Is Calvinism Wrong?

[Grosnick Marowbe]

...

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

...

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

...

 

[Clete]

You are asking two separate questions. I'll answer them in reserve order:

1) Salvation has always been through faith and by grace; Grace is undeserved favor, God responds to faith with grace, Abraham and David (being examples from without and within the Law of Moses) were both justified by faith and not works of the law. All have sinned, but the forgiveness of sins is grace in action.

It seems you are intentionally missing the point.

I'm not going to repeat it again.

Also, you can quote the entire bible next time if you like. There is no way that Jesus taught the same gospel that Paul taught.

Jesus taught salvation by grace: "thy sins be forgiven thee", "for this thy brother was dead, and is alive again; and was lost, and now is found", "that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."

That isn't what I asked you.

Are you intentionally avoiding the point?

2) The law of Moses was an extension of the covenant with the Abraham, extending to the children of Israel and the Jews. While Jesus yet lived that covenant was in effect, and it remained in effect until they murdered the Prince of Life with whom the covenant had been made. The analogy to a marriage covenant is significant, as it is well understood that the is only binding until the death of one of the parties. Likewise, the new testament is made upon the blood of the testator, and the former covenant is called old, and waxes away. That covenant was severed when the veil of the temple was rent from the top to the bottom.

Not relevant.

Jesus did not teach against the Law of Moses (for the Jew) as that covenant had force while it yet remained (while he yet lived.) For those under that law obedience to that law was required (obedience unto the Lord is required of all who follow the Lord.) God has always required faith and obedience from our heart regardless of the specific law or commands that he has for us: in this God has not changed (Hebrews 13:8).

Thank you for conceding the debate.

I literally cannot tell if you've missed the point or if you've got the point and are ignoring it.

Jesus confirmed the Law of Moses because Jesus taught that the Law of Moses led to Him. The Law of Moses never carried the promise of salvation unto eternal life; that has always been of the grace of God. Jesus (God) carries the promise of salvation unto eternal life, and that is the gospel of life and immortality brought to light (2 Timothy 1:10).

It's worse than that. The Jews had no promise of heaven - and still don't. Their promise is and has always been Earthly. It is they who will inheret and occupy the New Earth.

Without Paul (had he resisted) God would have raised up someone else or explained in another way until the understanding finally dawned. We would have someone else writing to us of how Abraham and David were justified by faith apart from works of the law.

If what you are saying is true then there was no need for Paul at all!

Where's the need for a thirteenth Apostle when He had Twelve, fully trained and Holy Spirit indwelt, Apostles?

It seems to me that you are mixing several assumptions, namely: first, that the Law of Moses under the old covenant contained salvation in itself; second, that the covenant at Sinai could extend beyond the children of Israel to whom it was offered; and third, that the covenant would still be in effect between the two parties after one party murdered the other party.

Paul explains that Isreal was cut off but not because of the Cross. Jesus Himself forgave them of His murder while He was on the cross. God cut off Israel because the refused to repent and accept Him as their Messiah. But when God cut Israel off, He didn't cut off those that believed! He didn't cut off the Twelve and their converts. (Romans 9-11)

Jesus commanded Peter to come out on the water. If Peter had not attempted to fulfill the command, he would not have walked as far as he did, he would have never walked at all. Our walk with God is not without sacrifice or effort, we run, we fight, we strive for the gospel's sake.

Peter was under the law!

And didn't Jesus first require something from this man? Did he not require faith as the grain of mustard seed before helping his unbelief?

Jesus was under the Law, obeyed the Law and tiaght others to do the same. This point of yours makes no sense.

Please, let's not get lost in tiny semantics? The opposite of "to attempt" is "to not attempt" and if one "attempts not" to obey "Love God" in faith and belief can God possibly be pleased?

2 Timothy 2:13 If we are faithless, He remains faithful; He cannot deny Himself.

And is God not pleased with the sacrifices of the broken and contrite heart?

Dead (crucified) hearts cannot be broken and contrite. The law does NOT apply to me!

