Is Calvinism Wrong?

[Rosenritter]

Oh, I'm not complaining. I'm not impressed with anything you do/say. You preach 'false doctrine.' That makes you a 'false teacher.'

If you wish to level such a loaded accusation, please at least attempt to demonstrate sincerity by evidence and example of what you perceive to be "false doctrine." A one-liner smack talk smear approach is neither edifying nor productive and quickly resembles divisive trolling...

James 5:19-20 KJV
(19) Brethren, if any of you do err from the truth, and one convert him;
(20) Let him know, that he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins.

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

...

 

[glorydaz]

Well, I very much doubt that! I mean there is hardly anything more blatantly stated in the Bible than the fact that the Law was nailed to the cross.

Colossians 2: 9 For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily; 10 and you are complete in Him, who is the head of all principality and power.
Not Legalism but Christ

11 In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, 12 buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead. 13 And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses, 14 having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross. 15 Having disarmed principalities and powers, He made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them in it.

16 So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths, 17 which are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is of Christ. 18 Let no one cheat you of your reward, taking delight in false humility and worship of angels, intruding into those things which he has not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind, 19 and not holding fast to the Head, from whom all the body, nourished and knit together by joints and ligaments, grows with the increase that is from God.

20 Therefore, if you died with Christ from the basic principles of the world, why, as though living in the world, do you subject yourselves to regulations— 21 “Do not touch, do not taste, do not handle,” 22 which all concern things which perish with the using—according to the commandments and doctrines of men? 23 These things indeed have an appearance of wisdom in self-imposed religion, false humility, and neglect of the body, but are of no value against the indulgence of the flesh.​

That passage alon ought to completely shut the mouth of anyone who would deny that the Law was nailed to the cross.

But it also speaks directly to our discussion as well. If you died with Christ, neither Circumcison nor "Thou shalt not steal." nor any other aspect of the law can apply to you. Death is the last word the Law has to say.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Is it your intention to suggest that because there is some distinction made between the Ten Commandments that were physically written on stone tablets by God's own hand and the entirety of the Law of Moses which was based on the Ten Commandments but written down by Moses, that, therefore, the Ten Commandments are somehow still in effect?

As you pointed out very nicely, the Ten are not in effect for those who were crucified with Christ...those who are in Him. We no longer need the law, it's purpose has been served in us. But it wasn't the law itself that was nailed to the cross. It was the record of charges against us.

The Ten do still convict ungodly men of their sin. That was their purpose to begin with, and it remains so today.

Romans 3:19 Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.​

Even before God wrote the Ten on tables of stone, men knew not to covet their neighbor's wife. It went against their conscience which had been created in them by God. Romans 1:19-20 Romans 2:14-15

Gen. 12:17-18 And the Lord plagued Pharaoh and his house with great plagues because of Sarai Abram's wife. 18 And Pharaoh called Abram and said, What is this that thou hast done unto me? why didst thou not tell me that she was thy wife?​

 

[glorydaz]

I think that argument was (or at least it resembled) that "The Ten Commandments" were not part of the Law of Moses that was nailed to the cross, and that it was an Eternal Law ... that would always exist and always had existed "and would be written in our hearts?" Usually when someone says that the law was "nailed to the cross" they mean that it is abolished and of no more legal effect.

Conscience. :chew:

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

...

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

...

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

...

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

...

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

...

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

...

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

...

 

[Right Divider]

As you pointed out very nicely, the Ten are not in effect for those who were crucified with Christ...those who are in Him. We no longer need the law, it's purpose has been served in us. But it wasn't the law itself that was nailed to the cross. It was the record of charges against us.

:thumb:

 

[Rosenritter]

The Ten do still convict ungodly men of their sin. That was their purpose to begin with, and it remains so today.

Romans 3:19 Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.​

I cannot think of one instance in the Old Testament where the Gentiles were ever faulted for not observing the Sabbath day and for that matter neither can I find any record of Adam, Noah, or Abraham observing a sabbath. If the fourth commandment is but one of the Ten Commandments, a set of commandments for which God has never altered or amended from its original form, why would such be applied to the Gentile today?

It's either applicable in whole or inapplicable in whole. It's not like a lottery card where you get to pick your favorite three.

 

[Rosenritter]

Rosenritter, Have you become a Child of God and a member of the Body of Christ through, hearing the Gospel, that being, the Gospel of the grace of God and placing ALL your faith in the shedding of Christ's blood on the cross for the sins of ALL humanity? And, His subsequent resurrection?

Yes, provided that the question has no hidden tricks or caveats from grammatical errors or omissions.

