DJC49 wrote:
Perhaps YOU should onsider "butting out" BEFORE you label someone's POV a "rant" in the future! Somehow, you think you can initiate a mud slinging contest and come out unsoiled. Well, I've got news for you, "pal," it don't work like that!

DJC49 wrote:
Hahahahaha!
Sure it doesn't!
Keep trying to convince yourself of that.
How absurd!
When one speaks of "order" or "sequencing," there is an implicit and necessary reference to TIME -- whether it be in the mind of God or after "time" was created. And that's why I consider myself neither supra- nor infra-lapsarian: it's all so much mental theological gymnastics ... and folderol.
There is absolutely NO WAY that finite man, trapped in time, can determine the ORDER of eternal thoughts and "decrees" of an infinite God & then turn around and declare that it doesn't have anything to do with time!
"Order" presupposes time.

DJC49 wrote:
You haven't a clue because you are citing the WRONG post by *rogerant*! It's his post of 1/25/09 6:44 PM wherein *rogerant* explicitely states that:
"These aren't rants, they are The Gospel!"
Wake up, CU!

DJC49 wrote:
I'm sorry, but I never stated that I was either a Supra or Infra lapsarian, only that I held the "minority view" concerning the decrees of God. I SHOULD have been more precise and clarified that I hold to neither view -- i.e., that ALL the decrees of God are ETERNAL and have no particular point in Time when they were made since God made them OUTSIDE of Time ... before Time was ever created!

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.

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).."

DJC49 wrote:
If I'm not mistaken, there were 2 "rants" in the post to which you refer. Read them both carefully.
Each of the "rants" represent and is illustrative of one edge of the two-edged sword. Justice & Wrath (rant #1) as opposed to Mercy & Salvation (rant #2). Together, they show the Gospel of Righteousness, Truth, and Love.
I'm surprised you missed that!

DJC49 wrote:
I think you understand it INcorrectly. God's decree against the reprobate is indeed in reference to SINNERS and by extention, to their sin(s). ALL of mankind is in view; and ALL of mankind is "in Adam." God's counsels are righteous and good for the simple reason that God Himself makes them; and God does not reprobate without regard for their sin. God's reprobation PRESUPPOSES sin. Remember: Adam's fall did NOT surprise God, rather, it was decreed and in God's sovereignty and in Adam's freedom, it was fulfilled.

DJC49 wrote:
a] I am not *rogerant*
I KNOW his views and consider him a brother in Christ and don't like seeing him being misrepresented ... certainly not by someone who has been on this forum ONLY since Jan. 22

DJC49 wrote:
b] Thank you for the "compliment." However, the air of superiority is of YOUR perception

DJC49 wrote:
c] Affixing the label *Gospel* to his 2 "rants" is fairly accurate. The Gospel, like much of which is in the Bible (God's Word), is a two-edged sword.

DJC49 wrote:
It is indeed good news to those whom obey it and dreadful news to those who do not...
d] see [c]

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)

Are 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?

rogerant wrote:
Rant 1 response: Justice demanded that God judge Pharaoh, but in order that God's Glory and Power be revealed, He endured Pharaoh's disobedience and hardened his heart, until his sin was complete.
Rant 2 response: Both lumps are the same, dead in trespasses and sins, apart from God's predestinating the elect to eternal life and placing them "in Christ" at the cross. Then the Holy Spirit regenerates them and then they come to Christ.
These aren't rants, they are The Gospel!

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?

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

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.

The 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

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. ....

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?

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. ...

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".

or whatever wrote:
If you cannot identify the True interpretations and Biblical exegesis, provided by the Holy Spirit, which were recorded in History then perhaps you are not yet saved. Is that why you strive to salvation by your own effort?
You will be shocked to find that THIS happened in previous centuries as well as today.......
Quote
John 16:13 "Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come."
I pray the Lord may bring you into the whole counsel.

Dr. Phil wrote:
It is my understanding that works are any that are attempted to justify one's self to God. ....

I believe that John UK was quite correct in his definition because when you compare the scriptures it becomes evident that "the works of the law" are what is in mind. Even in your example of the Pharisees they wanted to be seen as outdoing others in their obedience to the law, and every minutiae of it.

Michael Hranek

John UK wrote:
......Those who believe are the elect.

Surely from a calvinistic point of view that sentence should read, "only the elect are those who will believe".

Arminians believe that Election is according to God's foreknowledge. Meaning that God foresaw who would believe and therefore elected them (albeit not as individuals but as a group). Arminians also believe that election is conditional - meaning that until one believes he/she is not one of the elect.

Will Friedum wrote:
Sounds right to me. Now please help my Calvinist understanding - Are the Calvinists saying that man does not have the free will to choose the narrow way or the broad way (after the Spirit's convicting power) because "believing" is a "work?"

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!

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.

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

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?"

John UK wrote:
Certainly not!