I have seen some people have a reflex reaction against the word "obedience" even objecting to the hymn "Trust and obey, for there is no other way."Obedience should cause no offense to those under grace.

'Trust and Obey' is the most disgusting distortion of the gospel that has ever been penned in the English language! It is an afront to God's grace to even hum the tune, never mind sing it.

Romans 6:15-17 KJV
(15) What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.
(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?
(17) But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you.

Romans 16:25-26 KJV
(25) Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began,
(26) But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith:

This is impossible. I am talking to a blind man about rainbows.

You quote scriptures that crush your own position to powder as though they are proof texts.

There is no rational way to proceed from here.

What truths supposedly cannot be found from Jesus before the cross?

Not much more than nearly everything that you'd consider essential to the Christain faith and practice.

Without Paul you would be a practicing Messianic Jew. To the extent you are not you have Paul and Paul alone to thank for it.

Resting in Him,
Clete

P.S. If I sound angry, I'm not. I'm just frustrated that it's so damn impossible to have this conversation with seemingly anyone. It hits this exact same wall every single time. You argued against your own position but you will not ever see it unless/until God Himself showes it to you. Agonizing!

 

[Clete]

While some of that looks pretty good; some of it looks a bit contrived to me.


Perhaps.


Perhaps.


Sure, buy me a copy.

Like I said, what I presented was merely a brief and cursory presentation of that material. Bob does an excellent job of establishing it biblically in that book. It isn't a stretch to say that the entire bible is about those two trees in the Garden of Eden. It's not just about the Fall of Adam (mankind); it's the Flood, the law, the cross, and even Heaven itself. It's one of the clearest proofs that the Bible has but One Author.

Call 1-800-8ENYART and tell him that Clete told you to call because you're interested in this connection between the Law and the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. The best thing to get would be his book but he'll have other stuff that might be easier to afford.

Clete

Clete

 

[Clete]

I really do not understand WHY a 'reader' of the New Testament cannot see the (obvious) contradictions involved when they (The reader) look at 'Paul's writings' that being, Romans through Philemon, and the writings of those meant for the House of Israel? (Those books, written outside of Romans through Philemon.)

It's a paradigm thing, GM.

I swear it's the most overwhelmingly difficult obstacle to getting people to see the obvious that I've ever heard of.

 

[Rosenritter]

Jesus said that their trespasses WOULD BE forgiven ONLY if they forgave others their trespasses.

Paul said that OUR trespasses were ALL ALREADY forgiven.

Col 2:13 KJV And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;​

Things that are different are not the same.

Divider, I supplied the whole text in the spoiler. Whatever you were reading, it wasn't Jesus. Try again please:

Matthew 18:32-35 KJV
(32) Then his lord, after that he had called him, said unto him, O thou wicked servant, I forgave thee all that debt, because thou desiredst me:
(33) Shouldest not thou also have had compassion on thy fellowservant, even as I had pity on thee?
(34) And his lord was wroth, and delivered him to the tormentors, till he should pay all that was due unto him.
(35) So likewise shall my heavenly Father do also unto you, if ye from your hearts forgive not every one his brother their trespasses.

Grace is applied as the a free gift, "because thou desiredst me." Was this earned? No. Was this paid for? No. Was it deserved? No. The servant was forgiven all his trespasses (Col 2:13). The Lord absorbed the entirety of the debt and paid the price himself.

It seems that you do not yet understand the full nature of grace. God's grace is unearned but it is not unconditional. Somehow your internal reasoning allows you to reject Christ's words as being applicable to yourself? How does that work exactly? Do you propose that God is that double-minded and inconsistent?

Hebrews 10:26-29 KJV
(26) For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,
(27) But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.
(28) He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:
(29) Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?

Grace is the gift of God, his to bestow, and his to decide upon whom he will bestow this grace. He is willing to forgive us our trespass, but this forgiveness can and will be revoked if we are unwilling to forgive others. These are the words of Jesus, which in case you have forgotten, is our GOD and CREATOR. If anyone knows what he is talking about, this is HE.

... and if Jesus was not sufficient, we have Hebrews specifically talking about those that despite unto the Spirit of grace.