 

[Rosenritter]

Rosenritter, do you 'Rightly Divide' the word of God or are you lost in an maelstrom of confusion, and ignorance?

Here's a question: are you capable of writing in a meaningful constructive sense without engaging in provocative and insulting trolling? Don't answer that with a yes or no, rather show me your answer by demonstration.

By the way, Rosenritter, you may ask 'Old GM' anything you wish, but first, answer the 'above' question.

Here's something constructive for the meantime. AMR posted it earlier, it is good reading.

https://frame-poythress.org/ebooks/understanding-dispensationalists/

So under the offer you made of "Ask Old GM Anything" here's what I'll ask: Will you read the contents of the link above before engaging in further provocation?

 

[Sherman]

​A reminder: Licenses to name call have been yanked. Address argument, not the TOL member.

 

[glorydaz]

I cannot think of one instance in the Old Testament where the Gentiles were ever faulted for not observing the Sabbath day

There is no instance recorded where they didn't rest, either. Do you think that proves something?

and for that matter neither can I find any record of Adam, Noah, or Abraham observing a sabbath.

What, no record of man resting?

Are you suggesting that it was an unknown fact that God rested on the 7th day and made it holy.

Gen. 2:2-3 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.​

We know that the Sabbath was made for man. Seems that knowledge was passed down.

Do you think Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord if he was not keeping the seventh day holy as had been passed down to him? There is no grace if there is nothing to condemn. Surely he didn't work seven days a week for all those years. And the children in Egypt....

Exodus 5:4-5 And the king of Egypt said unto them, Wherefore do ye, Moses and Aaron, let the people from their works? get you unto your burdens. 5 And Pharaoh said, Behold, the people of the land now are many, and ye make them rest from their burdens.​

This was before the 4th commandment was written on tablets of stone.

Exodus 16:25 And Moses said, Eat that to day; for to day is a sabbath unto the Lord: to day ye shall not find it in the field.​

If the fourth commandment is but one of the Ten Commandments, a set of commandments for which God has never altered or amended from its original form, why would such be applied to the Gentile today?

It's either applicable in applicable in whole or inapplicable in whole. It's not like a lottery card where you get to pick your favorite three.

If you have something to say, come right out and say it. Stop presuming you know what I might say or think. Beating around the bush like that is just sounding brass.

 

[glorydaz]

It's either applicable in whole or inapplicable in whole. It's not like a lottery card where you get to pick your favorite three.

Perhaps you might lose the condescending tone....especially before you lecture Old GM.

 

[glorydaz]

Here's a question: are you capable of writing in a meaningful constructive sense without engaging in provocative and insulting trolling? Don't answer that with a yes or no, rather show me your answer by demonstration.

I'll ask the same of you. But, I won't forbid you to answer with a yes or no. I'm well aware you are unable to demonstrate it.

 

[glorydaz]

Whether you were saying that specifically to taunt me or your eagerness to contradict meant that you write without reading or caring what you actually say, it still amounts to a problem with anger or aggression. That wasn't a trap; it was a sincere appeal that presumed that we were on the only side that actually mattered.

:kookoo:

Do you also remember (not soon thereafter) when I said I only wanted answers to four questions... "Do you attempt to love God (and your neighbor, and your enemy, and one another) in faith and belief?" Those weren't trick questions either, I never imagined that would be hard for any Christian. A heathen could see the right answer: that was also an outreach. You wouldn't answer those simple (redeeming) questions multiple times, later even mocking them as "magic questions."

Clete answered the questions... they weren't hard.

Spoiler

The expected answers were: Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.

That was after he explained what you are unable to grasp. I'll pull it up for you and show you once again. Personally, I refuse to play your game. Whereas Clete is a gentleman.

I am not looking for a fight, and if that is what you want you need to go elsewhere. You have not been falsely accused, and if you have warnings of some sort it is probably because of something Glorydaz has done rather than ignorance on someone else's part. Maybe things like "I believe you are attempting to deceive" (above) might play some sort of factor in such things.

It was because I used the "L" word, which I believe I proved, but you can deny it all you want. I'm not the only one to call you a false accuser. You are making a habit of it. Probably because you have no foundation for your beliefs and try to mix law and grace. Probably not purposeful...at least I hope not.

If want to talk constructively there is private message which is probably more appropriate and also absent from background chatter. Otherwise I don't think there's much to be gained from raging in public forums.

I have no desire to talk to you privately. You can't understand what I say, so it's counterproductive. I have addressed your silly questions, you just didn't understand my answers. I'll give them to you once again.