly, without you telling me I'm not addressing your 'sect' of Calvinism.
Jack
Fat:
--- Quote ---Fat,
I am going to address (in a little more detail), the "external" and "internal" call. However, since I have come to the realization that your particular view of Calvinism differs from others:
JN Horn posted:
"I am continually amazed in the number of people that believe replacement theology is the same as covenant theology."
You posted:
"Covenant theology is often referred to as "supersessionism," or "replacement theology" by its detractors, due to the perception that it teaches that God has abandoned the promises made to the Jews and has replaced the Jews with Christians as his chosen people in the earth. Covenant theologians deny that God has abandoned his promises to Israel, but see the fulfillment of the promises to Israel in the person and the work of the Messiah, Jesus of Nazareth, who established the church in organic continuity with Israel, not a separate replacement entity."
You also posted:
"This is from John Wesley the Arminian"
Why you would use the words of an Arminian to support calvinism is beyond me.
I would like you to explain how the internal call takes place. This way I can answer your points directly, without you telling me I'm not addressing your 'sect' of Calvinism.
Jack
--- End quote ---
I'm posting from my phone so please excuse me Jack if it gets a little messy.
I can't answer for JB.
You can follow the link to the quote I posted on covenant theology .
You yourself have experienced the internal calling of the Holy Ghost. Remember that time when you were convicted of your sins and you realize that you needed to change your life and asked for the grace that Christ was offering you? At that time your life you could've no more said no to Christ then you could fly by flapping your arms, but you did have that choice. The extreme biblical example of effective calling was Paul on the road to Damascus.
You can look around in your church and see those that have received the external: not internal calling. I'm sure that you are aware that many of the people in your church who come every Sunday and participate are not saved. You see all over the world where people have heard the gospel and denied it.
--- Quote ---Why you would use the words of an Arminian to support calvinism is beyond me.
--- End quote ---
Wesley was not a bad man even Spurgeons praised him. After all even the broken clock is right twice a day.
Moss:
Phat
Look at the calling of Matthews I think is as extreme as that of Paul. A rich wealthy tax collector loved by the Romans and hated by the Jews.
Jack Koons:
Fat,
I would refer to your reference of "Wikipedia", except for the facts that: 1) The material in "Wikipedia" hardly give enough information to teach a "Calvinism 101" course; and 2) With language such as "some Calvinists believe" being used repetitiously, it is not suitable to use as a proper reference.
You stated:
"You yourself have experienced the internal calling of the Holy Ghost. Remember that time when you were convicted of your sins and you realize that you needed to change your life and asked for the grace that Christ was offering you? At that time your life you could've no more said no to Christ then you could fly by flapping your arms, but you did have that choice. The extreme biblical example of effective calling was Paul on the road to Damascus."
You just said a lot of things; so please allow me to 'break' this into smaller pieces.
1) "You yourself have experienced the internal calling of the Holy Ghost. "
I'm pleased to know that you believe that I have received the "internal" call of the Father, which would mean (according to you), that I am part of the "elect".
2) "Remember that time when you were convicted of your sins and you realize that you needed to change your life and asked for the grace that Christ was offering you?"
We really need to break this down even further.
A. "Remember that time when you were convicted of your sins ..."?
B. "and you realize that you needed to change your life ..."
C. "And asked for the grace that Christ was offering you?"
3) "At that time your life you could've no more said no to Christ then you could fly by flapping your arms, but you did have that choice."
A. "At that time your life you could've no more said no to Christ then you could fly by flapping your arms,"
B. "but you did have that choice."
4) "The extreme biblical example of effective calling was Paul on the road to Damascus."
Fat, what you are now getting into is the letter "I" in T.U.L.I.P.; Irresistible Grace. The only problem with your presentation is sentence 3), B. above: "but you did have that choice." (There are more "doctrinal issues", but in your actual presentation of Predestination, this is a problem.)
Your entire argument supporting predestination is that we don't have a choice (in case you weren't aware, that is the meaning of having a "free will".)
You just stated that I "did have that choice".
In sentence 3) A. "At that time your life you could've no more said no to Christ then you could fly by flapping your arms," you are saying I did not have the ability to say, "No"; but then say I had a choice in the same complete sentence.
All this time you have been saying, I had NO CHOICE; now, you just said, (about me), "but you did have that choice".
Jack
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version