 

[glorydaz]

Perhaps you aren't familiar with the truism, that you cannot prove a negative? It is the one that asserts a positive of whom proof is required. Since you now seem to be familiar with the example, it would be like you asking me to prove that an invisible flying spaghetti monster isn't orbiting Pluto.

Cool, you're the one trying to prove a negative. opcorn:

As shown by the same passage you posted, the commandment ordaining the seventh day as a sabbath to Israel was not given until the time of Moses. It points back to the seventh day of creation when God Himself rested from the act of creation. It does not ordain a sabbath for man, even however much you try to read that back into it with eisegesis.

Eisegesis is the process of interpreting a text or portion of text in such a way that the process introduces one's own presuppositions, agendas, or biases into and onto the text. This is commonly referred to as reading into the text.The act is often used to "prove" a pre-held point of concern to the reader and to provide him or her with confirmation bias in accordance with his or her pre-held agenda.

More condescension? Do you never tire of it?

You're the one with pre-held beliefs.

You're two for two so far. opcorn:

Before you said you couldn't make heads or tails of it. If you now understand his point, then please explain what Gill had to say in your own words.

Your partial quote of Gill made no sense. And now that I've gone back to what he actually said, I see he is missing what is obvious. I searched out my own commentator, and you may have the privilege of reading what Barnes has to say on this issue. It's right on.

The solemn act of blessing and hallowing is the institution of a perpetual order of seventh-day rest: in the same manner as the blessing of the animals denoted a perpetuity of self-multiplication, and the blessing of man indicated further a perpetuity of dominion over the earth and its products. The present record is a sufficient proof that the original institution was never forgotten by man. If it had ceased to be observed by mankind, the intervening event of the fall would have been sufficient to account for its discontinuance. It is not, indeed, the manner of Scripture, especially in a record that often deals with centuries of time, to note the ordinary recurrence of a seventh-day rest, or any other periodical festival, even though it may have taken firm hold among the hereditary customs of social life. Yet incidental traces of the keeping of the Sabbath are found in the record of the deluge, when the sacred writer has occasion to notice short intervals of time. The measurement of time by weeks then appears Genesis 8:10, Genesis 8:12. The same division of time again comes up in the history of Jacob Genesis 29:27-28. This unit of measure is traceable to nothing but the institution of the seventh-day rest. This institution is a new evidence that we have arrived at the stage of rational creatures. The number of days employed in the work of creation shows that we are come to the times of man. The distinction of times would have no meaning to the irrational world. But apart from this consideration, the seventh-day rest is not an ordinance of nature. It makes no mark in the succession of physical things. It has no palpable effect on the merely animal world. The sun rises, the moon and the stars pursue their course; the plants grow, the flowers blow, the fruit ripens; the brute animal seeks its food and provides for its young on this as on other days. The Sabbath, therefore, is founded, not in nature, but in history. Its periodical return is marked by the numeration of seven days. It appeals not to instinct, but to memory, to intelligence. A reason is assigned for its observance; and this itself is a step above mere sense, an indication that the era of man has begun. The reason is thus expressed: “Because in it he had rested from all his work.” This reason is found in the procedure of God; and God himself, as well as all his ways, man alone is competent in any measure to apprehend. https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/bnb/genesis-2.html​

And Clarke.

Spoiler

And God blessed the seventh day - The original word ברך barach, which is generally rendered to bless, has a very extensive meaning. It is frequently used in Scripture in the sense of speaking good of or to a person; and hence literally and properly rendered by the Septuagint ευλογησεν, from ευ, good or well, and λεγω, I speak. So God has spoken well of the Sabbath, and good to them who conscientiously observe it. Blessing is applied both to God and man: when God is said to bless, we generally understand by the expression that he communicates some good; but when man is said to bless God, we surely cannot imagine that he bestows any gifts or confers any benefit on his Maker. When God is said to bless, either in the Old or New Testament, it signifies his speaking good To man; and this comprises the whole of his exceeding great and precious promises. And when man is said to bless God, it ever implies that he speaks good Of him, for the giving and fulfillment of his promises. This observation will be of general use in considering the various places where the word occurs in the sacred writings. Reader, God blesses thee when by his promises he speaks good To thee; and thou dost bless him when, from a consciousness of his kindness to thy body and soul, thou art thankful to him, and speakest good of his name.

Because that in it he had rested - שבת shabath, he rested; hence Sabbath, the name of the seventh day, signifying a day of rest - rest to the body from labor and toil, and rest to the soul from all worldly care and anxieties. He who labors with his mind by worldly schemes and plans on the Sabbath day is as culpable as he who labors with his hands in his accustomed calling. It is by the authority of God that the Sabbath is set apart for rest and religious purposes, as the six days of the week are appointed for labor. How wise is this provision! It is essentially necessary, not only to the body of man, but to all the animals employed in his service: take this away and the labor is too great, both man and beast would fail under it. Without this consecrated day religion itself would fail, and the human mind, becoming sensualized, would soon forget its origin and end. Even as a political regulation, it is one of the wisest and most beneficent in its effects of any ever instituted. Those who habitually disregard its moral obligation are, to a man, not only good for nothing, but are wretched in themselves, a curse to society, and often end their lives miserably. See Clarke's note on Exodus 20:8; See Clarke's note on Exodus 23:12; See Clarke's note on Exodus 24:16; and See Clarke's note on Exodus 31:13; to which the reader is particularly desired to refer.

As God formed both the mind and body of man on principles of activity, so he assigned him proper employment; and it is his decree that the mind shall improve by exercise, and the body find increase of vigor and health in honest labor. He who idles away his time in the six days is equally culpable in the sight of God as he who works on the seventh. The idle person is ordinarily clothed with rags, and the Sabbath-breakers frequently come to an ignominious death. Reader, beware.https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/acc/genesis-2.html

It's called considering the different evidences concerning a question on their merits. John Gill is not correct in his every opinion, but he does take a high view of scripture rather than engaging in heated emotional argument. I would wait for your restatement here to ensure that you recognize the point in question.

Then, by all means, consider the different evidences given by Barnes and Clarke. I would wait for your restatement here, but I won't hold my breath.

Looking one step ahead here and assuming that you will answer in good faith, I have another question for you. What is the meaning of a "clean animal" compared to an "unclean animal?" If you can answer this now it will save some time for testing Gill's answer.

:rotfl:

... and one more thing.

Even if you think you have stated this previously, would you please restate or confirm your understanding of:

1) the purpose of the sabbath,
2) when it was commanded,
3) to whom was commanded,
4) when it was made known,
5) and whether it part of the covenant or separate from the covenant?

You'll need to go back to the basics before we go forward.

And one more thing. You haven't given me an answer on the PURPOSE OF THE LAW, yet.

Back to step one for you.

 

[Rosenritter]

Your problem is, you don't 'Rightly Divide' the word of God! Jesus 'earthly ministry' was to the House of Israel. (Jews) Jesus was preaching the 'Kingdom Gospel.' The 'Gospel of the grace of God' was preached, first to the Jews, (by Paul) then, to the Gentiles. The Apostle Paul was the 'Apostle to the Gentiles.'

So if I first adopt this paradigm, I can then force all scripture to be read under this paradigm and thus am free to ignore the direct words of Christ?

 

[glorydaz]

Divider,

It seems that you do not yet understand the full nature of grace.

Are we having fun yet? :rotfl:

 

[Clete]

The knowledge of good and evil could also mean that humanity would literally learn the full extent of good and evil through the harshest teacher of all, personal experience. "Experience is the best teacher, and a fool will know no other school." When Adam and Eve set themselves up as gods to know (judge, experience) good and evil, they (metaphorically) opened Pandora's box and now we also inherit that curse.

It only takes a little poison to render the finest food as deadly. It only takes a little evil to result in this world that we have made evil from its starting point of "very good" in Eden. Left to continue we would murder every one and every thing until "no flesh should be saved alive." It was a really stupid choice spurred on by the serpent through vanity, but humanity is such that we refuse to "believe until we see it for ourselves."

The alternative would have been the Tree of Life unto immortality and eternal life through faith in God, that through love and obedience he really did have the best for us, far better than the serpent's temptation of becoming "as gods" and trying to do a better job ourselves.

The ultimate alternative was God Himself. The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil was a shortcut, an alternative to God, just as is the Law today.

 

[Clete]

So if I first adopt this paradigm, I can then force all scripture to be read under this paradigm and thus am free to ignore the direct words of Christ?

Just the exact opposite.

The EXACT opposite!

 

[Rosenritter]

Are you really suggesting that Jesus didn't teach that following the Mosaic Law was required and that He taught salvation by grace?

Jesus taught salvation by grace: "thy sins be forgiven thee", "for this thy brother was dead, and is alive again; and was lost, and now is found", "that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."

That isn't what I asked you. Are you intentionally avoiding the point?

Come again? That wasn't what was asked? Clete, have you considered that perhaps your own paradigm could also interfere as well?

 

[glorydaz]

No, it does not mean literal (physical) adultery with stones and rocks.

And, no, adultery in the Bible is used in many different ways.

Further past this you say it isn't literal but continue to deny that idolatry is being compared to adultery, But if it isn't being used as a comparison (a metaphor or a figure) that only leaves the actual or literal sense. Your own words are contradicting themselves.



Yes, it is a lot of work because you won't speak clearly. If you argue that Israel was actually committing adultery with rocks and stones, then you literally do not know the difference ... or were you trolling? If you don't want to be spoken down to, please be forthcoming.

Come now, if you will speak saying that Israel was symbolically committing adultery, or metaphorically committing adultery, or that the personification of Israel was figuratively committing adultery, then we are all speaking English again.

The meaning of the word adultery does not literally apply to stocks and stones; the commandment against adultery not does not speak against idolatry. There's a reason Israel was given a separate commandment for that.

Jeremiah 3:9 KJV
(9) And it came to pass through the lightness of her whoredom, that she defiled the land, and committed adultery with stones and with stocks.

Can we therefore agree that Jeremiah 3:9 uses the word adultery in the metaphorical sense rather than the literal sense? (yes/no)

Asked and answered.

 

[Right Divider]

Divider, I supplied the whole text in the spoiler. Whatever you were reading, it wasn't Jesus. Try again please:

What in the world do you mean by that?

I quoted two scriptures of whom Jesus is the author.

 

[glorydaz]

Jesus said that their trespasses WOULD BE forgiven ONLY if they forgave others their trespasses.

Paul said that OUR trespasses were ALL ALREADY forgiven.

Col 2:13 KJV And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;​

Things that are different are not the same.

Right, you got the grace, and here's the law without grace. :thumb:

Matthew 6:14-15
For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you: But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.​

]

 

[Right Divider]

So if I first adopt this paradigm, I can then force all scripture to be read under this paradigm and thus am free to ignore the direct words of Christ?

This is almost ALWAYS the excuse for wrongly preaching the Word.

Christ inspired the ENTIRE BIBLE. No part of the Bible is less "the direct words of Christ".

 

[Right Divider]

Right, you got the grace, and here's the law without grace. :thumb:

Matthew 6:14-15
For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you: But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.​

See: http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?130626-Is-Calvinism-Wrong&p=5281586&viewfull=1#post5281586

 

[glorydaz]

No, it does not mean literal (physical) adultery with stones and rocks.

And, no, adultery in the Bible is used in many different ways.

I really do not understand WHY a 'reader' of the New Testament cannot see the (obvious) contradictions involved when they (The reader) look at 'Paul's writings' that being, Romans through Philemon, and the writings of those meant for the House of Israel? (Those books, written outside of Romans through Philemon.)

I didn't see it for years, but now that I do, it makes total sense of all those things that didn't before.

 

[glorydaz]

No, it does not mean literal (physical) adultery with stones and rocks.

And, no, adultery in the Bible is used in many different ways.

See: http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?130626-Is-Calvinism-Wrong&p=5281586&viewfull=1#post5281586

Ha...serves me right for reading from the bottom up instead of starting of where I ended before. :thumb: