We Calvinists

There is a great deal of anti-Calvinism rhetoric recently on the internet. Therefore, following is a brief response to some of their attacks.
First of all, there is a great deal of misrepresentation by anti-Calvinists of what Calvinism actually is. This is to be expected when something is attacked. After all, you don't want to present what you attack in a good light. You want to present it in the worst possible light. This is exactly what is done. Some anti-Calvinists go so far as to present Calvin's involvement with Servetus as proof that he was a bad person. The implication is that if Calvin was bad, then how could his writings be of God? Of course, this is called the genetic fallacy and is an error of logic on their part where they try and attack the person instead of the doctrine. This fallacy hasn't stopped the anti's from continuing to use the tactic. Nevertheless, regarding Servetus.

Servetus

Servetus was considered a heretic, a teacher of false doctrines because he denied biblical Christianity. Executions for heresy were common in Calvin's time...after the Peasants' War in Germany, after the siege of Munster...In England 39 people were burned at the stake for heresy between 1547 and 1550, etc. If one says that Calvin was in error in agreeing with the execution of heretics then why is there not equal indignation against all the other leaders who did the same thing? Furthermore, Calvin went France to meet Servetus to try and convert him to the Christianity. In Catholic France Calvin would have been executed as a heretic himself if he had been caught. Yet, Calvin went to France at the risk of his own life to speak to Servetus. Is this the work of an "evil" man who "murdered" Servetus as so many anti-Calvinists proclaim?
But, Servetus did not heed the warning of Calvin and he went to Geneva anyway. After Servetus was arrested and condemned by the council as a heretic. Calvin pleaded with the members of the council saying that if Servetus was going to have to be put to death, that he be beheaded and not burned, since burning was too cruel. But, Servetus was burned at the stake nonetheless on Oct. 26, 1553.
Furthermore, it was the law of Geneva that heretics be killed. So, it was a lawful execution according to scripture (Rom. 13:1-2). Calvin was not the prosecutor in Geneva. He was only a witness and as a witness, he did not have the power to have Servetus executed. Are the anti-Calvinists interested in a fair representation of Calvin regarding Servetus? Apparently not since these points are never raised by them.

Misrepresentation

Anti-Calvinists think they accurately represent Calvinist doctrines completely and faithfully, and that it is we who are not representing Christ properly. They speak about the freedom of choice, about God's love for all people, how He died for everyone, and about how Calvinism often presents God as a horrible, uncaring, and unfair being.
I certainly understand the sentiments of those who would consider the theology of Calvinism in such unflattering and negative terms. After all, who would want to believe in a God who forces someone to believe in Him, who doesn't love everyone enough to die for all of them, who shows favoritism by picking one person over another, and who predestines people to be saved in spite of what they want -- even if they want to pick God -- and makes others for the express purpose of going to hell without any chance of be saved. That is how Calvinism is represented and so it is a misrepresentation. Far too many of anti-Calvinists present Reformed theology (Calvinism) only in the terms that satisfy their agenda and they give it an ugly face from which we are expected to recoil.
They constantly misrepresent our position and when we point it out to them and use scripture upon scripture (as I will later in this paper) to substantiate our position, they say that we are the ones either misrepresenting Calvinism and the Bible or that we don't know what Calvinism really teaches. Sometimes, they go so far as to quote one or two verses and pronounce Calvinism defeated, not realizing that we have responses to their positions. We Calvinists, in spite of what the anti's will admit, actually do read and study the Bible. That is why we are Calvinists. We are not surprised by their "proof texts" nor are we dismayed by them.
Why would we Calvinist believe what we do? Are we so blind we can't see the clear teaching of Scripture -- as the anti's repeatedly state? Are we so hardened in our hearts that we cannot understand the love of God for all people? Are we so given over to our sordid agendas that we twist God's word to suit our own depraved and vile needs? Well, that is what so many of the anti's imply and actually say about us. Sometimes I feel they would treat us as Servetus was treated in Geneva -- that is actually the impression I have received from many anti-Calvinists when they spew forth their hatred of Reformed Theology.

What we Calvinists believe about sin

We Calvinists see the reality and the severity of sin upon us. We recognize and we admit that sin is so powerful that it has incapacitated our ability to be holy. It has removed our ability to please God in any way (Rom. 3:10-12) even by our sincerity of choice. We believe that even our so called sincerity is touched by sin and is, therefore, unacceptable to God. We believe that our sinfulness kills us, insulates us, and makes us unable to freely choose God of our own free will (John 1:13). We believe this because we believe the Scriptures teach us that the sinner, the unregenerate, is a slave of sin (Rom. 6:14-20), dead in his sins (Eph. 2:1), cannot understand spiritual things (1 Cor. 2:14), and does not seek for God (Rom. 3:10-12). We believe that such a person described in scripture is necessarily unable to believe by his own free will because his own free will can only follow its sinful tendencies. Remember, the unbeliever is full of evil (Mark 7:21-23), possess a sinful and deceitful heart (Jer. 17:9), and cannot understand spiritual things (1 Cor. 2:14). Therefore, we believe that the unregenerate sinner will act in a manner consistent with his sinfulness and that he does have the freedom to choose whatever he desires -- and he desires to choose sin. We believe God's word.

Then why does God command that people believe?

Why would God then tell people to believe and repent of their sins if they are slaves of sin and cannot? Wouldn't that would be cruel to require someone to do that which they cannot do? Such is the anti-Calvinists complaint. Nevertheless, God requires that we be holy. He says, "You shall be holy, for I am holy,” (1 Pet. 1:16). Who among us would claim that we can be holy even when God commands that we be? Not I. The simple fact is that God does require of us what we cannot do, not because He is mean, but because He is the standard of righteousness and holiness. The standard does not become invalid because of someones failure to keep it. He commands that we repent (Acts 17:30), yet it is God who grants repentance (2 Tim. 2:25). He commands that we believe in Him (Exodus 20:1-3), yet He grants that we believe (Phil. 1:29). God commands that which is holy and right even if we cannot accomplish it. Yet, He grants the ability to people to do that which they cannot do themselves. Therefore, God gets the glory. Merely saying that God tells people to believe doesn't mean they can believe anymore than God commands that we stop sinning means that we can.

Whosoever

But, the anti-Calvinists respond by saying that the Bible tells us "... whoever believes in Him should not perish," (John 3:16). Therefore, the "whosoever" proves that the unbeliever can freely choose God -- in spite of his sinfulness. But this is no proof of their position. It is proof only that whoever believes in Jesus will not perish. Who are those who believe? The ones who believe are those who have been appointed to eternal life, "And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord; and as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed," (Acts 13:48). The ones who believe are those who have been granted to believe, "For to you it has been granted for Christ’s sake, not only to believe in Him, but also to suffer for His sake," (Phil. 1:29). The ones who believe are those who have been born again not of their own wills, "who were born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God," (John 1:13). The ones who believe are those who have experienced the work of God in them -- for our believing is God's work, "They said therefore to Him, “What shall we do, that we may work the works of God?” ²⁹ Jesus answered and said to them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent,” (John 6:28-29).
These kinds of scriptures are almost never referenced by the anti-Calvinists because they support our position too strongly. Instead, we are told that they are out of context or that somehow we misrepresent the Bible. Well then, read them in context. They say what they say and we Calvinists believe them.

What we Calvinists believe about predestination

We Calvinist further believe that the enslavement of the wills of the sinner to sin (Rom. 6:14-20) and that it has incapacitated the freedom of the unregenerate so much that this necessitates the intervening work of God. We believe that if God did not intervene by predestining sinners to salvation, that no one would ever be saved. We rightfully admit that the cross of Christ is the only way by which anyone can be saved from the righteous judgment of God's wrath upon the sinner and that this salvation is by grace through faith (Eph. 2:8-9; Rom. 5:1). Therefore, we believe that God must predestined us to salvation according to the kind intention of His will according to His purpose (Eph. 1:3-5). This means that we see God's predestination as a very loving act of His will because without it, all of us would be lost. Yet, the anti-Calvinists refuse to see this. They claim that the Reformed doctrine of predestination shows favoritism on God's part, all the while failing to see that their own interpretation of predestination (that God looks into the future to see who would pick Him) is exactly what shows favoritism. How so? If God looks to the future to see who will pick Him and then He picks them based on that criteria, then God has predestined someone based on what is in them! This means that God picks one person over another based on a quality in them. That is favoritism.
But, when we ask them who forms the body of the person in the womb, who makes the mind, the will, the personality of a person, and who puts these persons in the circumstances, in the time, in the location, with their parents, they rightfully admit that God does this. Then, when we ask "Doesn't God, by bringing all these factors into place, by His sovereign plan and design, know exactly what the outcome will be of the person's "free will choice" as to whether they will "choose" God or not?" They say yes. Then, we ask, how is that not predestination?
We Calvinists believe that all people rightly deserve eternal damnation and that it is God's sovereign right to elect some into salvation and let the rest go their natural way, to hell. We believe that God has made all things, even the wicked for the day of destruction (Prov. 16:4). We believe that God has mercy on whom He desires and hardens whom He desires (Rom. 9:14). We believe that God endures with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction (Rom. 9:22). We believe God's word.

What we Calvinists believe about believing

As stated earlier, we Calvinists believe that our believing is the work of God (John 6:28), that we are granted to believe (Phil. 1:29), that we are granted repentance (2 Tim. 2:25), that we are appointed to eternal life Acts 13:48), and that we are born again not of our own wills (John 1:12-13).
We Calvinist believe that this work of God upon us is exceedingly merciful and loving. We believe this because without the merciful and loving work of God not only upon the cross but also in our hearts, that none of us would ever be able to freely believe in God -- because of the power, and the depth, and the strength of sin upon us. We do not believe that we are greater than the effects and the power of sin in us. Unlike the anti-Calvinists, we do not believe that in our unregenerate state our free will is capable of breaking loose from the enslavement of sin by the exertion of our sin-stained wills. We do not believe that the free will of the unregenerate is capable of overcoming their own wicked hearts that are full of evil (Mark 7:21-23), deceit (Jer. 17:9), and are enslaved to sin (Rom. 6:14-20). We do not believe that their free will is strong enough to resurrect itself from the state of its own deadness (Eph. 2:1). We do not believe that our sincerity (an appeal to that which is in the self) or our works are anything but filthy rags before God (Isa. 64:6). This is why we believe that God must predestine (Eph. 1:3-5; Rom. 8:29), grant to us the act of believing (Phil. 1:29), and cause us to be born again (1 Pet. 1:3), not of our own wills (John 1:13). In other words, we believe God's word.

The Sacrifice

We Calvinists believe in the strength of the atoning work of Jesus on the cross. We believe that it is so strong, so powerful, so perfect that all for whom Christ died will be saved. We do not believe that the blood of Christ was wasted. We do not believe that even one drop of his precious blood was for no avail. We do not believe that the atoning sacrifice of Christ becomes powerful upon someone's believing. We maintain that the atonement is powerful and effectual by the nature and fact of its very occurrence -- because it was God who died on the cross. Therefore it will save all who are covered by it. We believe that the sheep for whom Christ said He laid down His life (John 15:11,15) will be saved and that the goats (Matt. 25:33-34) are not atoned for. We believe that even the sin of unbelief has been paid for on the cross, thereby negating the idea that those thus atoned for, that those whose sins have been paid for by Jesus, go to hell due to their unbelief, for the sin of unbelief is also born by Christ in His body on the cross (1 Pet. 2:24). If this were not the case, then anyone who has ever disbelieved God could never be saved.
Furthermore, we believe in the power of the blood of Christ to actually remove sin, not to make possible the removal of sin. We limit its scope by saying the blood was shed for the sheep alone (John 15:11,15). It is the anti-Calvinists who limit its power because they say some for whom Christ's blood was shed will not be saved and in so stating this, they weaken the power of the blood of Christ to save since it does not cleanse all for whom it was allegedly shed. Therefore, it is we Calvinists who affirm the infinite power of God's blood to actually cleanse us and to make that cleansing a reality that is not dependent upon the choice of men to receive, but because it is a payment already made whether or not it is received, and it is made real to us when we have been granted belief by God (Phil. 1:29).
Furthermore, we believe 1 John 2:2 that says, "and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world." We believe that "the world" spoken of here is the Gentiles also, not just the Jews. Jesus said in Matt. 15:24, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” Jesus was sent to the Jews, not for the Gentiles. Yet, due to the Jewish nation's failure to recognize the Messiah, Jesus became the propitiation "not only for our sins [the Jews], but also for those of the whole world [the Gentiles]." This explains why Paul says in Rom. 1:16, "For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek."
We believe that only those for whom Christ has died have also died with Christ as the scriptures teach: "Now if we have died with Christ..." (Rom. 6:8); "If you have died with Christ to the elementary principles of the world..." (Col. 2:20); "For you have died and your life is hidden with Christ in God" (Col. 3:3); "It is a trustworthy statement: For if we died with Him, we shall also live with Him" (2 Tim. 2:11). Therefore, we believe that when 2 Cor. 5:14 says, "For the love of Christ controls us, having concluded this, that one died for all, therefore all died," that the 'all who have died' are only the Christians.
Furthermore, we believe that only the Christians are justified before God by faith (Rom. 5:1)and that Rom. 5:18 teaches us that the 'all who are justified' are only the believers. "So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men."¹ Again, since not all are saved, we believe that the all there is only the Christians. We believe God's word.

Eternal Security

We Calvinists believe that we are eternally secure in Christ. We believe that when we have eternal life that we will never perish, just as Jesus said, "I give eternal life to them, and they shall never perish; and no one shall snatch them out of My hand," (John 10:28). We believe that God knows who are His (2 Tim. 2:19). He knows whom He has called and predestined, and He makes no mistakes because He is all knowing. He does not give us eternal life only to remove it if we are not faithful because when we are not faithful, He remains faithful (2 Tim. 2:13). We do not believe that what is begun by God in our hearts is maintained by man in the flesh (Gal. 3:1-3). We believe that God receives the glory for our believing and that He is faithful, and that He is true, and that we are sinners who are saved by grace. Therefore, because God atoned for us (1 Pet. 2:24), God grants us belief (Phil. 1:29), and God says we will never perish (John 10:28; 3:16), then we believe we will never perish.
We believe that all who are said to have believed and perished are covered under the scripture that says, "They went out from us, but they were not really of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but they went out, in order that it might be shown that they all are not of us," (1 John 2:19). We believe God's word.

Holiness before God

We Calvinists do not believe that our security in Christ means that we can go and sin freely without worry or consequence. On the contrary, we believe that since we have been redeemed by the precious blood of the Lamb, and this by His great grace, we are to love and serve Him by honoring Him and bringing glory to Him. We do not glorify God by using His grace to do that which is contrary to His will. We have been redeemed and do not desire to use His grace for our sin. May it never be! We value Christ's sacrifice for us and we seek to demonstrate our love and appreciation before God. Therefore, we seek to be holy even as God is holy (1 Pet. 1:16) because we are new creatures in Christ (2 Cor. 5:17). We Calvinists believe what the Bible says.

Who brings discord?

The anti-Calvinists help to sow division in the body of Christ by setting the Christian against the Christian in their misrepresentations and attacks upon Calvinism. They help to bring discord and resentment in the body of Christ by focusing on in-house debates and do not follow Rom. 14:1-13 that speaks of allowing differences of opinion among Christians. Rom. 14:1 commands us thusly: "Now accept the one who is weak in faith, but not for the purpose of passing judgment on his opinions." Also, verse 5 says, "Let each man be fully convinced in his own mind." And, verse 10, "But you, why do you judge your brother? Or you again, why do you regard your brother with contempt? For we shall all stand before the judgment seat of God."
We Christians are to be united in the body of Christ. We are to be living according to the words of Jesus: "By this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another," (John 13:35). The anti-Calvinists who misrepresent Calvinism and who attack it and Calvinists do much to bring discord, division, and resentment. In so doing, they disobey the word of God.
We ask who is it who wants division in the body of Christ, God or the devil? If they bring discord and division, then are they working for God? How can they be?

Conclusion

We Calvinist believe that our salvation is God centered, that the very act of our believing is granted to us (Phil. 1:29), and that God shows His mercy to whom He will and He hardens whom He will (Rom. 9:14). We Calvinist believe in the sovereignty of God, the holiness of God, the omniscience of God, and His right to do with His creation as He desires. We believe that God loves us and is His love is the motivating factor behind the cross of Christ -- that and His glory. We trust in Jesus. We accept Jesus -- because He has enabled us to. We do not trust in our own ability to choose God, nor in our own ability to keep our own faith in Him. We do not hold ourselves in such a high regard as to assert that it is we, while in our sin-enslaved and sin-dead state, who possessed the wisdom and ability to have trusted in Jesus. On the contrary, we hold ourselves in such lowness of opinion, that we dare not assume that we are wise enough or capable enough in our sinful state to have chosen God -- for we believe the unregenerate never would since they are by nature children of wrath (Eph. 2:3), dead in their sins (Eph. 2:1), slaves of sin (Rom. 6:14-20), full of evil (Mark 7:21-23), and incapable of understanding spiritual things (1 Cor. 2:14).
But others, those who deny and oppose Calvinism, apparently believe that in their sinfulness they had the wisdom and the ability, where others did not, to choose to believe in Jesus on their own. We Calvinists, would never make such a boast. We know better than to exalt ourselves to such a high level of goodness and wisdom. Why? Because we believe God's word.

_________
1. The verse quoted is from the NASB and is the most correct translation. Many other Bible add words such as "free" and "gift" to the translations which are not in the Greek. This is done to soften the strength of the verse which says all will be saved. The "all" can only be the Christians. For more on this, please see All Men Saved.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), July 21, 2004

Answers

Readers,

Unfortunately this forum closed due to maintence problems with the server.

If you are interested in continuing a discussion, you can go to this board:

http://p221.ezboard.com/bthechristianforum

The Christian Forum

Or try our URL Forwarder www.bluespun.com

www.Bluespun.com

This was our back up board, but now we all relocated here.

Hope to see you there! All links lead to the same place!

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@gmail.com), November 28, 2005.

by Matthew Slick. *bump*

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), July 21, 2004.

Good article. I stumble on the limited atonement part... I mean, I undertand it, but I think the Calvinist position confuses the blood's dual purpose. I may be wrong...

I believe Christ bought all humans with His blood so that He would have the right to judge all humans on the last day. All sins ever committed were ultimately committed against Jesus, since He took the brunt of every sin.

For some, those whom the Father decided would come to faith (even before the world began) this sacrifice absolves them of every single sin.

For the rest, those whom the Father allows to remain in unbelief and doesn't even know, this sacrifice is a testimony against them and will convict them of every single sin in the end.

So, on the Day we are Judged, those who believe in Christ have the blood as a protector. Those who do not believe, the blood is a convictor.

In this way, I believe Christ paid the penalty for every sin of every human being... to be savior to some and judge of the rest.

He is the Savior of all men potentially in the sense that all are commanded to repent and believe, but He is Savior "especially" to God's elect who do and will believe.

"We have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, and especially of those who believe." - 1 Tim 4:10

The phrase "all men" above obviously means ALL MEN, not just all believers, since the believers are referred to separately in the final section of the verse.

Savior of: 1. All men. (literally) "who is the Savior of all men" 2. Especally believers. (the elect) "especially of those who believe"

And the offer to mankind is open to all to have peace with God through the blood of Christ.

I do not believe God intended that the blood would cleanse every human being's conscience from sin. This ignores God's sovereignty and omniscience.

Most importantly, we MUST remember that we cannot call unclean what God has made clean. Even those who will be condemned are "clean under the blood" in the sense that Christ is the Lord over all and governs all and comands all to repent and offers all forgiveness through His blood in this current age.

So, just like Peter, who saw the vision of the sheet with the "unclean" animals, we are not allowed to look at even one human being and say they are not under the offer of God's grace. We are not allowed to conclude they are not one of God's elect.

Therefore, we must hold out the offer of God's grace, by the blood, to every single human being as long as we can bear. We are not allowed to give up and assume God will condemn one. Who are we to judge God's ways?

How do we know that God will not save all humans? Of course, He will not, but the point is that if we assume just one person is not offered grace, then we've automatically taken that offer of grace away from ourselves. We've made ourselves "better" than our neighbor by assuming he is not God's elect. We're turn out to be assuming we are one of God's elect just as we are assuming they are not.

If we assume our neighbor is not one of God's elect, then we've forgotten how we once were also in darkness until God revealed Jesus to us.

If we forget we once were in darkness, then we've fallen from grace and are basing our security on something other than faith in the blood of Christ.

So, the problem with the limited atonement view of Calvinists (according to my simple understanding of the view) turns up in the practice of some Calvinists to disqualify themselves from grace as soon as they assume their neighbor is un-elected. Also, the passiveness of some Calvinists in evangelism might be a symptom of these erroneous views.. that it's totally up to God, so striving with your neighbor to come to faith is seen as a waste of energy, since God will bring His elect whether we strive or not... forgetting we are extensions of Christ on earth, pleading with men on Christ's behalf to be reconciled to God.

If a person assumes their neighbor is un-elect, they are in danger of being outside of God's grace themselves. Their conscience hasn't been enlightened yet, or it has fallen into a very very dim state.

-- Max Darity (arrowtouch@yahoo.com), July 22, 2004.

For those who reject God's sovereignty in regards to bringing a person to faith and instist that it's totally "free will" here's a question for you:

"Why do you pray to God for a friend or family member to convert?"

If God has no say in the matter and has no power to influence the matter, then it's absolutely vain and completely illogical to pray to God to ask Him to do something that He cannot do.

...or maybe you're just asking God to "try" and convert someone, in which case your prayer is more of an insult, since by it you're pretty much inferring that God can fail.

-- Max Darity (arrowtouch@yahoo.com), July 22, 2004.

Hmm.....in that case, we should pray that no person go to hell and should instead all be saved. God shouldn't deny such a prayer. In which case, it is entirely up to God to Save souls and condemn them just the same. So, we have no part in our Salvation whatsoever. All we really need is to be born and sit and wait. But, we are taught that some will not be saved.

I also happen to sense that those who are truly saved do have their prayers heard. Some are "closer" to God than others. So, some prayers do have a chance while others do not. So, if Abraham would pray for the lost souls, maybe God will decide to provide a path that will allow the lost soul a way to Salvation. It is still up to the lost soul to make the choice to accept or reject Christ. God has already provided the path through Jesus Christ OUR Saviour. May we all pray that the lost souls see the light.

.......................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), July 22, 2004.

>Hmm.....in that case, we should pray that no person go to hell and should instead all be saved.<

You miss the point... Why pray to God to influence the situation if He has absolutely no influence over the situation?

In other words, why ask God to do something He has no power over?

>May we all pray that the lost souls see the light.<

But, don't you have particular people you'd especially like to see saved? What's the point in praying to God for their salvation if God has no influence over the situation? if God cannot help persuade a person to accept Jesus?

-- Max Darity (arrowtouch@yahoo.com), July 25, 2004.

You miss the point because you think like a calvinist, Max. God wants us to love our neighbors. He wants us as His children in Him. We are to work together to help each other and to bring the lost to Him in faith. He doesn't want us alone in this world to fend for ourselves. Jesus taught what I am saying. God created everytning for the purpose of Man's Salvation. We are a body of believers in Christ. And, most importantly, There is nothing God cannot do, except the one thing He chooses to give to us--Free Will Free will is the rock that God cannot lift. If He chose to lift it, love would have absolutely no meaning. Do you get my point?

..................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), July 25, 2004.

He doesn't want us alone in this world to fend for ourselves as individuals. This is why "Faith Alone" gets people introverted and esoterical. I can see evidence of it.

...............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), July 25, 2004.

>You miss the point because you think like a calvinist, Max.<

... because all Calvinists are evil... right? Honestly, I do not know what you mean by "you think like a Calvinist."

>God wants us to love our neighbors.<

Yep. It'd be really hard to disagree with that one.

>He wants us as His children in Him.<

And we are His children if we have been born from above.

>We are to work together to help each other and to bring the lost to Him in faith.<

Yes, again it'd be hard to disagree that witnessing to Truth is important, for those who possess it.

>He doesn't want us alone in this world to fend for ourselves.<

Yes. I agree... (not sure who wouldn't.)

>Jesus taught what I am saying.<

This is not the summary of His teachings, but yes I'm sure Jesus would agree with you on these elementary points.

>God created everytning for the purpose of Man's Salvation.<

Wait. Let's be logical.

1. God created the sun before man ever existed. 2. The sun existed before man needed salvation. 3. Therefore, the sun was created for a reason other than man's salvation, since it was made before man ever needed salvation.

Your sentence is false.

>We are a body of believers in Christ. <

Who is we?

>And, most importantly, There is nothing God cannot do, except the one thing He chooses to give to us--Free Will<

God will not directly control our choice, but He definitely can influence our decisions.

For example, if God wanted people to run for shelter, He could accomplish this by causing a large hail storm. By this method, God will have caused these people, indirectly, to choose to run for shelter. He has not directly made their wills change, but indirectly, through His power over their environment, He has shown to have power over their wills.

God can choose our environment. God can influence our choices just as much or more than our parents can influence us. God can also direct our path in life according to the finances he provides. You do not have the free will to live in any house you wish. You cannot say your financial standing is apart from God's Will. If you're blind, you cannot become a world champion soccer player. Our will is limited by our conditions, and God can control our conditions.

Christ heavily influenced Paul to convert, didn't he? Paul had plenty of knowledge about Jesus Christ before he was struck by the bright light. But, God heavily influenced Paul to convert to Christ by striking him down and causing Paul to go blind for a short while. So, we can safely say, God doesn't directly cause us to choose, but He definitely has the power to influence our decisions according to the conditions he sets us in.

>Free will is the rock that God cannot lift.<

God can certainly cause conditions in our life that will cause us to choose different than we might otherwise choose under different conditions. If you deny that God has power over the conditions in your life, that He has power over the amount of Truth you hear, that He has power over your body, that he can take away your sanity if He so chooses, then you do not know God very well, if at all.

>If He chose to lift it, love would have absolutely no meaning. Do you get my point<

I know what you're saying. If God directly caused us to make decisions, instead of letting us choose according to our own reasons, then we'd not be children... more like robots. I agree.

But, even a father has power over what his children learn, over the development of their character, and can take away the child's right to choose if he wants. A father can correct a child and teach a child a lesson through discipline, and through the conditions he chooses for that child. An earthly father has a certain amount of power over his child's will. You cannot deny this. If an earthly father has a certain amount of power over a child's will, how much more does the All-Wise, All-Knowing, All-Powerful Father have power over those whom He is pleased to call His children? And how much power does God have over those who wish to harm His children's eternal fate?

-- Max Darity (arrowtouch@yahoo.com), July 29, 2004.

Your remarks towards me are interesting: "...then you do not know God very well, if at all. " You are so encouraging, Max.

So, you mean to tell me that because the sun was created before man, it is logical to assume that it has no significance on man's Salvation? Prove it. You can't. Unless, it is only your intuition speaking.

It is also peculiar that tough questions become confusing for you. Yes, you think like a Calvinist. How difficult is that? Is it "evil"? I don't know. Are the Baptist, Methodist, Pentecostals, and so on "evil"? I don't know. Are you evil, Max? Or, are Calvinists depraved?

.............................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), July 29, 2004.

This is also interesting:

"Christ heavily influenced Paul to convert, didn't he? Paul had plenty of knowledge about Jesus Christ before he was struck by the bright light. But, God heavily influenced Paul to convert to Christ by striking him down and causing Paul to go blind for a short while. So, we can safely say, God doesn't directly cause us to choose, but He definitely has the power to influence our decisions according to the conditions he sets us in. "

Did it not cross your mind that Saul was in the mission of destroying His Church? Perhaps he was converted as God intended, but I also seem to understand the punishment for Saul's murderous behavior as shown in Scriptures. It was a manifold event for Saul becoming St. Paul.

In another thread you mentioned the idea of people hating God. If a man fears hell, he will hate God for providing that option. So, a man should have faith in God, not fear of damnation. You kind of made that point, yes? Well, why would you think Saul converted? Was it the punishment, the voice of God, or his fear to do the right thing?

............................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), July 29, 2004.

I don't want to confuse you, Max. So, let me make the last phrase easier to understand.

Was Saul afraid with fear to the point that he had to do the right thing? I'm not saying that this is the answer. I'm only asking which one of those possibilities are correct, in your view.

....................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), July 29, 2004.

Predictably, there is not a single reference in this Apologia to an "ethical teaching" by Jesus... the things that He spent 90% of His time talking about... the lifestyle that we are commanded to "put... into practice" (Mt 7:24) or risk "eternal punishment".(Mt 25:46)

Christ's teachings such as the Sermon on the Mount are irrelevant in the context of Calvin's traditions. Note that the Calvinist house of cards is built almost entirely without reference to Christ.

One must make a stark choice between Jesus Christ... and John Calvin.

-- George Zenon (gzt@idirect.com), August 15, 2004.

George wrote: "Christ's teachings such as the Sermon on the Mount are irrelevant in the context of Calvin's traditions."

Interesting point!

........................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), August 15, 2004.

It is interesting that the Israelites in the Old Testament had the ability to "choose" whether or not they would obey God (Deuteronomy 20:10-20) however, when we get to the New Testament, we are so depraved that we cannot obey God's will without a direct operation of the Holy Spirit.

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), August 15, 2004.

According to Calvinism one is saved or lost the day that God, before the foundation of the world arbitrarily chose them to either be saved or lost.

According to Calvinism the numbers of those whom God chose cannot be "diminished or increased" and therefore it is solely by God's arbitrary goodness and grace that he has chosen some to salvation and others to condemnation and there is nothing, even faith that can change their fate.

Since this is true, even the Calvinist has no need for faith and all of their talk of faith is pure hypocrisy for they believe that their salvation matter was decided before the world began.

So according to Calvinists, nothing means anything except the sovereign choice of God. The very idea that one can choose to become a Christian of his own free will and that salvation is for all men is foreign to a Calvinist.

This goes back to the Calvinist assertion that all men are totally hereditarily depraved and cannot have faith on their own but God must come and overpower this total depravity and give them faith whether they want to have faith or not. And that God must do this because He has selected them to be saved before the foundation of the world. And He cannot allow His elect to be lost even though they are totally depraved therefore He must come to give them a faith that they cannot even desire to have within themselves.

And for this reason Calvinists claim that faith is the "gift of God" and it is however, the scriptures teach that faith comes by hearing and hearing the word of God (Romans 10:13-17) and that one can chose to believe or to refuse believe and they do not need any overpowering work of the Holy Spirit to force them to have faith.

Faith does lead one to obey Christ and Christ only saves those who obey Him (Hebrews 5:8-9).

There is no doubt among sensible and informed readers of the word of God that Calvinism is a false doctrine that will lead many people along the broad road that leads to destruction.

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), August 15, 2004.

bump...

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), August 19, 2004.

"There is no doubt among sensible and informed readers of the word of God that Calvinism is a false doctrine that will lead many people along the broad road that leads to destruction."

If we preach a false gospel, then how? We teach that Jesus died, was buried, and rose bodily from the dead per 1 Cor. 15:1-4. How is that a false gospel?

"...one can chose to believe or to refuse believe and they do not need any overpowering work of the Holy Spirit to force them to have faith."

Romans 8:5 Those who live according to the sinful nature have their minds set on what that nature desires; but those who live in accordance with the Spirit have their minds set on what the Spirit desires. 6 The mind of sinful man is death, but the mind controlled by the Spirit is life and peace; 7 the sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God's law, nor can it do so. 8 Those controlled by the sinful nature cannot please God.

"This goes back to the Calvinist assertion that all men are totally hereditarily depraved"

Romans 3:9 What shall we conclude then? Are we any better? Not at all! We have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under sin. 10 As it is written: There is no-one righteous, not even one; 11 there is no-one who understands, no-one who seeks God. 12 All have turned away, they have together become worthless; there is no-one who does good, not even one. 13 Their throats are open graves; their tongues practise deceit. The poison of vipers is on their lips. 14 Their mouths are full of cursing and bitterness. 15 Their feet are swift to shed blood; 16 ruin and misery mark their ways, 17 and the way of peace they do not know. 18 There is no fear of God before their eyes. 19 Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God. 20 Therefore no-one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin.

"He has selected them to be saved before the foundation of the world."

Ephesians 1:3 Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in the heavenly realms with every spiritual blessing in Christ. 4 For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love 5 he predestined us to be adopted as his sons through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will-- 6 to the praise of his glorious grace, which he has freely given us in the One he loves. 7 In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, in accordance with the riches of God's grace 8 that he lavished on us with all wisdom and understanding. 9 And he made known to us the mystery of his will according to his good pleasure, which he purposed in Christ, 10 to be put into effect when the times will have reached their fulfilment--to bring all things in heaven and on earth together under one head, even Christ. 11 In him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will, 12 in order that we, who were the first to hope in Christ, might be for the praise of his glory. 13 And you also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, 14 who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God's possession--to the praise of his glory.

"He cannot allow His elect to be lost"

John 6:37 All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away. 38 For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me. 39 And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all that he has given me, but raise them up at the last day. 40 For my Father's will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 41 At this the Jews began to grumble about him because he said, I am the bread that came down from heaven. 42 They said, Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How can he now say, 'I came down from heaven'? 43 Stop grumbling among yourselves, Jesus answered. 44 No-one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day.

This is also another interesting passage:

Romans 9:9 For this was how the promise was stated: At the appointed time I will return, and Sarah will have a son. 10 Not only that, but Rebekah's children had one and the same father, our father Isaac. 11 Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad--in order that God's purpose in election might stand: 12 not by works but by him who calls--she was told, The older will serve the younger. 13 Just as it is written: Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated. 14 What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! 15 For he says to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion. 16 It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy. 17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth. 18 Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden. 19 One of you will say to me: Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will? 20 But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?' 21 Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use? 22 What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath--prepared for destruction? 23 What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory-- 24 even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles?

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), August 19, 2004.

Dear readers,

Please notice the argument is not against me but against the Word of God.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), August 19, 2004.

David quotes Romans 8:5-8 (and does not offer any comment) however, what he failed to do was quote Romans 8:14, "For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God." This verse shows that the Thessalonians were not called by an "arbitrary election" or by some direct operation of the Holy Spirit (as David claims) on their hearts. Rather they were called by the preaching of the gospel of Christ. Does faith come by "hearing the gospel" or by a Direct Operation of the Holy Spirit???

David then quotes Romans 3:9-20 in an attempt to show that we are "all" totally depraved. These verses do nothing of the sort in fact we all know that sin is in the world because it has been there since the very first sin of Eve in the garden of Eden. Just because we are all under sin, does not mean that we are all born sinners nor do any of these verses teach such nonsense.

David then quotes Ephesians 1:3-14 in an attempt to show that only "certain" men were selected by God to be saved from the foundation of the world. The key to understanding these verses in contained in the end of verse 4 and verse 5, "4 ... In love 5 he predestined us to be adopted as his sons through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will". God did not predestine these men to be saved and verse 13, "And you also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit," proves that they were "not included in Christ" until they "heard the word of truth" and then "having believed". It is impossible that the adoption could have been before the belief of the truth through which it was effected. Calvinists like David just see the words "he chose us in him before the creation of the world" in this verse and get all excited thinking that they have found their entire false doctrine in these words. They neglect to see that the very verses they quote refutes their doctrine entirely when we are told that they were called by the gospel and not by some arbitrary decree of God or any direct operation of the Holy Spirit in some imaginary "experience of grace".

David then quotes John 6:37-44 in an attempt to prove that "His elect" cannot be lost. The apostle Paul states in Galatians 4:9-11, "9 But now after you have known God, or rather are known by God, how is it that you turn again to the weak and beggarly elements, to which you desire again to be in bondage? 10 You observe days and months and seasons and years. 11 I am afraid for you, lest I have labored for you in vain." How was it possible that Paul could have "labored in vain" if these Christians could not be lost??? Paul knew it was possible to be lost that is exactly what he said in 1 Corinthians 9:26, "But I discipline my body and bring it into subjection, lest, when I have preached to others, I myself should become disqualified." If "His elect" cannot be lost, the devil is wasting his time for 1 Peter 5:8 states, "Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil walks about like a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour."

David then says: "This is also another interesting passage" and quotes Romans 9:9-24. I cannot see anything in these passages or their immediate context that would lead any thinking person to conclude that God ordained certain individuals to eternal salvation and others to eternal damnation and that their numbers are so definite that they can neither be diminished nor increased. Can you?

David then says, "Dear readers, Please notice the argument is not against me but against the Word of God."

Dear readers, as shown by my post above it is evident that the word of God does not prove his Calvinist doctrines.

The false God that resides solely in the mind of David and Calvinists like him imagines that God from the beginning of the world decided who was going to be saved and who was going to be lost before they were ever born. By His arbitrary choice alone their salvation or condemnation rest and His decision has been made and there is nothing that they do can change their predetermined fate.

Such a God as David and the Calvinists imagines does not exist in any place but their twisted imagination. Any man can, if he chooses and if he wills, come to God through Christ.

The doctrine of Predestination is stated by Calvinists in the Presbyterian Confession of Faith as follows: "God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably whatever comes to pass." (Presbyterian Confession of Faith, Chapter iii, section 1.) To the same subject we read the answer to question twelve in the "Larger Catechism" as follows: "God's decrees are wise, free, and holy acts of the counsel of his will, whereby, from all eternity, He hath, for his own glory, unchangeably foreordained whatever comes to pass, especially concerning angels and men."

If the above Calvinistic doctrine of Predestination were true, it would be impossible for man to err. Whatever he does, is in keeping with and brought about by God's foreordination or decree, and therefore cannot be wrong. If he does anything it matters not what whether good or bad, if God has ordained everything, He has ordained that thing. If it comes to pass that a man lies, God has not only ordained that he should lie, but He has "unchangeably ordained it". If it comes to pass that a man steals, God has unchangeably ordained that too. If it comes to pass that a man kills his neighbor, God has unchangeably ordained that as well. If fact it did come to pass that Cain killed his brother Abel. Why then did God put a curse upon him for it??? For according to the Calvinist it was not only according to the wise and holy counsel of His will, but He had freely and unchangeable ordained that Cain should do the very thing for which He Cursed him!!!

Can any sane man believe such foolishness?

God has said thou shall not kill, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor. (Exodus 20:13-16). As God has plainly forbidden things, which do come to pass, it cannot be true that He has unchangeably ordained them. That God should unchangeably ordain that a certain thing should come to pass, and at the same time positively forbid it, is an inconsistency that is entirely incompatible with His divine character. This is especially true if one understands that He has threatened the one guilty of doing that which He has unchangeably ordained should come to pass and positively forbidden with endless punishment. This is the Calvinistic God and no one but a person that has no respect for the true God can knowingly and thoughtfully hold and propagate such a pernicious view of Him.

Surely, He whose laws ever bear the impress of justice, goodness, love and mercy which characterize their author would not punish His dependent creature man in the rude flames of an angry hell forever for doing that which He had unchangeably ordained that he should do. For the "Lord is good to all: and His tender mercies are over all his works." The Lord is righteous in all His ways, and holy in all His works". It is not that God has from all eternity ordained that is the problem. Rather it is the false doctrine that he has unchangeably ordained; not "some things", but "whatsoever" comes to pass everything. Those who teach this doctrine have said things about God that makes him appear to be a monstrous beast that unchangeably ordains everything that comes to pass including many things which He has positively forbidden any man to commit such as adultery, murder, lies, stealing, wars, atrocities. And then He punishes eternally those whom he ordained should so the very things that He unchangeably ordained to come to pass but that He positively forbids them to do. Such nonsense has no equal in the world of even insane men!!!

It is men such as David and all Calvinists, who are trying to teach the world that our loving, merciful, just and all powerful and wise God is so unjust as to unchangeably ordain everything that comes to pass. Then positively forbid what He ordained to come to pass and then punish the men eternally in an angry hell for having done the very thing that He unchangeably ordain that they should do. Therefore I issue a warning to you. Be careful what lies you teach about the true sovereign creator of the universe: For He is just, merciful, loving and living God who sent His son to die for our sins and not for ours only but for the sins of the whole world. (1 John 2:1-2).

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), August 20, 2004.

David is still youg, Kevin.

Let's give him the benefit of the doubt for now. I agree with most I what you wrote here.

But in reading david O. I believe he doesn't subscribe 100% to Calvinism. Or Maybe his idea about Calvinism is shaped by other factors we don't know yet.Maybe it has to do with the true definition of sin and salvation.

Time will tell.

But it was Calvinism as a social movement which gave rise to modern Capitalism. The factors being that once the person feels he is one of the elect, then God has favored him , even into prosperity.

Those who teach this doctrine have said things about God that makes him appear to be a monstrous beast that unchangeably ordains everything that comes to pass including many things which He has positively forbidden any man to commit such as adultery, murder, lies, stealing, wars, atrocities. And then He punishes eternally those whom he ordained should so the very things that He unchangeably ordained to come to pass but that He positively forbids them to do. Such nonsense has no equal in the world of even insane men!!!

It is men such as David and all Calvinists, who are trying to teach the world that our loving, merciful, just and all powerful and wise God is so unjust as to unchangeably ordain everything that comes to pass. Then positively forbid what He ordained to come to pass and then punish the men eternally in an angry hell for having done the very thing that He unchangeably ordain that they should do.

My counterbalance is Christian Yahwism.

Finding and doing what God yahweh truly wants from us. Salvation is such a thin and narrow item that most people (90%) will not achieve the first time they face God Yahweh.

I know, I have talked to the dead. This was on July 31, 2004. My brother had had the same dream in the Summer of 1994.

The Christian Yahwist

The Man of Yahweh

-- ElpidioGonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), August 21, 2004.

I want you to keep in mind the illustration i mentioned earlier about prooftexting. "Is Jesus God or is Jesus a man? Or is he the God-man? One will have a very hard time proving that Jesus is only man to someone who believes he is the God-man."

I also believe there is a general misunderstanding about predestination and election.

If you read some of these articles, perhaps you will get a better understanding of Reformed Theology:

http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/topic/predestination.html

http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/topic/election.html

Kevin said, "David quotes Romans 8:5-8 (and does not offer any comment)"

I prefer to let the Word of God speak for itself in this case. Comments come later.

Kevin said, "These verses [Romans 3:9-20] do nothing of the sort in fact we all know that sin is in the world because it has been there since the very first sin of Eve in the garden of Eden."

This idea comes from your view of God and his Soveirngty. I wish not to get into this discussion as I do not have much time anymore and as your objections to any verse brought up will be "it does not mean that". Perhaps, if you'd like, you can save us time by telling us what those verses mean, instead of what it does not mean (You know the common verses brought up)

Kevin quotes,"David then says: "This is also another interesting passage" and quotes Romans 9:9-24."

Kevin said,"I cannot see anything in these passages or their immediate context that would..."

Yes, you can't see because you are not born of God. These things are hidden from you. Only those who are born of God can hear His Word and obey it.

So, I ask you, did you understand what Paul was saying in that passage? If so, do you believe it? If not, why not?

Kevin continued, "...lead any thinking person to conclude that God ordained certain individuals to eternal salvation and others to eternal damnation and that their numbers are so definite that they can neither be diminished nor increased. Can you?"

I never said any thing about election. I just wrote it was an "interesting passage". But yes, it does speak of election. But before discussing that, Was God's love in this passage (Rom 9:13) conditional or unconditional? I have no problem answering it, but obviously you do (as you have not answered it). If you can't admit what scripture says on this point, it is useless to try and prove what else this passage teaches.

Kevin said, "If "His elect" cannot be lost, the devil is wasting his time for 1 Peter 5:8 states [quote]"

The devil cannot do anything apart from the will of God.

Kevin said, "David then quotes John 6:37-44 in an attempt to prove that "His elect" cannot be lost."

I would just like to comment on how you did even touch the John 6 passage. Please show the readers where in John 6 is this imaginary group you speak of.

Kevin said, "They neglect to see that the very verses they quote refutes their doctrine entirely when we are told that they were called by the gospel"

Kevin continued later, "Does faith come by "hearing the gospel" or by a Direct Operation of the Holy Spirit???"

I don't know why you keep asking me something I've already addressed. The gospel is the means God has ordained to save men but one must be quickened by the Spirit in order to understand the things of God. You keep making it an either or thing, which I have stated I believe it's both the gospel and the Holy Spirit.

Kevin said, "The false God that resides solely in the mind of David and Calvinists like him..."

That is quite an accusation coming from someone who was unwilling to discuss God's sovereignty.

You later said,"This is the Calvinistic God and no one but a person that has no respect for the true God can knowingly and thoughtfully hold and propagate such a pernicious view of Him."

I could repost the questions I asked that would address God's nature, you know, the ones you refused to answer. Simply, when discussing God's soverignty, you will lose because I have the word of God backing my view, while you just have the traditions of men to cling of to.

Also, If anyone wishes to read the Westminister Confession of Faith, they can do so at this site: http://www.pcanet.org/general/cof_contents.htm

Elipdio,

I believe in the Preserverence of the Saints, the Total depravity of man, Effectual calling, Unconditional election, and Patricular Redemption; You make the connection ;)

I certainly am not Arminian anymore and God's truth doesn't change ;)

If you are equating "Calvinism" with all of Reformed theology, then according to your defintion, I wouldn't be 100% Calvinist. But I am only speaking of the doctrines of Grace, which did not come from some movement like you opine, but comes from Jesus and the Apostles themselves. Men like Augustine, Calvin, Spurgeon, Edawards kept preaching them.

I am not Reformed because I still hold to the Baptist view of baptism and the lord's supper, believe in the continuation of the charismatic gifts, and in the premillenial end times view.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), August 21, 2004.

I wrote, "These verses [Romans 3:9-20] do nothing of the sort in fact we all know that sin is in the world because it has been there since the very first sin of Eve in the garden of Eden."

To which David replied, "This idea comes from your view of God and his Soveirngty. I wish not to get into this discussion as I do not have much time anymore and as your objections to any verse brought up will be "it does not mean that". Perhaps, if you'd like, you can save us time by telling us what those verses mean, instead of what it does not mean (You know the common verses brought up)"

Actually this idea (not mine but this is what is taught in the Bible) that men are born in sin is not taught in the Old Testament, nor is it taught in the New Testament. The Jews in the OT never believed that they were born in sin and neither are we born in sin.

I wrote, "I cannot see anything in these passages or their immediate context that would..."

To which David replied, "Yes, you can't see because you are not born of God."

Please notice that David makes an accusation however, offers no proof.

All men can come to Christ and they can be saved if they believe the gospel and obey it. (Mark 16:16; Acts 2:38; 1 Peter 3:21; John 3:16-17; Acts 3:19; 17:30; John 3:3-5; 1 Cor. 15:1-4; 2 Thess 1:7-8; Romans 6:3-6,17). You can be free from sin and there is no need whatsoever for you to be concerned whether you are among those that God "elected" to salvation before the foundation of the world by an immutable decree. For that nonsense is nothing more that the imaginary self delusions of the Calvinist creed makers. Christ died for us while we were yet sinners (Romans 5:8) and He died for all men and "whosoever will" can come to Him in humble obedience to the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. After having been buried with him in baptism (Romans 6:3-6) and having received the removal of your sins by the "circumcision of Christ" which God does when one is "buried with Christ in baptism" (Col. 3:11-12). And having obeyed that "form of doctrine" you are "then made free from sin". (Romans 6:17). And thus having been raised with Christ you can then walk in newness of life (Romans 6:6). For then, by faith you will have been "baptized into Christ". For Paul makes it clear, "for ye are all children of God by faith in Christ Jesus (not by the immutable decree of God before the foundation of the world). For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. And, "if any man be in Christ he is a new creature". (1 Cor. 5:17). One must be in Christ to be a new Creature and we are told that one is baptized into Christ. (Gal. 3:26-27). And salvation is without doubt offered to all men "in Christ Jesus". And all men can be in Christ Jesus if they choose to obey the gospel. (1 Cor. 15:1-4) and will thereby be saved by that gospel.

I have obeyed the gospel, so I have been born again according to the word of God. John 3:5 states that one must be born of water and the spirit in order to enter the kingdom of God. I have been born of the spirit which is the word of God (what causes one to have faith???) and born of water (which is baptism in water for the remission of sins) and am therefore saved. David must explain away this clear passage of scripture in order to cling to his belief that baptism has nothing to do with the remission of sins and yet he claims that he has been born again???

David wrote, "These things are hidden from you."

Another accusation with no proof offered. I can read and understand God's word, it is not that difficult for one who is honestly seeking to obey the truth. Ephesians 5:17 says, "Therefore do not be unwise, but understand what the will of the Lord is."

David wrote, "Only those who are born of God can hear His Word and obey it."

Please notice again that this is David's opinion which does not agree with God's word. If faith comes by hearing (and it does) then anyone who reads God's words can "know" what they must do in order to be saved.

Did Jesus only die for the "elect" or for all men??? Jesus our Lord spoke these words concerning His sacrifice for all men. He said, "I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me. This signifying the death that He should die." (John 12:32-33). I am certain that He would not expect His death to draw all men unto him if they had no reason to have any interest in His death. What attraction could the death of Christ have for a reprobate who knew that Christ did not die for him but for the "elect" only as Calvinists assert?

Then we are told again by Paul, "There is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time." (1 Timothy 2:5-6). Here, as usual, Paul is in direct conflict with the false notion that Christ died only for the "elect" as taught by Calvin and perpetuated by the Creeds of men like David who insist that Christ died only for the "elect".

David wrote, "Was God's love in this passage (Rom 9:13) conditional or unconditional? I have no problem answering it, but obviously you do (as you have not answered it). If you can't admit what scripture says on this point, it is useless to try and prove what else this passage teaches."

Yes, God's love was conditional just as God's hate was conditional in this passage. Why did God love Jacob and hate Esau???

I wrote, "If "His elect" cannot be lost, the devil is wasting his time for 1 Peter 5:8 states [quote]"

To which David replied, "The devil cannot do anything apart from the will of God."

Can the child of God be "devoured" by the devil??? If not, then why should the Christian fear the devil if "the elect" cannot be lost???

"I would just like to comment on how you did even touch the John 6 passage. Please show the readers where in John 6 is this imaginary group you speak of."

Here is the group I am talking about David they are in John 6:66, "From that time many of His disciples went back and walked with Him no more." Were these disciples of Jesus saved???

"I don't know why you keep asking me something I've already addressed. The gospel is the means God has ordained to save men but one must be quickened by the Spirit in order to understand the things of God. You keep making it an either or thing, which I have stated I believe it's both the gospel and the Holy Spirit."

What does this statement mean David, "It is written in the prophets, 'And they shall all be taught by God.'" (John 6:45). Where is it written that we require a "direct operation of the Holy Spirit" in order to understand God's word???

"I could repost the questions I asked that would address God's nature, you know, the ones you refused to answer. Simply, when discussing God's soverignty, you will lose because I have the word of God backing my view, while you just have the traditions of men to cling of to."

You claim that "I will lose" however this is merely your opinion David. You also claim that you have the word of God backing your view and that is again your opinion however, that is not the truth. You can go ahead and re-post them and if I answer them, I will expect you to answer the many questions I have asked you that you have neglected to answer.

Is the gospel God's power to salvation for "all men" or only for the "elect of God"???

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), August 21, 2004.

"Yes, God's love was conditional just as God's hate was conditional in this passage. Why did God love Jacob and hate Esau???" - Kevin

Well, I can't respond all at a time right now, but this is the first major error I've seen.

"8 That is, it is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise are regarded as descendants. 9 For this is the word of promise: "AT THIS TIME I WILL COME, AND SARAH SHALL HAVE A SON." 10 And not only this, but there was Rebekah also, when she had conceived twins by one man, our father Isaac; 11 for though the twins were not yet born and had not done anything good or bad, so that God's purpose according to His choice would stand, not because of works but because of Him who calls, 12 it was said to her, "THE OLDER WILL SERVE THE YOUNGER." 13 Just as it is written, "JACOB I LOVED, BUT ESAU I HATED." 14 What shall we say then? There is no injustice with God, is there? May it never be! 15 For He says to Moses, "I WILL HAVE MERCY ON WHOM I HAVE MERCY, AND I WILL HAVE COMPASSION ON WHOM I HAVE COMPASSION." 16 So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy. 17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "FOR THIS VERY PURPOSE I RAISED YOU UP, TO DEMONSTRATE MY POWER IN YOU, AND THAT MY NAME MIGHT BE PROCLAIMED THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE EARTH." 18 So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires. "

God's Word speaks for itself.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), August 21, 2004.

David wrote, "Well, I can't respond all at a time right now, but this is the first major error I've seen."

David thinks he has found an error in what I posted however this is not true. David posts verses however he does not "read" all of them.

Please notice in what David quotes from God's word that verse 13 begins with "13 Just as it is written...". My question is "where" this was "written" that God had preordained before the world began that He would love Jacob and hate Esau???

Yes, God's word speaks for itself.

Why did God love Jacob and hate Esau??? Hint: this was not pre-ordained before the foundation of the world as David alleges.

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), August 21, 2004.

I did not know you can read minds Mr. Walker. You asked why God loved Jacob and hated Esau, and the answer is stated plainly in Scripture. He loved Jacob before he had done anything good or bad. If you do not like that, your problem is not with me but with God.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), August 21, 2004.

Paul even anticipates man's response of 'its not fair'.

In verse 15,

For He says to Moses, "I WILL HAVE MERCY ON WHOM I HAVE MERCY, AND I WILL HAVE COMPASSION ON WHOM I HAVE COMPASSION." 16 So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), August 21, 2004.

David wrote, "I did not know you can read minds Mr. Walker."

I never said that I could read minds. I see we are now back to "Mr. Walker". Hmmmmm...

David wrote, "You asked why God loved Jacob and hated Esau, and the answer is stated plainly in Scripture. He loved Jacob before he had done anything good or bad. If you do not like that, your problem is not with me but with God."

The text does "not" say that God loved Jacob before he had done anything good or bad, you are "reading into the text" for these verses say no such thing. These verses do "not" say that God loved Jacob and hated Esau before the foundation of the world and I challenge you to prove this to be true.

I will ask you this question again: "where" this was "written" that God had preordained before the world began that He would love Jacob and hate Esau???

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), August 21, 2004.

Where does it say that God loved Jacob because of something he did?

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), August 21, 2004.

Where does it say that God loved Jacob before the foundation of the world???

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), August 21, 2004.

11 for though the twins were not yet born and had not done anything good or bad, so that God's purpose according to His choice would stand, not because of works but because of Him who calls, 12 it was said to her, "THE OLDER WILL SERVE THE YOUNGER." 13 Just as it is written, "JACOB I LOVED, BUT ESAU I HATED."

Right there.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), August 21, 2004.

David,

You are still reading into the text. Where does it say in these passages that God loved Jacob before the foundation of the world???

God told Rebekah "12 it was said to her, "THE OLDER WILL SERVE THE YOUNGER."

God did not tell Rebekah that He would love Jacob and hate Esau.

Please notice that verse 13 states, "Just as it is written, "JACOB I LOVED, BUT ESAU I HATED."

Where was this written before they were born???

God loved Jacob because he served Him for Jacob made a vow in Genesis 28:20-22, "20 Then Jacob made a vow, saying, "If God will be with me, and keep me in this way that I am going, and give me bread to eat and clothing to put on, 21 so that I come back to my father's house in peace, then the LORD shall be my God. 22 And this stone which I have set as a pillar shall be God's house, and of all that You give me I will surely give a tenth to You."

Here is the place where "it is written", Malachi 1:1-3, "1 The burden of the word of the LORD to Israel by Malachi. 2 "I have loved you," says the LORD. "Yet you say, 'In what way have You loved us?' Was not Esau Jacob's brother?" Says the LORD. "Yet Jacob I have loved; 3 But Esau I have hated, And laid waste his mountains and his heritage For the jackals of the wilderness." This was written long after Esau and Jacob had passed away.

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), August 21, 2004.

So, you are saying God looked into the future, before the twins were born, saw what they would do and loved/hated them based on something in them?

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), August 21, 2004.

Did God know Abraham would obey him? Or was God ignorant which is why he had to "test" him?

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), August 21, 2004.

bump bump

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), August 25, 2004.

Does God know what your next response to me is, Kevin?

If you change your mind, did you catch God off-guard?

Or does God know everything?

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), August 25, 2004.

"So, you are saying God looked into the future, before the twins were born, saw what they would do and loved/hated them based on something in them?"

Go back and re-read what I wrote in my last post. When did God say that He loved Jacob and hated Esau??? Was it before they were born or after???

"Did God know Abraham would obey him?"

Does the Bible say that God "knew" Abraham would obey Him???

"Or was God ignorant which is why he had to "test" him?"

We have been over this before right David??? God tested Abraham to "prove" whether or not Abraham would obey Him.

"Does God know what your next response to me is, Kevin?"

I don't know, why don't you ask Him???

"If you change your mind, did you catch God off-guard?"

You can also ask Him this question when you see Him.

"Or does God know everything?"

Is there anything that has happened to man or man has caused to happen in the Bible that God did not know would come to pass??? Yes or No???

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), August 28, 2004.

The Bible says God knows all things, if you deny that, then your problem is not with me but with God. Also, I don't have to ask Him something He already answered ;)

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), August 28, 2004.

1 John 3:20 For if our heart condemn us, God is greater than our heart, and knoweth all things.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), August 28, 2004.

David wrote, "Or does God know everything?"

To which I replied, "Is there anything that has happened to man or man has caused to happen in the Bible that God did not know would come to pass??? Yes or No???"

David responded with, "The Bible says God knows all things, if you deny that, then your problem is not with me but with God. Also, I don't have to ask Him something He already answered ;) then quotes, 1 John 3:20 For if our heart condemn us, God is greater than our heart, and knoweth all things."

Let's take a look at some passages in the Old Testament...

Jeremiah 7:31 says, "And they have built the high places of Tophet, which is in the Valley of the Son of Hinnom, to burn their sons and their daughters in the fire, which I did not command, nor did it come into My heart."

Jer 19:5, "(they have also built the high places of Baal, to burn their sons with fire for burnt offerings to Baal, which I did not command or speak, nor did it come into My mind),"

If something never came into God's mind, does it mean that He "knew" it would come to pass???

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), August 29, 2004.

Yep..., An open thiest...

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), August 29, 2004.

Alright..I see.. so, God only knows what is capable of being known? And since the future has not happened yet, the future is not known?

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), August 30, 2004.

Can God "know" something that did not come into His mind???

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), August 30, 2004.

I have already told you that I am "not" an "open theist".

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), August 30, 2004.

All I can say is, If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it must be a duck.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), August 30, 2004.

"All I can say is, If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it must be a duck."

You have yet to prove that I am an "open theist" and I challenge you David to prove that I am guilty of this accusation.

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), August 30, 2004.

Did God "know" that men would burn their sons and daughters in the fire??? Yes or No???

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), August 30, 2004.

Can God only know what is capable of being known?

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), August 30, 2004.

So, Does God learn?

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), August 30, 2004.

The Bible says that Jesus bore our sins in His body on the cross (1 Pet. 2:24). If this is so, then how did God know which sins to place on Christ since we hadn't committed them yet when Jesus was crucified?

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), August 30, 2004.

"Can God only know what is capable of being known?"

What does the Bible say???

"So, Does God learn?"

Does the Bible speak on this subject also???

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), August 30, 2004.

If you thought I knew then why the heck do you think I'm asking you.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), August 30, 2004.

Let me answer for you. You would say Yes.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), August 30, 2004.

Your passages have been address by others:

http://www.carm.org/open.htm

This is from Matthew Slick:

"And they have built the high places of Topheth, which is in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to burn their sons and their daughters in the fire, which I did not command, and it did not come into My mind," (Jer. 7:31).

Is the Lord actually saying that He did not think of something? Even in open theism, God knows all things actual as well as potential. That means that God can know all things in the present tense as well as all possibilities of things that could exist. Certainly God who knew the past sins of Israel would have thought about them doing such sin -- as horrible as it was. So, it doesn't make sense to interpret this as God admitting that He had never thought of something. Furthermore, the NASB1 NIV, RSV, 1901 ASV, translate this as "and it did not come into My mind," where the KJV, and NKJV translate it as "and it did not come into my heart." What is interesting is that the LXX2 uses the Greek word "kardia", "heart" instead of the Greek word for mind. Since we can conclude that God can contemplate all potential forms of rebellion, we can then also conclude that God is addressing the issue of human moral behavior instead of expressing ignorance since that is what God is talking about. In other words, their sin did not enter the intention of God's heart in His plans for Judah.

_________________ 1. The NASB has a marginal note of "heart." 2. The LXX, or Septuagint, is the Greek Translation of the Hebrew Old Testament. It was translated by Jews around 200 B.C.

I fear there will be no argument from you just constant plucking a verse out of context.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), August 30, 2004.

If God learns what people will do only after they have done it, then is it possible for God to expect someone to do one thing and yet he doesn't do it? Is it possible?

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), August 30, 2004.

Using your logic Kevin, are we to say that when God asked Adam "Where are you" God really didn't know where Adam was? That would mean God is not omnipresent.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), August 30, 2004.

Unless you... do you deny He is omnipresent?

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), August 30, 2004.

I take it you don't, so before you start your rantings about "look at the verse, the verse says God did not know!" to try to undermine God's knowledge, look at your argument first. The exact same argument can be used to deny His omniprescence.

Ex. God told Adam 'Where are you'.

Kevin thinks that when God said ,"it did not come into My mind" it means God is ignorant.

Likewise, if he accepts that interpretation to make God ignorant, he must also accept that God was also ignorant of Adam's location too because he said "Where are you?".

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), August 30, 2004.

I'm not even sure if Pelagius took it this far.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), August 30, 2004.

Gen.4:6-10 "The LORD said to Cain 'Why are you angry? And why has your countenance fallen?' ..Then the LORD said to Cain 'Where is Abel your brother?'..What have you done?'

Look Kevin, God is ignorant of past things as well.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), August 30, 2004.

So, using Kevin's logic and hermenutic, we now have a God that does not know all things. He is ignorant of the future, and ignorant of the past as well. What's next? God can make mistakes?

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), August 30, 2004.

I guess according to Kevin too, Genesis 3: 9-13 suggests that God is ignorant of the present as well.

Can one believe in such a god that Kevin presents?

This is from Matthew Slick, some things you might hear the god of Kevin say:

Ooops
Doh!
Uh, oh.
Oh, no.
Dang it!
Shucks!
Let me get back to you on that.
Wow, that was a surprise.
I hope it works out.
Oh no, now what is he going to do this time?
No, I haven't heard the joke about the open theist.
Please, oh please, please, please believe in me.
I'll not do that again.
That didn't turn out to well, did it?
I'll try and get it right next time.
I'd answer your prayer but I don't know what is going to happen.
Hey, I just learned something.
Well, I can always go to plan B.
Well, I can always go to plan C.
Well, I can always go to plan D.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), August 30, 2004.

" This is lighthearted and I mean no mockery nor insult, but this is a way of illustrating a point that the view of God in open theism means that God does not know all of the future and can even make mistakes -- otherwise, according to openness, God wouldn't have any regrets. If we assumed that the god of open theism was true, would it bring you comfort to know that God learns, that God doesn't know the future exhaustively, and that He has to wait to find out what people will do? How would that affect your prayers to Him? Would it give you confidence in God? After all, what if something happens that surprises God and He is unable to answer your prayer? If God is hoping for the best, reacting to people, and working around them to make things happen, then can you really count on God to be the sovereign in-charge Lord of the universe? I think not. This view is problematic and undermines the trust that we can have in God's absolute sovereignty. It is a reduction of the stature and abilities of God. By the way, how many open theists does it take to change a light bulb? No one knows untill it happens." - Matthew Slick

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), August 30, 2004.

It's no wonder you believe in some of the things you beleive in.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), August 30, 2004.

Instead of answering my question, David in his usual response dances all around the question and says that I am taking a verse out of context and he never bothers to offer his own opinion on the verse that I quoted. Instead, he offers what someone else (who happens to agree with his opinion) has wrote concerning this verse. It is no wonder that David does not want to believe the truth about what has been revealed because he would rather believe what someone else says than what God specifically states in His word.

If I am pulling those two verses out of context, then I challenge you to prove I am guilty of doing this David. You are very adept at making accusations however, you don't bother to back them up.

I didn't make those statements in the Bible, God made them.

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), August 30, 2004.

"I take it you don't, so before you start your rantings about "look at the verse, the verse says God did not know!" to try to undermine God's knowledge, look at your argument first. The exact same argument can be used to deny His omniprescence."

Did I write this statement in the Bible or did God write it??? Did He say that it did not come into My mind??? Yes or No???

"Ex. God told Adam 'Where are you'."

Why did God ask Adam the question "Where are you"??? Was this for Adam's benefit???

"Kevin thinks that when God said ,"it did not come into My mind" it means God is ignorant."

I am not trying to prove that God is ignorant, these are your words, not mine.

"Likewise, if he accepts that interpretation to make God ignorant, he must also accept that God was also ignorant of Adam's location too because he said "Where are you?"."

Why did God ask Adam this question???

"I'm not even sure if Pelagius took it this far."

I don't even know who "Pelagius" is and this person is not relevant to this discussion.

David quotes Gen.4:6-10 Then writes, "Look Kevin, God is ignorant of past things as well."

Once again David these are your words, not mine.

"So, using Kevin's logic and hermenutic, we now have a God that does not know all things. He is ignorant of the future, and ignorant of the past as well. What's next? God can make mistakes?"

Again, these are David's words, not mine.

"I guess according to Kevin too, Genesis 3: 9-13 suggests that God is ignorant of the present as well."

Your logic needs some work David.

"Can one believe in such a god that Kevin presents?"

David is the one who has presented God as not knowing many things, not Kevin.

I never said that God did not know all things, I merely asked you a question and you immediately throw out all kinds of accusations that are not even remotely true.

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), August 30, 2004.

It is amazing that I can quote two passages of scripture, Jeremiah 7:31 and Jeremiah 19:5 and ask a question and the accusations begin to fly...

This does not surprise me in the least...

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), August 30, 2004.

Let's get this thread back on track with some questions that I asked that David did not answer.

1. Can the child of God be "devoured" by the devil???

2. If not, then why should the Christian fear the devil if "the elect" cannot be lost???

3. Were these disciples of Jesus as mentioned in John 6:66 saved before they left Jesus???

4. What does this statement mean David??? "It is written in the prophets, 'And they shall all be taught by God.'" (John 6:45).

5. Where is it written that we require a "direct operation of the Holy Spirit" in order to understand God's word???

6. Is the gospel God's power to salvation for "all men" or only for the "elect of God"???

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), August 30, 2004.

Here are some more questions for you:

7. Why did Jesus never teach that man was depraved or blamed mans sin on Adam. Rather he always held each man responsible for his own sin.

8. If every newborn is "utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good, and wholly inclined to all evil", then: a. how do we account for the goodness of the "unregenerate" like Cornelius, Acts 10:1-4, 22, or anyone else today. How do we account for all the good things that non-Christians do?

b. then how can "evil men proceed from bad to worse" 1 Ti 3:13?

9. Why is the Greek word "sarx" (English=flesh, Mistranslated "sinful nature" throughout the NIV) which Calvinists say teaches the inherited depraved sinful nature of man, also used in scripture of Jesus in Heb 2:14; 1 Pe 4:1; 3:18; 1 Jn 4:2?

10. Why would Jesus not inherit the guilt of sin & depravity from his mother Mary?

11. If Mary was "conceived sinless" so that Jesus would not get inherited sin then:

a. wouldn't Jesus' brothers and sisters also be born without inherited sin?

b. wouldn't all the children of Christians today (whose depravity has been removed) are born without inherited sin.

c. If we can inherit the corrupt nature of our parents, then why can we not inherit the righteousness of our parents?

d. If God could conceive Mary without sin why did He not simply conceive Jesus without sin?

12. What is the difference in "nature" between Adam before his sin, Mary who was "immaculate" and Christians who have their depravity removed, and Jesus?

13. If baptism removes the depraved nature of man, then why does he continue to sin afterward?

14. If Adam became depraved only after he sinned, then why did he sin before he was depraved? We sin, it is said, because we are "wholly inclined" towards evil and "utterly indisposed" towards good. That may explain why we sin, but why did Adam sin? Adam was totally hereditarily righteous, yet he still sinned!

15. If Adam choose to sin while dead to sin, may we not also choose to do right while dead in sin?

16. If "non-elect" infants do not die in infancy (as E.K Garrett, primitive Baptist taught, using Job 21:7 as his proof text) then were all the babies killed in the flood and in Sodom and Gomorrah elect and predestined to be saved?"

Copied from: http://www.bible.ca/cal-T-questions.htm

The only change is I have renumbered the questions and added the letters a. and b. for question 8 and a. b. c. and d. for question 11.

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), August 30, 2004.

17. Is it possible for a wicked man to turn from his sins and be saved???

18. Is it possible for a righteous man to turn away from his righteousness and die???

19. Did Christ taste death for every man or only for the elect???

20. If Christ come to seek and save that which was lost how is it that Calvinists allege the elect were chosen unto salvation before the foundation of the world is true??? What was lost that Christ could save???

That is enough questions for now.

I would like to return to the passage that David quoted earlier (Romans 9:10-13) in the hope that the writing of someone else will help you understand this passage.

I quote from brother E. Lee Saffold:

"And not only [this]; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, [even] by our father Isaac; (For [the children] being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;) It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger. As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated." (Romans 9:10-13).

That we may understand this passage, it is important to call our reader's attention to the fact that there are two quotations in this verse from the Old Testament, which should not be blended together. One quotation is from Genesis, and was spoken before Jacob and Esau were born; the other is from Malachi, and was spoken long after they had both been dead. Before the children were born, it was said to their mother, "the elder shall serve the younger;" but in the next verse is a quotation from Malachi, where it is written "Jacob have I loved but Esau have I hated." When the mistake is made of blending these two quotations together as if they were from the same source and used for the same purpose, God is made to say that he loved Jacob and hated Esau before they were born; or had, either of them done good or evil. This is doing a great injustice to the record. Let us read these two Old Testament references. Let us begin by reading what was said of these two men before they were born.

"And Isaac entreated the LORD for his wife, because she [was] barren: and the LORD was entreated of him, and Rebekah his wife conceived. And the children struggled together within her; and she said, If [it be] so, why [am] I thus? And she went to enquire of the LORD. And the LORD said unto her, Two nations [are] in thy womb, and two manner of people shall be separated from thy bowels; and [the one] people shall be stronger than [the other] people; and the elder shall serve the younger." (Genesis 25: 21-23).

Here is what was said before Jacob and Esau were born, and we find not one single word about hating Esau and loving Jacob in the entire narrative. But as Paul said it was so written we are justified in expecting to find it somewhere. So let us try again.

"The burden of the word of the LORD to Israel by Malachi. I have loved you, saith the LORD. Yet ye say, Wherein hast thou loved us? [Was] not Esau Jacob's brother? saith the LORD: yet I loved Jacob, And I hated Esau, and laid his mountains and his heritage waste for the dragons of the wilderness." (Malachi 1:1-3). This was said about fourteen hundred years after Jacob and Esau were both dead therefore it cannot prove that God hated or loved either of them before they were born!

Both of these passages refer to Jacob and Esau as the representatives of the nations, which descended from them. Thus we can see from the language of God to Rebekah: "Two nations are in thy womb, and two manner of people shall be separated from thy bowels; and the one people shall be stronger than the other people; and the elder shall serve the younger." (Genesis 25:21-23). Notice that it does not say the ONE MAN shall be stronger than the OTHER MAN. But instead says the "ONE PEOPLE" shall be stronger than the "OTHER PEOPLE". Nor was it said that the elder man shall serve the younger man. On the contrary, the inference is quite clear that the people who would descend from the elder would serve the people who would descend from the younger. This passage was never fulfilled in the individual personages of these two brothers.

Esau never did, as an individual, serve Jacob. But quite to the contrary, Jacob feared Esau, and came much nearer serving him. When Jacob, at the suggestion of his mother, fraudulently obtained his brother's blessing, which was intended for Esau, the anger of Esau was kindled against his brother Jacob. Read what God's word says:

"And Esau hated Jacob because of the blessing wherewith his father blessed him: and Esau said in his heart, The days of mourning for my father are at hand; then will I slay my brother Jacob. And these words of Esau her elder son were told to Rebekah: and she sent and called Jacob her younger son, and said unto him, Behold, thy brother Esau, as touching thee, doth comfort himself, [purposing] to kill thee. Now therefore, my son, obey my voice; and arise, flee thou to Laban my brother to Haran; And tarry with him a few days, until thy brother's fury turn away; Until thy brother's anger turn away from thee, and he forget [that] which thou hast done to him: then I will send, and fetch thee from thence: why should I be deprived also of you both in one day?" (Genesis 27:41-45).

Jacob then fled to Padan-aram, and there remained and served Laban for twenty years. And at the end of that time he returned with two wives, two concubines, eleven sons, and great wealth. We are told by God's word the following:

"And Jacob sent messengers before him to Esau his brother unto the land of Seir, the country of Edom. And he commanded them, saying, Thus shall ye speak unto my lord Esau; Thy servant Jacob saith thus, I have sojourned with Laban, and stayed there until now: And I have oxen, and asses, flocks, and menservants, and womenservants: and I have sent to tell my lord, that I may find grace in thy sight. And the messengers returned to Jacob, saying, We came to thy brother Esau, and also he cometh to meet thee, and four hundred men with him. Then Jacob was greatly afraid and distressed: and he divided the people that [was] with him, and the flocks, and herds, and the camels, into two bands; And said, If Esau come to the one company, and smite it, then the other company which is left shall escape." (Genesis 32:3-8).

Now, notice this friends. In this place we find that instead of Esau serving Jacob personally, Jacob feared Esau greatly. He even called him LORD, and referred to himself as "THY SERVANT JACOB". In his distress he prayed to God: "Deliver me, I pray thee, from the hand of my brother, from the hand of Esau: for I fear him, lest he will come and smite me, [and] the mother with the children." (Genesis 32:11). He also sent messengers with presents to give Esau, that he might buy his favor if possible.

Then it is evident to any thinking person that neither Jacob nor Esau was mentioned under any personal consideration in the passages to which Paul referenced in Romans 9:10-13, but only as REPRESENTATIVES of the nations which should descend from them respectively. Nor was there any thing in the love of God for one, or in his hatred of the other, which could AFFECT THE ETERNAL DESTINY OF EITHER! It is quite certain that all of Jacobs's posterity was not saved and it is equally certain that all of Esau's descendents were not lost. In fact, it cannot be shown by anyone that even Esau himself was lost. He was, indeed wicked when he sold his birth right and is called a "profane person" for doing so. It is also certain, that he was wicked when he determined in his heart to kill his brother at the time of his father?s death. But that he remained wicked throughout his life is by no means certain. True it is that Paul says that "when he would have inherited the blessing, he was rejected: for he found no repentance though he sought it carefully with tears." (Heb. 12:17). But it was in his father that he found no place of repentance, and not in himself. For this is obviously talking about how he sought to persuade his father to repent or change his mind about giving the inheritance to his brother Jacob but his father would not repent of having done so. Paul was not saying the he could not repent of his sins. Instead he could not induce his father to revoke the blessing conferred upon Jacob, although it was fraudulently obtained. And we are told that when Esau met Jacob returning from Padan-aram, "Esau ran to meet him, embraced him, and fell on his neck and kissed him: and they wept." (Genesis 33:4). Now here we find that all his anger toward his brother had disappeared. And they lived in friendship and brother hood ever after so far as we know.

Now the Hebrew writer says, "By faith Isaac blessed Jacob and Esau concerning things to come." (Heb. 11:20). If anyone will take the time to examine these blessings he will find that there is not a single word about eternal life or eternal death in either of them. They pertained instead to national and temporal affairs entirely. Read Genesis 27:27-40.

Thus the language, "Jacob have I loved and Esau have I hated" was intended to apply to the two nations, Israel and Edom, represented by Jacob and Esau, is evident from the language of the context of the verses in the Old Testament from which Paul made his quotation. Look at it, "I have loved you, saith the LORD. Yet ye say, Wherein hast thou loved us? [Was] not Esau Jacob's brother? saith the LORD: yet I loved Jacob, and I hated Esau, and laid his mountains and his heritage waste for the dragons of the wilderness. Whereas Edom saith, We are impoverished, but we will return and build the desolate places; thus saith the LORD of hosts, They shall build, but I will throw down; and they shall call them, The border of wickedness, and, The people against whom the LORD hath indignation for ever." (Malachi 1;2-4).

Here the prophet uses the term "Edom", the name of the nation, which descended from Esau, and the plural pronoun "we", agreeing with it, to designate the same people hated and punished by the Lord. Therefore, when the Lord by his prophet said, long after both men were long dead, "Jacob have I love but Esau have I hated", he was speaking of Israel and Edom as nations and not Jacob and Esau as individuals.

And the term "hated" must be taken in it's often used sense of "loved less" as we can see when Christ said, "If any man come to me and hate not his father, and mother, and wife and children he cannot be my disciple" (Luke 14:27). He does not mean that we are to actually HATE our mother and father and wife and children but rather that we are to Love him more than wee love them. In other words we are to "love them less" than we love our Lord. Then when God said, "I loved Jacob and I hated Esau" the thought is that God loved the children of Israel more than Edom, the descendents of Esau. And this all fits into his intended argument in Romans the ninth chapter of explaining how that God was just in rejecting the disobedient and rebellious Jews and grafting in the Gentiles. As sovereign God he had the right to dictate the terms of mercy to those who would become subjects of his kingdom. These terms were first offer to and rejected by the Jews; hence Paul appealed to the declarations of God to their own lawgiver Moses to show them that God had always shown mercy to whom he would show mercy and upon such as pleased him.

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), August 30, 2004.

<"Let's get this thread back on track with some questions that I asked that David did not answer.">

I'm human, I forget. Don't start conspiracies.

<"Why did God ask Adam the question "Where are you"???">

Because (using your hermeneutic of interpreting scripture) God really did not know where Adam was. God, at that time, was ignorant of Adam's location.

<"I never said that God did not know all things...">

Does God know all things, past present and future exhaustively? Yes or No? If you say yes, then why do you bring up verses to try to prove otherwise? If you say no, then it becomes crystal clear as to why you brought up the classic proof-texts Open Theists used to undermine God's omniscience and prove God that is ignorant.

<1. Can the child of God be "devoured" by the devil??? 2. If not, then why should the Christian fear the devil if "the elect" cannot be lost???>

Jesus accomplishes the will of the Father, thus the elect cannot be lost. Satan, as well as yourself, do not believe in this truth. Satan also believes he can oust Jehovah.

<3. Were these disciples of Jesus as mentioned in John 6:66 saved before they left Jesus???>

"As a result of this many of His disciples withdrew and were not walking with Him anymore."

What a terrific job Christ did preaching, eh? A crowd from 5,000 men preached down to 12 (one which was the devil). No, they were not saved; they were just seeking another meal. You wanted prove of inability, well there is it. When presented with the truth, these men clung to their sin and rebellion and walked away. As Christ said, No man can come to him unless the Father grants it to him.

<4. What does this statement mean David??? "It is written in the prophets, 'And they shall all be taught by God.'" (John 6:45). >

It means the elect hear and learn from the Father.

John 10:27 "My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me; (NASB)

<5. Where is it written that we require a "direct operation of the Holy Spirit" in order to understand God's word???>

It is right next to the verse that mentions the word Trinity (not). You see, the words "direct operation" is not found in the Bible, but the concept is. Look at John 6, 1 Peter 1:3.

Ezekiel 36:26-27
26 And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. 27 And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules.

John 3:6-8
6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. [1] 7 Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’ 8 The wind [2] blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.”

<6. Is the gospel God's power to salvation for "all men" or only for the "elect of God"???>

The gospel is God's power to salvation for "all men"...who believe ;) Don't leave out scripture.

Romans 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. (KJV)

<"7. Why did Jesus never teach that man was depraved or blamed mans sin on Adam. Rather he always held each man responsible for his own sin.">

Read John 6, Jesus himself says man is unable to come to him.

<"8. If every newborn is "utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good, and wholly inclined to all evil", then: a. how do we account for the goodness of the "unregenerate" like Cornelius, Acts 10:1-4, 22, or anyone else today. How do we account for all the good things that non-Christians do? ">

You insert the word 'utterly'. No one teaches that one is born utterly depraved. We teach that sin affects the mind, the heart, etc. so one is "totally" depraved. "good" is in the eyes of the sinner. Unregenerate men cannot do good in God's sight.

<"b. then how can "evil men proceed from bad to worse" 1 Ti 3:13?">

Because one is not born utterly depraved. No Calvinist teaches that. This is why I have asked you to go to a pro-calvinist site if you really want to learn our doctrine. I guess you don't. Keep up with the straw men.

<"9. Why is the Greek word "sarx" (English=flesh, Mistranslated "sinful nature" throughout the NIV) which Calvinists say teaches the inherited depraved sinful nature of man, also used in scripture of Jesus in Heb 2:14; 1 Pe 4:1; 3:18; 1 Jn 4:2? ">

I don't know Greek, therefore I cannot answer this. If you really want an aswer to this question, you can visit James White' channel and ask him yourself. He knows Greek, teaches it, and can answer your question.

You can find the information about the channel here: http://aomin.org/proschat.html

All I can say is: The word is probably used in a different context. This (i.e. context) is something you know nothing of, and if you want prove of this I can bring up your discussion with Max about James 2.

I can give people a preview of your argument: "God wrote the Bible, therefore everything written is from God's Point Of View". Max simply ripped you to shreds showing you how absurd this is, so don't make me re-post it here. BTW, The Bible was written by Men Inspired by the Holy Spirit, I would never say otherwise.

<"10. Why would Jesus not inherit the guilt of sin & depravity from his mother Mary?">

Sin is passed through the father. Jesus had no human father therefore had no sin.

<"11. If Mary was "conceived sinless" so that Jesus would not get inherited sin then:">

a. wouldn't Jesus' brothers and sisters also be born without inherited sin?
d. If God could conceive Mary without sin why did He not simply conceive Jesus without sin?

Mary was a sinner, thus making your "a" and "d" sections irrelevant.

b. wouldn't all the children of Christians today (whose depravity has been removed) are born without inherited sin.

c. If we can inherit the corrupt nature of our parents, then why can we not inherit the righteousness of our parents?

Job 14:4 "Who can bring what is pure from the impure?"

"That which is flesh is flesh.." (John 3)

Those that are enlightened by God are not made sinless-an error the authors of these questions keep making. www.monergism.com if you really want to know what we teach. I doubt you'll visit as you have no intention of discussing what we actually believe.

c. If we can inherit the corrupt nature of our parents, then why can we not inherit the righteousness of our parents?>

Answered.

<"12. What is the difference in "nature" between Adam before his sin, Mary who was "immaculate" and Christians who have their depravity removed, and Jesus?">

Mary was a sinner. Jesus is perfectly righteous and sinless. Christians are still sinners but forgiven. Adam was righteous before he chose to sin. Sin then seperated him from God.

<"13. If baptism removes the depraved nature of man, then why does he continue to sin afterward?">

Re-read your conversations with Max about this.

<"14. If Adam became depraved only after he sinned, then why did he sin before he was depraved? We sin, it is said, because we are "wholly inclined" towards evil and "utterly indisposed" towards good. That may explain why we sin, but why did Adam sin? Adam was totally hereditarily righteous, yet he still sinned!">

More lies and misconceptions. www.monergism.com I can't do your homework for you. We do not teach utter depravity. Read the Westminister Confession too, and then get back to me. Also, Adam sinned because he chosed to sin.

<15. If Adam choose to sin while dead to sin, may we not also choose to do right while dead in sin?>

Adam was not dead to sin. Your next point is irrelevant because it assumes the first.

16. If "non-elect" infants do not die in infancy (as E.K Garrett, primitive Baptist taught, using Job 21:7 as his proof text) then were all the babies killed in the flood and in Sodom and Gomorrah elect and predestined to be saved?">

If "non-elect" infants that do not die, die?? Is that what you are trying to say? If you are asking about their eternal state, you must first answer how many ways of salvation is there? One or Two? Jesus is the way the truth and the life as far as I know.

17. Is it possible for a wicked man to turn from his sins and be saved??? >

Apart from being drawn by the FAther (John 6), No. They will continue in sin and rebellion and walk away when presented with the truth. They do not desire salvation. Read Romans 3.

18. Is it possible for a righteous man to turn away from his righteousness and die??? >

In otherwards, can the elect be lost? No, Jesus is not a failure.

19. Did Christ taste death for every man or only for the elect??? >

I don't know what you mean by this. Do you mean if Christ died for all or the elect? If that is what you mean, Christ only died for the elect.

<20. If Christ come to seek and save that which was lost how is it that Calvinists allege the elect were chosen unto salvation before the foundation of the world is true??? What was lost that Christ could save???>

I can't answer this as it is a trick question and just word play.

<"I would like to return to the passage that David quoted earlier (Romans 9:10-13) in the hope that the writing of someone else will help you understand this passage. ">

You reject God's omniscience, of course you will not take the text for what it says. Your argument is with Paul, not me. He is the one who said "being not yet born". You must understand how Paul was using the passages.

As to Saffold, he is saying this is about nations. This is against Paul's usage of the text. It is not speaking of a class of people, Romans 9 names spefic people like Jaboc, Esau, Pharoh, Esau is also called Jacobs brother.

Matthew Slick rightly points out the portions that refer to singular individuals:

I am telling the truth in Christ, I am not lying, my conscience bearing me witness in the Holy Spirit, 2 that I have great sorrow and unceasing grief in my heart. 3 For I could wish that I myself were accursed, separated from Christ for the sake of my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh, 4 who are Israelites, to whom belongs the adoption as sons and the glory and the covenants and the giving of the Law and the temple service and the promises, 5 whose are the fathers, and from whom is the Christ according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen. 6 But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel; 7 neither are they all children because they are Abraham’s descendants, but: “through Isaac your descendants will be named.” 8 That is, it is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise are regarded as descendants. 9 For this is a word of promise: “At this time I will come, and Sarah shall have a son.” 10 And not only this, but there was Rebekah also, when she had conceived twins by one man, our father Isaac; 11 for though the twins were not yet born, and had not done anything good or bad, in order that God’s purpose according to His choice (eckloge - elect, KJV "election") might stand, not because of works, but because of Him who calls, 12 it was said to her, “The older will serve the younger.” 13 Just as it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.” 14 What shall we say then? There is no injustice with God, is there? May it never be! 15 For He says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom (singular in Greek) I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom (singular in Greek) I have compassion.” 16 So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy. 17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I raised you (singular in Greek) up, to demonstrate My power in you (singular in Greek), and that My name might be proclaimed throughout the whole earth.” 18 So then He has mercy on whom (singular in Greek) He desires, and He hardens whom (singular in Greek) He desires. 19 You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who (singular in Greek) resists His will?” 20 On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, “Why did you make me like this,” will it? 21 Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use, and another for common use? 22 What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction? 23 And He did so in order that He might make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory, 24 even us, whom He also called, not from among Jews only, but also from among Gentiles. 25 As He says also in Hosea, “I will call those who were not My people, ‘My people,’ And her who was not beloved, ‘beloved.’” 26 “And it shall be that in the place where it was said to them, ‘you are not My people,’ There they shall be called sons of the living God.” 27 And Isaiah cries out concerning Israel, “Though the number of the sons of Israel be as the sand of the sea, it is the remnant that will be saved; 28 for the Lord will execute His word upon the earth, thoroughly and quickly.” 29 And just as Isaiah foretold, “Except the Lord of Sabaoth had left to us a posterity, We would have become as Sodom, and would have resembled Gomorrah.” 30 What shall we say then? That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, attained righteousness, even the righteousness which is by faith; 31 but Israel, pursuing a law of righteousness, did not arrive at that law. 32 Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as though it were by works. They stumbled over the stumbling stone, 33 just as it is written, “Behold, I lay in Zion a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense, And he who believes in Him will not be disappointed.”

There is also nothing in this text that gives us reason to believe "hate" in this passages means "loved less". Does God hate people?

Ok, I answered your questions, here are more from others threads:

<"Did Jesus only die for the "elect" or for all men???">

The elect.

<"Jesus our Lord spoke these words concerning His sacrifice for all men. He said, "I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me. This signifying the death that He should die." (John 12:32-33).>

"all men"- those who are of 'every tribe, tongue, people, and nation' (Rev 5:9) If you mean every single individual man, then you are forced to say all men will be saved based on John 6. And God does not draw "all men" (every single individaul as you claim). In fact, God blinds some people, He hardens their hearts too. (How's that for drawing *all* men) [You must also remember the difference in the general call and specific call]

<"What attraction could the death of Christ have for a reprobate...">

I'll stop you right there. The cross of Christ repels unbelievers. It is foolishness to them. Hence, there is no attraction. They desire no salvation.

<"Now why are you quoting me as saying something that I "never" said David???">

I never quoted you. I made a statment about you.

<"I have not done any such thing and I challenge you to post my words where I made this statement.">

"Did God "know" that men would burn their sons and daughters in the fire??? Yes or No???" - (Kevin Walker, 040830)

"Can God "know" something that did not come into His mind???" - (Kevin Walker, 040830)

Is there anything that has happened to man or man has caused to happen in the Bible that God did not know would come to pass??? Yes or No???" - (Kevin Walker, 040828)

"God tested Abraham to "prove" whether or not Abraham would obey Him." - (Kevin Walker, 040828)

"Does the Bible say that God "knew" Abraham would obey Him???" - (Kevin Walker, 040828)

"When did God say that He loved Jacob and hated Esau??? Was it before they were born or after???" - (Kevin Walker, 040828)

Was this Abraham thing a mistake again? You are reverting to the position you argued for a couple of days against Max. I will repost the argument you were using against Max.

"If God KNEW Abraham was going to OBEY Him, there would have been NO reason to TEST him." - (Kevin Walker, 040729)

"Why did God test Abraham???" - (Kevin Walker, 040801)

"if Abraham would not have obeyed God, someone else would have taken his place." - (Kevin Walker, 040801)

Kevin then claims this:

"If God knew Abraham was going to obey Him (and He did), why did God need to test Abraham???"

Which is it? Does God know all things, past present and future exhaustively? Yes or No? You are being inconsistent with your statements. First you try making a point ('If God knew') then flip-flop (He knows) only to go back (Can God know) to the same position you denying holding. If you say Yes, then why cast doubt on God's knowledge? If you say no, this is blasphemy.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), September 01, 2004.

"I'm human, I forget. Don't start conspiracies."

Wow David, I didn't intend to start any "conspiracies". I only made a statement with no ill will intended at all.

"Because (using your hermeneutic of interpreting scripture) God really did not know where Adam was. God, at that time, was ignorant of Adam's location."

I merely asked a question, and did not mean to "imply" that God was ignorant. You were the one who made that statement.

"Does God know all things, past present and future exhaustively? Yes or No?"

Yes, God knows "all things".

"If you say yes, then why do you bring up verses to try to prove otherwise?"

I don't know why I brought up those verses. I guess the reason for posting those verses would be to see your reply, and as typical instead of debating the post, you are quick to offer judgment even though I never said that I held to the position of an "open theist". It is amazing that I can quote two or three passages of scripture and then be judged without even offering any commentary.

I asked questions 1 and 2. "1. Can the child of God be "devoured" by the devil??? 2. If not, then why should the Christian fear the devil if "the elect" cannot be lost???"

To which David replied, "Jesus accomplishes the will of the Father, thus the elect cannot be lost. Satan, as well as yourself, do not believe in this truth. Satan also believes he can oust Jehovah."

If the elect cannot be lost, then please answer question number 2??? Yes the elect "can" be lost. Go back and re-read the parable of the sower.

I wrote, "3. Were these disciples of Jesus as mentioned in John 6:66 saved before they left Jesus???"

To which David replied, "What a terrific job Christ did preaching, eh? A crowd from 5,000 men preached down to 12 (one which was the devil). No, they were not saved; they were just seeking another meal. You wanted prove of inability, well there is it. When presented with the truth, these men clung to their sin and rebellion and walked away. As Christ said, No man can come to him unless the Father grants it to him."

How do you know they were "just seeking another meal"??? The text says nothing of the sort. Yes, these "disciples" walked away from Jesus. What is a disciple David??? Were these disciples "called" by the Father??? If not, who called them???

I wrote, "4. What does this statement mean David??? "It is written in the prophets, 'And they shall all be taught by God.'" (John 6:45)."

To which David replied, "It means the elect hear and learn from the Father."

Where does the word "elect" appear in the text of John 6:45??? The text I quoted says "all"... David would you please elaborate????

David then quoted John 10:27, "My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me; (NASB)"

Please notice that the sheep follow Jesus. A sheep can "cease" to follow Jesus. A sheep can also get lost or be caught by a wolf and devoured.

I wrote, "5. Where is it written that we require a "direct operation of the Holy Spirit" in order to understand God's word???"

To which David replied, "It is right next to the verse that mentions the word Trinity (not). You see, the words "direct operation" is not found in the Bible, but the concept is. Look at John 6, 1 Peter 1:3."

It is amazing that someone can hold to a doctrine and the words that would prove his doctrine can "not" be found in the Bible. I looked at the verses that David provided and a "direct operation" of the Holy Spirit is never said to be required to bring one to faith in Jesus Christ.

David quoted Ezekiel 36:26-27, "26 And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. 27 And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules."

These two verses do "not" say that a "direct operation" of the Holy Spirit is required in order for one to be saved now does it??? The Holy Spirit "only" resides in us "through faith". How does one get faith again??? The Bible states it is "through faith" and "not" through a direct operation of the Holy Spirit.

David then quoted, John 3:6-8, "6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. [1] 7 Do not marvel that I said to you, ?You must be born again.? 8 The wind [2] blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit."

1 Peter 1:23 says, "having been born again, not of corruptible seed but incorruptible, through the word of God which lives and abides forever,"

We are born again "through the word of God" and "not" through a "direct operation" of the Holy Spirit.

I wrote, "6. Is the gospel God's power to salvation for "all men" or only for the "elect of God"???"

To which David replied, "The gospel is God's power to salvation for "all men"...who believe ;) Don't leave out scripture."

It was not my intention to leave out "who believe". Does "all men" mean "all men" or only the "elect" of God???

David then quotes Romans 1:16, "For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. (KJV)"

How can the gospel be God's power to salvation if one must have a "direct operation" to understand God's word??? Did God make his word so far above any of us that we are too stupid to understand it??? This is close to the doctrine of Catholics that say that we cannot understand God's word, hence we need an interpreter. Both of these doctrines are false to the core. Satan wants to make sure that no one can understand God's word because those who understand and do what God requires one must do to be saved will actually be saved. The devil wants everyone to burn in the lake of fire with him. If a "direct operation" of the Holy Spirit saves, then how is it possible for Satan to "take away the word out of their hearts" (Luke 8:12), if this call is "irresistable"???

I wrote, "7. Why did Jesus never teach that man was depraved or blamed mans sin on Adam. Rather he always held each man responsible for his own sin."

To which David replied, "Read John 6, Jesus himself says man is unable to come to him."

David this is not true. Jesus himself said in Matthew 11:28, "Come to Me, all you who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest."

He does not say "come to me through a direct operation of the Holy Spirit" now does He???

I wrote, "8. If every newborn is "utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good, and wholly inclined to all evil", then: a. how do we account for the goodness of the "unregenerate" like Cornelius, Acts 10:1-4, 22, or anyone else today. How do we account for all the good things that non-Christians do? "

To which David replied, "You insert the word 'utterly'. No one teaches that one is born utterly depraved. We teach that sin affects the mind, the heart, etc. so one is "totally" depraved. "good" is in the eyes of the sinner. Unregenerate men cannot do good in God's sight."

This also is "not" true. Ezekiel 18:21 says, "But if a wicked man turns from all his sins which he has committed, keeps all My statutes, and does what is lawful and right, he shall surely live; he shall not die."

I wrote, "b. then how can "evil men proceed from bad to worse" 1 Ti 3:13?"

To which David replied, "Because one is not born utterly depraved. No Calvinist teaches that. This is why I have asked you to go to a pro-calvinist site if you really want to learn our doctrine. I guess you don't. Keep up with the straw men."

How can one get worse than being "totally" depraved to a worse condition???

I wrote, "9. Why is the Greek word "sarx" (English=flesh, Mistranslated "sinful nature" throughout the NIV) which Calvinists say teaches the inherited depraved sinful nature of man, also used in scripture of Jesus in Heb 2:14; 1 Pe 4:1; 3:18; 1 Jn 4:2? "

To which David replied, "I don't know Greek, therefore I cannot answer this. If you really want an aswer to this question, you can visit James White' channel and ask him yourself. He knows Greek, teaches it, and can answer your question."

I didn't ask if you "knew" Greek now did I David??? Please answer the question.

"All I can say is: The word is probably used in a different context. This (i.e. context) is something you know nothing of, and if you want prove of this I can bring up your discussion with Max about James 2."

I didn't ask you to bring up my conversation with someone else, I asked David to answer the question not Max. If the word is used in a different "context", then please explain what this "context" is since you are the expert here and I know nothing about it according to what you posted above.

"I can give people a preview of your argument: "God wrote the Bible, therefore everything written is from God's Point Of View". Max simply ripped you to shreds showing you how absurd this is, so don't make me re-post it here. BTW, The Bible was written by Men Inspired by the Holy Spirit, I would never say otherwise."

This is your opinion that "Max ripped" me to shreds. There you go again trying to put words in my mouth with your "preview".

I wrote, "10. Why would Jesus not inherit the guilt of sin & depravity from his mother Mary?"

To which David replied, "Sin is passed through the father. Jesus had no human father therefore had no sin."

Where is it written that "Sin is passed through the father"???

I wrote, "11. If Mary was "conceived sinless" so that Jesus would not get inherited sin then: a. wouldn't Jesus' brothers and sisters also be born without inherited sin? d. If God could conceive Mary without sin why did He not simply conceive Jesus without sin?"

To which David replied, "Mary was a sinner, thus making your "a" and "d" sections irrelevant."

Ok, I suppose this question was geared more for Catholics.

I wrote, "b. wouldn't all the children of Christians today (whose depravity has been removed) are born without inherited sin. c. If we can inherit the corrupt nature of our parents, then why can we not inherit the righteousness of our parents?"

To which David replied, "Job 14:4 "Who can bring what is pure from the impure?"

Where is it written that we are "born" impure???

David continued, "That which is flesh is flesh.." (John 3)"

Ok, this still does not prove that we are born sinners.

David wrote, "Those that are enlightened by God are not made sinless-an error the authors of these questions keep making. www.monergism.com if you really want to know what we teach. I doubt you'll visit as you have no intention of discussing what we actually believe."

When one is saved does God cleanse us of all of our sins yes or no??? If those "enlightened by God are not made sinless" then what happens to ones sins when they are saved???

I wrote, "c. If we can inherit the corrupt nature of our parents, then why can we not inherit the righteousness of our parents?"

To which David replied, "Answered."

Not...

I wrote, "12. What is the difference in "nature" between Adam before his sin, Mary who was "immaculate" and Christians who have their depravity removed, and Jesus?"

To which David replied, "Mary was a sinner. Jesus is perfectly righteous and sinless. Christians are still sinners but forgiven. Adam was righteous before he chose to sin. Sin then seperated him from God."

Are all of ones sins removed when they are saved??? Yes or No???

I wrote, "13. If baptism removes the depraved nature of man, then why does he continue to sin afterward?"

To which David replied, "Re-read your conversations with Max about this."

I didn't ask Max, I asked you...

I wrote, "14. If Adam became depraved only after he sinned, then why did he sin before he was depraved? We sin, it is said, because we are "wholly inclined" towards evil and "utterly indisposed" towards good. That may explain why we sin, but why did Adam sin? Adam was totally hereditarily righteous, yet he still sinned!"

To which David replied, "More lies and misconceptions. www.monergism.com I can't do your homework for you. We do not teach utter depravity. Read the Westminister Confession too, and then get back to me. Also, Adam sinned because he chosed to sin."

Okay, so what is the difference between "utterly depraved" and "totally depraved"??? Was Adam saved even though he sinned???

I wrote, "15. If Adam choose to sin while dead to sin, may we not also choose to do right while dead in sin?"

To which David replied, "Adam was not dead to sin. Your next point is irrelevant because it assumes the first."

Really??? If Adam was not dead to sin befored he sinned, then what was he??? Did God create Adam with a propensity to sin??? I thought that everything that God created was "good"???

I wrote, "16. If "non-elect" infants do not die in infancy (as E.K Garrett, primitive Baptist taught, using Job 21:7 as his proof text) then were all the babies killed in the flood and in Sodom and Gomorrah elect and predestined to be saved?"

To which David replied, "If "non-elect" infants that do not die, die?? Is that what you are trying to say? If you are asking about their eternal state, you must first answer how many ways of salvation is there? One or Two? Jesus is the way the truth and the life as far as I know."

Where do infants go that die before they have had a chance to come to Jesus??? If God "knew" before hand that they would die and not be saved, then why did He even create them in the first place???

I wrote, "17. Is it possible for a wicked man to turn from his sins and be saved???"

To which David replied, "Apart from being drawn by the FAther (John 6), No. They will continue in sin and rebellion and walk away when presented with the truth. They do not desire salvation. Read Romans 3."

Go back and re-read Ezekiel 18:21-23.

I wrote, "18. Is it possible for a righteous man to turn away from his righteousness and die???"

To which David replied, "In otherwards, can the elect be lost? No, Jesus is not a failure."

This also is "not" true. God says in Ezekiel 18:24, "But when a righteous man turns away from his righteousness and commits iniquity, and does according to all the abominations that the wicked man does, shall he live? All the righteousness which he has done shall not be remembered; because of the unfaithfulness of which he is guilty and the sin which he has committed, because of them HE SHALL DIE."

I wrote, "19. Did Christ taste death for every man or only for the elect???"

To which David replied, "I don't know what you mean by this. Do you mean if Christ died for all or the elect? If that is what you mean, Christ only died for the elect."

Where does it state in the Bible that Christ died "only for the elect"???

I wrote, "20. If Christ come to seek and save that which was lost how is it that Calvinists allege the elect were chosen unto salvation before the foundation of the world is true??? What was lost that Christ could save???"

To which David replied, "I can't answer this as it is a trick question and just word play."

Oh please just answer the question. Do you choose not to answer because in answering this question you might see that you have been wrong???

I will respond to the rest of David's post later...

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), September 01, 2004.

Kevin said,"Does "all men" mean "all men" or only the "elect" of God???"

All men who believe. That's my final answer. Do all men believe?

Kevin said,"I didn't ask if you "knew" Greek now did I David??? Please answer the question."

It makes no sense to ask someone who doesn't know Greek a question on Greek grammer.

It amazes me you want me to answer question about a language I do not speak ,read, or write. Could I be any clearer? I don't know Greek. You ask me a Greek question, therefore I am not qualified to answer it. I refered you to someone who can.

I can make a guess though-I said the word might have been used in a different context. Like in the English language, does the word "For" always mean "in order to obtain" ???

BBIAB,

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), September 01, 2004.

I wrote, "I would like to return to the passage that David quoted earlier (Romans 9:10-13) in the hope that the writing of someone else will help you understand this passage. "

To which David replied, "You reject God's omniscience, of course you will not take the text for what it says."

No, I do "not" reject the omniscience of God. Where is it written besides in this verse that God said that He loved Jacob and hated Esau???

David wrote, "Your argument is with Paul, not me. He is the one who said "being not yet born". You must understand how Paul was using the passages."

I have no argument with Paul, I believe exactly what he wrote. You on the other hand have to "combine" what Paul wrote to get to your belief in these passages of Scripture. "being not yet born" has nothing to do with what was written when God said He loved Jacob and hated Esau.

David wrote, "As to Saffold, he is saying this is about nations. This is against Paul's usage of the text. It is not speaking of a class of people, Romans 9 names spefic people like Jaboc, Esau, Pharoh, Esau is also called Jacobs brother."

Just because Romans 9 names specific people, it does not necessarily mean that he was talking "specifically" about them. Just dismissing an argument without "specific" proof does not prove your point.

David then wrote, "Matthew Slick rightly points out the portions that refer to singular individuals: and quoted Romans 9:2-33 and underlined words that supposedly proves his point. Let me give you a little hint: Underlining words does not prove a point. Instead of pointing out how brother Saffold's exegesis of certain passages of Scripture is incorrect, here merely dismisses them out of hand without any comment. This does not surprise me in the least.

David wrote, "There is also nothing in this text that gives us reason to believe "hate" in this passages means "loved less". Does God hate people?"

Again, instead of taking what Mr. Saffold wrote and showing how this does not agree with what has been written, David merely brushes away his comments without any exegesis of his own. Does this passage in Luke 14:26, "If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and his own life also, he cannot be My disciple." Did God really mean that we are to literally hate everyone in this passage of Scripture??? If so, how does it balance with this Scripture that Jesus spoke in Luke 6:27-28???? "27 But I say to you who hear: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, 28 bless those who curse you, and pray for those who spitefully use you."

I wrote, "Did Jesus only die for the "elect" or for all men???"

To which David replied, "The elect."

You already answered this question in your earlier post, however I will ask you again where is this written that Jesus died "only" for the elect??? Did God so love the world, or only His elect in John 3:16-17??? "16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. 17 For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved."

I wrote, "Jesus our Lord spoke these words concerning His sacrifice for all men. He said, "I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me. This signifying the death that He should die." (John 12:32-33)."

To which David replied, "all men"- those who are of 'every tribe, tongue, people, and nation' (Rev 5:9) If you mean every single individual man, then you are forced to say all men will be saved based on John 6."

No, this does "not" mean that all men will be saved nor am I "forced" to say that all men will be saved based on John 6. Does God desire "all men" to be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth (1 Timothy 2:4) or is this just a mistake God made??? According to your doctrine Jesus only died for the "elect" so God cannot desire "all men" to be saved and yet only call the elect who were foreordained before the creation of the world that they would be saved.

David wrote, "And God does not draw "all men" (every single individaul as you claim)."

I guess God made a mistake when He wrote in Isaiah 45:22, "Look to Me, and be saved, All you ends of the earth! For I am God, and there is no other."

Or this passage in Ezekiel 18:23, "Do I have any pleasure at all that the wicked should die?" says the Lord GOD, "and not that he should turn from his ways and live?"

Here is another one in Ezekiel 18:32, "For I have no pleasure in the death of one who dies," says the Lord GOD. "Therefore turn and live!"

One more in Ezekiel 33:11, "Say to them: 'As I live,' says the Lord GOD, 'I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live. Turn, turn from your evil ways! For why should you die, O house of Israel?'"

Here is one in the New Testament from John 3:15, "that WHOEVER believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life."

Has the grace of God appeared to "all men" or only the "elect"??? Titus 2:11 gives us the answer, "For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men,"

One final one in 2 Peter 3:9, "The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that ALL should come to repentance."

David wrote, "In fact, God blinds some people, He hardens their hearts too. (How's that for drawing *all* men) [You must also remember the difference in the general call and specific call]"

Just because God hardens the hearts of some people does "not" mean that only the "elect" have the opportunity to be saved.

I wrote, "What attraction could the death of Christ have for a reprobate..."

To which David replied, "I'll stop you right there. The cross of Christ repels unbelievers. It is foolishness to them. Hence, there is no attraction. They desire no salvation."

Did Christ die for the sins of "all men" or only the "elect"???

I wrote, "Now why are you quoting me as saying something that I "never" said David???"

To which David replied, "I never quoted you. I made a statment about you."

Okay, so I used the wrong wording again?

I wrote, "I have not done any such thing and I challenge you to post my words where I made this statement."

To which David replied, "Did God "know" that men would burn their sons and daughters in the fire??? Yes or No???" - (Kevin Walker, 040830)"

This question I asked does not prove your statement you made about me.

David continued, "Can God "know" something that did not come into His mind???" - (Kevin Walker, 040830)"

Again, I asked another question, this does not prove the statement you made about me.

David continued, "Is there anything that has happened to man or man has caused to happen in the Bible that God did not know would come to pass??? Yes or No???" - (Kevin Walker, 040828)"

Once again, here I merely asked a question, this does not prove the statement you made about me.

David continued, "God tested Abraham to "prove" whether or not Abraham would obey Him." - (Kevin Walker, 040828)"

This also does not prove the statement you made about me. Did God test the faith of Abraham to prove his faith???

David continued, "Does the Bible say that God "knew" Abraham would obey Him???" - (Kevin Walker, 040828)"

This also does not prove your statement.

David continued, "When did God say that He loved Jacob and hated Esau??? Was it before they were born or after???" - (Kevin Walker, 040828)"

Again, no proof. I even quoted the passage that states where it was written. David has yet to prove me wrong.

David wrote, "Was this Abraham thing a mistake again? You are reverting to the position you argued for a couple of days against Max. I will repost the argument you were using against Max."

Okay, this still does not prove the statement you made about me.

David quoted my words, "If God KNEW Abraham was going to OBEY Him, there would have been NO reason to TEST him." - (Kevin Walker, 040729)"

I already explained this to you twice, do I need to remind you a third time that I made a mistake in my wording???

David wrote, "Why did God test Abraham???" - (Kevin Walker, 040801)"

This still does not prove your point.

David wrote, "if Abraham would not have obeyed God, someone else would have taken his place." - (Kevin Walker, 040801)"

Again, no proof of your point.

David wrote, "Kevin then claims this: "If God knew Abraham was going to obey Him (and He did), why did God need to test Abraham???"

Then he chimes in with, "Which is it? Does God know all things, past present and future exhaustively? Yes or No? You are being inconsistent with your statements. First you try making a point ('If God knew') then flip-flop (He knows) only to go back (Can God know) to the same position you denying holding. If you say Yes, then why cast doubt on God's knowledge? If you say no, this is blasphemy."

I am "not" being inconsistent with my statements. Yes, God knows all things however this does not prove that He does not require proof of our faith now does it David??? God is our creator, if He demands proof of our faith (and He does), who are we to argue with Him even if He does know all things??? God tests our faith to prove if we are going to obey Him. James 1:12 states, "Blessed is the man who endures temptation; for when he has been APPROVED, he will receive the crown of life which the Lord has promised to those who love Him."

God does not say in Romans 2:6-11 that only the elect have a chance at eternal life for there is no partiality with God. "6 will render to each one according to his deeds": 7 eternal life to those who by patient continuance in doing good seek for glory, honor, and immortality; 8 but to those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness--indignation and wrath, 9 tribulation and anguish, on every soul of man who does evil, of the Jew first and also of the Greek; 10 but glory, honor, and peace to everyone who works what is good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. 11 For there is no partiality with God."

All men have the opportunity to be saved, not just the "elect" as you allege David.

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), September 01, 2004.

I wrote, "Does "all men" mean "all men" or only the "elect" of God???"

To which David replied, "All men who believe. That's my final answer. Do all men believe?"

Please notice that earlier David said, "I don't know what you mean by this. Do you mean if Christ died for all or the elect? If that is what you mean, Christ only died for the elect."

Which is it David, did Jesus die for only those who "believe", or only for the "elect"??? Can all men believe??? These two passages of Scripture means nothing to David, John 20:30-31, "30 And truly Jesus did many other signs in the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book; 31 but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name."

Was the Bible written only for the "elect" or for all men David???

I wrote, "I didn't ask if you "knew" Greek now did I David??? Please answer the question."

To which David replied, "It makes no sense to ask someone who doesn't know Greek a question on Greek grammer. It amazes me you want me to answer question about a language I do not speak ,read, or write. Could I be any clearer? I don't know Greek. You ask me a Greek question, therefore I am not qualified to answer it. I refered you to someone who can."

I did not ask you to respond to the Greek argument, do you understand the word "sinful nature"??? This is what I wanted you to respond to and not the Greek argument. It seems that you jumped on the Greek word because you did not want to answer this question???

David wrote, "I can make a guess though-I said the word might have been used in a different context."

You never even looked at the word "sinful nature" nor did you even look at the passages that were quoted did you David???

David wrote, "Like in the English language, does the word "For" always mean "in order to obtain"???"

No, the English word "for" does not always mean "in order to obtain" however, in the New Testament passages that you are talking about, this word always looks forward, not backward.

We do not even need to debate the English word "for" anymore as there are two passages in John 3:25-26 that prove that baptism washes away sin, "25 Then there arose a dispute between some of John's disciples and the Jews about PURIFICATION. 26 And they came to John and said to him, "Rabbi, He who was with you beyond the Jordan, to whom you have testified--behold, He is BAPTIZING, and all are coming to Him!"

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), September 01, 2004.

"Did God so love the world, or only His elect in John 3:16-17???" - Kevin

You assume "world" means every single individual. On what basis do you want us to believe this?

[Note: v.17 Christ came to save the world] Also, If God loves "all men" (those who receive eternal life, as well as those who suffer eternal damnation), what does the love of God have to do with anyone's salvation?

"Does God desire "all men" to be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth (1 Timothy 2:4) or is this just a mistake God made???" - Kevin

God don't make mistakes ;) You have not shown us why we should believe 1Tim 2:4 means "every single individual". A question to consider: Does Christ mediate for believers or unbelievers, or both?

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), September 02, 2004.

"You assume "world" means every single individual. On what basis do you want us to believe this?"

If God "only" meant His "elect" in these passages, why did He say "world" instead of "elect"??? On what basis do you believe that He meant "elect" instead of what is clearly meant in these passages???

"[Note: v.17 Christ came to save the world] Also, If God loves "all men" (those who receive eternal life, as well as those who suffer eternal damnation), what does the love of God have to do with anyone's salvation?"

Christ came to save the "world" not only the "elect". Did Christ's death on the cross cover all men's sins, or only the "elect". If you say only the "elect", then prove it... I want you to provide specific Scriptures that show that Jesus only died for the "elect". If you cannot, then you need to change your beliefs.

"God don't make mistakes ;) You have not shown us why we should believe 1Tim 2:4 means "every single individual". A question to consider: Does Christ mediate for believers or unbelievers, or both?"

What do you not understand about "all men" in this passage of Scripture??? We are talking about salvation, not whether or not Christ meditates for unbelievers, there is a difference.

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), September 03, 2004.

Hey, I asked you first... you are the one that assumed "world" in these passages means every single individual, and "all men" in 1Tim 4 means every single individual. Explain away your assertions.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), September 03, 2004.

Just because I haven't explain mine yet, doesn't mean that makes your assertions automatically true.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), September 03, 2004.

"Did Christ's death on the cross cover all men's sins, or only the "elect". "

If Christ covered all sins, why do people Go to hell?

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), September 03, 2004.

Ah! it puts a little tarnish on eternal security and faith alone. We can lose our Salvation if we don't stay faithful and do works.

.......

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 03, 2004.

Kevin, you first have to realize that you believe in a limited atonment as well. You would say something like this: Christ died for "all men" (every single individual), but his death is only effective for those who "obey".

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), September 03, 2004.

"Why did Jesus Christ come to die? Did Christ come simply to make salvation possible, or did He come to actually obtain eternal redemption?"

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), September 03, 2004.

Jesus came to Make salvation possible, David.

Different possiblilities also, David. Depends in what books you rely on for salvation in Jesus.

Jesus followers had different ideas. One group included James (Jesus' brother), Peter, Judas (Thadddeus), John (James brother)...They stressed righteousness. Books: James, Matthew, Mark, Revelation, Pter, Jude...)

Another Group included Paul, Timothy, Luke, Titus,....They stressed grace.Books : Like, Paul's letters except Hebrews (not his), ...

Another Barnabas, Appolos, John Mark, Aquila,...They stress God's love, righteouness and Jesus atonement.Books : Hebrews (Written by either Barnabas or Apollos, not Paul. It doesn't include Paul's signature: grace.), John's gopel, John's letters.

According to Paul, we are saved through God Yahweh's grace in Christ Jesus. Romans 1:5,7 through grace,1:16-17 salvation by by faith.

According to John's Gospel through being born of God and belief in Jesus.John 3:3 born again, 3:16-18 by faith.

These books stress righteousness (works):

According to Revelation 20:12 what a person did, repeated by Jesus again in 22:12. The Greek word erga, ergon is the word for works. This matches James 1:221:27,2:14,18,20-26. He call ii righteousness too.

Also Matthew 7:21-23 who does the will of the father,25:14-26 and 25:34-40 those who are righteous,

Mark 10:17 what must I do to inherit eternal life?,12:the fruits from the vinyard

Hebrews is acombination of faith, atonement (grace), and righteousness. Hebrews 3:16-17,9:11-15 atonement.Hebrews 7:1-12,1516 righteousness. Hebrews 11: faith chapter.

The Christian Yahwist

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), September 03, 2004.

Kevin,

I'm sorry, but I am going to have to stop this discussion. I typed out my reply, went out of town, came back to find out my little sister crashed my computer. So I lost everything.

All I can say, is that you continue to misrepresent what we believe. If you really want to learn what we believe, go buy a good book on this. _Debating Calvinism_ by James White and Dave Hunt would be a good starter. Dave presents all the typical, emotional, unscriptural arguments you have heard, and James White does he best to answer them.

I don't think I can post much longer. Here is a good site for starters:

http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/topic/doc trinesofgrace.html

You can continue to misrepresent what we believe, or actually read what we believe from people who believe this.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), September 06, 2004.

Well, my baby is back up and running =)

I'll post my reply later.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), September 07, 2004.

Take for example this ongoing belief that we teach utter depravity. You posted a few questions that made this error. I told you I could not reply because of a problem I had. It is now fixed, but if you continue this taunting I'll make sure to delete all 800+ posts of yours and ban you.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), September 08, 2004.

Why are we being taunted with this "total depravity", David? I am not taunting anyone, yet you say that we do. I read the articles. Was I supposed to believe them?

.............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 08, 2004.

I was replying to Kevin.

rod,

No, you were not suppose to believe them. You were suppose to actually learn what we believe before you go attacking it.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), September 08, 2004.

What if it doesn't match my belief? And, I ask questions. Is that still attacking?

There was a time when I could not ask specific questions in the Catholic Forum either. I guess this is one of those instances, as well. Some of those questions got deleted, too.

.............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 08, 2004.

rod,

There is a difference in actually questioning a belief someone holds, and a belief someone does not hold. Kevin has been questioning a belief I do not hold to, which makes things difficult.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), September 08, 2004.

Two guys were taken prisoner by some bullies. One guy was taken away to be severely beaten while the other stayed behind. The bullies had no rope. Instead, they drew a circle on the ground and told the one guy to stay inside or his beating would be worse than the other's. The guy agreed to stay put. The whole time, the other screamed in pain and agony over his beatings. This went on for quite some time. Eventually, the bullies returned dragging the poor beaten guy along with them. As they came to the guy inside the circle, they couldn't understand why the guy was laughing extremely lound and uncontrollable. After a moment, the laughing guy was able to speak. They asked him why he was laughing so hard, especially after witnessing his friends aftermath of pain and suffering. The guy inside the circle finally confessed.

"You see. While you all were beating up my friend to near death. I stepped out of the circle about five times. You didn't even notice!"

This probably has something to do with each of our personal beliefs in doctrines. I just don't know what that is.

................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 08, 2004.

Kevin said, "If the elect cannot be lost, then please answer question number 2??? Yes the elect "can" be lost. Go back and re- read the parable of the sower."

Why should you fear Satan? We have been through this parable already. Only one in that parable was saved. Why do you continue to attack Scripture with more Scripture? Why not harmonize it? You throw the parable at me because I believe Jesus when he says that ALL whom the Father draws, will receive eternal life.

Kevin said that SOME who are drawn by the Father will NOT receive eternal life. Jesus said that ALL who are drawn by the Father WILL receive eternal life.

Whom to believe?

Kevin pits scripture against scripture, and brings up the parable of the sower to back up his claim, which is against Jesus Christ himself.

David agrees with the parable, but not with Kevin's interpretation of it. Only one in the parable is saved. Kevin wants us to believe that the other three were effectually called, but not raised to eternal life.

I'll let the reader’s judge who is the one that is trying to be consistent with the rest of scripture, and who is the one that completely ignores parts of scriptures and pays attention to only his section.

Kevin said, "How do you know they were "just seeking another meal"??? The text says nothing of the sort. Yes, these "disciples" walked away from Jesus. What is a disciple David??? Were these disciples "called" by the Father??? If not, who called them??? "

These were the same men Jesus fed, remember? The 5,000 men? Kevin, let me say this once, I DO NOT KNOW WHO IS CALLED BY THE FAHTER. Only God knows. Maybe they were in a later time in life, but not in this account. Remember, “All that the Father giveth me shall come to me"

Kevin said, "Where does the word "elect" appear in the text of John 6:45??? The text I quoted says "all"... David would you please elaborate???? "

It seems we have encountered another problem-word for you. Please stop taking passages out of context. The "all" are "all who are drawn by the Father"; the elect. As I said later, I will take these "where does the word appear...” arguments serious once you show me the verse that says the word "Trinity".

"Kevin said, Please notice that the sheep follow Jesus. A sheep can "cease" to follow Jesus. A sheep can also get lost or be caught by a wolf and devoured."

Christ is our Shepard; He seeks His lost sheep and doesn't fail.

Kevin said, "It is amazing that someone can hold to a doctrine and the words that would prove his doctrine can "not" be found in the Bible. I looked at the verses that David provided and a "direct operation" of the Holy Spirit is never said to be required to bring one to faith in Jesus Christ."

I'll take this kind of argumentation serious once you show me where in the Bible you find the word "trinity", or "bible" for that matter. What about the words "sola scriptura"?

Kevin said, "These two verses do "not" say that a "direct operation" of the Holy Spirit is required in order for one to be saved now does it??? The Holy Spirit "only" resides in us "through faith". How does one get faith again??? The Bible states it is "through faith" and "not" through a direct operation of the Holy Spirit. "

Please read above.

Also, How many times do I have to repeat this? It just goes right over your head of you ignore me.

Faith comes by hearing the word of God. Faith comes by hearing the word of God. Faith comes by hearing the word of God. Faith comes by hearing the word of God. Faith comes by hearing the word of God. Faith comes by hearing the word of God. Faith comes by hearing the word of God. Faith comes by hearing the word of God. Faith comes by hearing the word of God. Faith comes by hearing the word of God. Faith comes by hearing the word of God. Faith comes by hearing the word of God. Faith comes by hearing the word of God. Faith comes by hearing the word of God. Faith comes by hearing the word of God. Faith comes by hearing the word of God. Faith comes by hearing the word of God. Faith comes by hearing the word of God. Faith comes by hearing the word of God. Faith comes by hearing the word of God. Faith comes by hearing the word of God. Faith comes by hearing the word of God. Faith comes by hearing the word of God. Faith comes by hearing the word of God. Faith comes by hearing the word of God. Faith comes by hearing the word of God.

Get it? I believe this. I hope it sticks to you. Now stop attacking a doctrine I don't even hold too.

The word of God is the instrument God has ordained to bring men to Faith. When have I ever said "Faith comes through a direct operation of the Holy Spirit" ??

Kevin said, "We are born again "through the word of God" and "not" through a "direct operation" of the Holy Spirit. "

More lies and errors. Read above.

Kevin said, "How can the gospel be God's power to salvation if one must have a "direct operation" to understand God's word??? Did God make his word so far above any of us that we are too stupid to understand it??? This is close to the doctrine of Catholics that say that we cannot understand God's word, hence we need an interpreter. Both of these doctrines are false to the core. Satan wants to make sure that no one can understand God's word because those who understand and do what God requires one must do to be saved will actually be saved. The devil wants everyone to burn in the lake of fire with him. If a "direct operation" of the Holy Spirit saves, then how is it possible for Satan to "take away the word out of their hearts" (Luke 8:12), if this call is "irresistable"???"

Oh boy... www.monergism.com

Kevin said, "David this is not true. Jesus himself said in Matthew 11:28"

Read the verse before. Jesus still says in John 6 "No man can come to me,” You say otherwise. I believe Jesus, not Kevin.

Kevin said, "He does not say "come to me through a direct operation of the Holy Spirit" now does He??? "

Oh boy... Perhaps a good book might help. I recommend The Potter's Freedom by James R. White.

Kevin said, "This also is "not" true. Ezekiel 18:21 says, "But if a wicked man turns from all his sins which he has committed, keeps all My statutes, and does what is lawful and right, he shall surely live; he shall not die.""

On what basis are you saying that "die" means damnation and "live" means salvation? Please explain from the context of the chapter how you arrived at this conclusion, because I don't see it.

Kevin said, "How can one get worse than being "totally" depraved to a worse condition???"

We don't teach utter depravity. Humans are not as evil as they can be. As an author once wrote, even Hitler didn't kill his own mother.

http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/indexf.html

Kevin said, "If the word is used in a different "context", then please explain what this "context" is since you are the expert here and I know nothing about it according to what you posted above."

Can a word have a different meaning? Yes, it can. If you deny this then I do not want to continue discussing things with you because you would be immune to any sort of argumentation.

Take for example, your favorite word "FOR".

I take an Advil FOR my headache.

So-and-so plans to run FOR senator.

Let's see what you are trying to make me say. You are trying to say, if this word (sarx) means this in one place, it must mean that in every place it comes out in.

So, you want me to be "consistent" huh? So if one says FOR means "in order to obtain", then I must be consistent and use that meaning when I say "I take an Advil FOR (in order to obtain) my headache" ??? How absurd!

Like I said, I no nothing of Greek grammar, and have provided you with a link to go ask someone who knows and teaches Greek (http://aomin.org/proschat.html)

Here are the verses you quoted:

Hebrews 2:14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;

1 Peter 4:1 Forasmuch then as Christ hath suffered for us in the flesh, arm yourselves likewise with the same mind: for he that hath suffered in the flesh hath ceased from sin;

1 Peter 3:1 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:

1 John 4:2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:

The Greek word "sarx" has other meanings as well. If you look in a lexicon, it says this about "savrx"

It can mean:

1.flesh (the soft substance of the living body, which covers the bones and is permeated with blood) of both man and beasts

2.the body -a.the body of a man

-b.used of natural or physical origin, generation or relationship ---i.born of natural generation

-c.the sensuous nature of man, "the animal nature" ---i.without any suggestion of depravity ---ii.the animal nature with cravings which incite to sin ---iii.the physical nature of man as subject to suffering

3.a living creature (because possessed of a body of flesh) whether man or beast

4.the flesh, denotes mere human nature, the earthly nature of man apart from divine influence, and therefore prone to sin and opposed to God

All I can say is that I won't be "consistent" to use one meaning of this word in all places it comes out in. Different times, places, contexts, etc. I hope my "FOR" example will be enough to stop this faulty argument.

"Kevin said, When one is saved does God cleanse us of all of our sins yes or no??? If those "enlightened by God are not made sinless" then what happens to ones sins when they are saved??? "

I think I already answered this, I'm not sure... Christians are still sinners; they are just forgiven and empowered by the Holy Spirit to live a Holy life.

Kevin said, "Are all of ones sins removed when they are saved??? Yes or No??? "

They are forgiven. We still sin after we are forgiven.

Kevin said, "Okay, so what is the difference between "utterly depraved" and "totally depraved"??? Was Adam saved even though he sinned??? "

"Utter"- One is to be as evil as one can be.

"Total"-the mind, heart, flesh, soul, affected AS A WHOLE. "Depraved"-inclined to do evil

Kevin said, "Where do infants go that die before they have had a chance to come to Jesus??? If God "knew" before hand that they would die and not be saved, then why did He even create them in the first place??? "

God knew their time of death, birth, etc.

Ephesians 1:11 also we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to His purpose who works all things after the counsel of His will, (NASB)

You can ask God why he created them.

As I said, it is up to God if he saves them or not. We cannot say for sure that all babies who die in infancy go to heaven, nor can we say that all go to hell.

Kevin said, "Go back and re-read Ezekiel 18:21-23.”

Go back up in this post and read what I asked you do show me of this verse. Go back and re-read john 6 and Romans 3 while you’re at it too.

Kevin said, "This also is "not" true. God says in Ezekiel 18:24..."

Read above.

Kevin said, "Where does it state in the Bible that Christ died "only for the elect"???"

Just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many (Matthew 20:28).

I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep....just as the Father knows me and I know the Father---and I lay down my life for the sheep (John 10:11, 15).

Kevin said, "I guess God made a mistake when He wrote in Isaiah 45:22...Or this passage in Ezekiel 18:23...Here is another one in Ezekiel 18:32...One more in Ezekiel 33:11...Here is one in the New Testament from John 3:15"

I have posted above what you have to show on Ez 18:23 and Ez 18:32.

You quote John 3:15, which read, "so that whoever believes will in Him have eternal life."

Amen! It is amazing you still do not believe this truth. The ones who believe HAVE eternal life! Amen. However, you quote it as to try to say we are able to believe. I however, take Scripture en toto, and know that one cannot believe unless it is granted to him.

Kevin said, "Has the grace of God appeared to "all men" or only the "elect"??? Titus 2:11 gives us the answer, "For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men," "

"All men" refers to Christians. Read the passage.

Kevin said, "One final one in 2 Peter 3:9, "The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that ALL should come to repentance." "

This is referring to all believers. This passage is speaking to believers, and you still have not proved that "all" means every single individual. I know you will just ignore the context and keep repeating your assertion.

v.1 beloved, I now write unto you v.2 your apostles v.3 their mocking v.8 beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing

The point of this passage is that God is not willing that any of them perish: so they don't.

Kevin said, "Just because God hardens the hearts of some people does "not" mean that only the "elect" have the opportunity to be saved.”

If God hardens the heart of just one person, then he really doesn't draw "all men" does he? You claimed that He draws "all men" (every single individual), but now it's every single individual "except" that poor unlucky person that God hardened?

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), September 08, 2004.

Well Kevin, it looks like I'll be leaving before you get a response back in. So don't ask me anymore questions ;) I guess you'll just have to point things out to the readers in stead, seeing how I won't be able to answer for a while.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), September 10, 2004.

Sorry I have been very busy lately and haven't had much time online...

Here is my response to David.

David wrote, "Why should you fear Satan?"

Because Satan walks around like a "roaring lion seeking whom he may devour" (1 Peter 5:8).

David continued, "We have been through this parable already. Only one in that parable was saved."

This is "not" true. Let's look at the parable found in Luke 8:11-15 to see if what David says is true...

11 "Now the parable is this: The seed is the word of God.

The seed of the kingdom is the word of God (the Bible) which causes one to have faith in Christ (Romans 10:17, John 3:5, 1 Peter 1:23).

12 Those by the wayside are the ones who hear; then the devil comes and takes away the word out of their hearts, lest they should believe and be saved.

Since faith comes by hearing the word of God (Romans 10:17), the devil takes this word away from their hearts so they cannot be saved. These people are "not" saved.

13 But the ones on the rock are those who, when they hear, receive the word with joy; and these have no root, who believe for a while and in time of temptation fall away.

These people hear the word of God and obey the gospel and are saved, i.e. they "believe for a while" however in time of temptation, they "fall away". It is "impossible" to "fall away" from some place that you have never been. These people were once Christians.

14 And the ones that fell among thorns are those who, when they have heard, go out and are choked with cares, riches, and pleasures of life, and bring no fruit to maturity.

These people also hear the word of God and obey the gospel and are saved. These Christians bring no "fruit to maturity" and are lost. It is "impossible" for a non-Chritian to "bear fruit". These people were also once Christians.

15 But the ones that fell on the good ground are those who, having heard the word with a noble and good heart, keep it and bear fruit with patience.

These people also hear the word of God and obey the gospel and are saved. The difference between these Christians is they "keep it" (the word of God) and "bear fruit with patience".

David continued, "Why do you continue to attack Scripture with more Scripture? Why not harmonize it?"

There is "no" attacking Scripture with Scripture from this end David as I have clearly shown above, you do not know what you are talking about.

David continued, "You throw the parable at me because I believe Jesus when he says that ALL whom the Father draws, will receive eternal life."

You are also "wrong" in your interpretation of this verse David. Jesus "did" lose one that the Father called and John 17:12 plainly spells this out...12 While I was with them in the world, I kept them in Your name. Those whom You gave Me I have kept; and none of them is lost except the son of perdition, that the Scripture might be fulfilled."

David wrote, "Kevin said that SOME who are drawn by the Father will NOT receive eternal life. Jesus said that ALL who are drawn by the Father WILL receive eternal life."

David takes one verse out of context and applies this to "all" Christians. This is not the truth according to the word of God. If this is true, then what Paul said in Acts 20:29-30 did not come to pass... 29 For I know this, that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock. 30 Also from among yourselves men will rise up, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after themselves."

David wrote, "Whom to believe?"

Believe the word of God and not David whose doctrines are contrary to God's word.

David wrote, "Kevin pits scripture against scripture, and brings up the parable of the sower to back up his claim, which is against Jesus Christ himself."

I just proved that David does not know what he is talking about.

David wrote, "David agrees with the parable, but not with Kevin's interpretation of it."

David has a hard time agreeing with what the word of God says on many subjects especially if it does not agree with the false doctrines that he has been taught.

David wrote, "Only one in the parable is saved. Kevin wants us to believe that the other three were effectually called, but not raised to eternal life."

Go back and re-read what I wrote above. Three of the four in the parable of the sower "were" (at one time for two of them) Christians.

David wrote, "I'll let the reader?s judge who is the one that is trying to be consistent with the rest of scripture, and who is the one that completely ignores parts of scriptures and pays attention to only his section."

Yes, the readers will be held responsible for their own interpretations of Scripture, not those of someone else. Sorry David, it is your interpretations that "conveniently" ignore Scripture and pit Scripture aginst itself.

I wrote, "How do you know they were "just seeking another meal"??? The text says nothing of the sort. Yes, these "disciples" walked away from Jesus. What is a disciple David??? Were these disciples "called" by the Father??? If not, who called them???"

To which David replied, "These were the same men Jesus fed, remember? The 5,000 men? Kevin, let me say this once, I DO NOT KNOW WHO IS CALLED BY THE FAHTER. Only God knows. Maybe they were in a later time in life, but not in this account. Remember, ?All that the Father giveth me shall come to me"

His disciples were the one who handed out the food and ate along with the 12 disciples that stayed with Jesus. I find it amazing that you "do not know who is called by the father" and that they could "not" have been disciples because they left Jesus. This does not surprise me in the least David. Were they disciples or not, just answer the question.

I wrote, "Where does the word "elect" appear in the text of John 6:45??? The text I quoted says "all"... David would you please elaborate????"

To which David replied, "It seems we have encountered another problem-word for you. Please stop taking passages out of context. The "all" are "all who are drawn by the Father"; the elect."

Who is taking passages out of context??? I asked you a simple question, please do everyone a favor and answer it... I will ask you again, where does "all" equal the word "elect" in this passage or any other passage of Scripture???

David continued, "As I said later, I will take these "where does the word appear...? arguments serious once you show me the verse that says the word "Trinity"."

We are "not" talking about the word "Trinity" we are talking about the word "all" and "elect". Why are you trying to change the subject???

I wrote, "Please notice that the sheep follow Jesus. A sheep can "cease" to follow Jesus. A sheep can also get lost or be caught by a wolf and devoured."

To which David replied, "Christ is our Shepard; He seeks His lost sheep and doesn't fail."

Scripture again does "not" agree with David's interpretation. Jesus said in John 15:6, "If anyone does not abide in Me, he is cast out as a branch and is withered; and they gather them and throw them into the fire, and they are burned."

So much for the sheep not being able to be lost...

I wrote, "It is amazing that someone can hold to a doctrine and the words that would prove his doctrine can "not" be found in the Bible. I looked at the verses that David provided and a "direct operation" of the Holy Spirit is never said to be required to bring one to faith in Jesus Christ."

To which David replied, "I'll take this kind of argumentation serious once you show me where in the Bible you find the word "trinity", or "bible" for that matter. What about the words "sola scriptura"?"

As usual, when David cannot answer the question, he brings up another topic to try and change the subject and ignores the question that I asked him.

I wrote, "These two verses do "not" say that a "direct operation" of the Holy Spirit is required in order for one to be saved now does it??? The Holy Spirit "only" resides in us "through faith". How does one get faith again??? The Bible states it is "through faith" and "not" through a direct operation of the Holy Spirit."

To which David replied, "Please read above."

Again, this answer also does not surprise me in the least as there was no reply.

David wrote, "Also, How many times do I have to repeat this? It just goes right over your head of you ignore me. Faith comes by hearing the word of God. Faith comes by hearing the word of God. Faith comes by hearing the word of God. Faith comes by hearing the word of God. Faith comes by hearing the word of God. Faith comes by hearing the word of God. Faith comes by hearing the word of God. Faith comes by hearing the word of God. Faith comes by hearing the word of God. Faith comes by hearing the word of God. Faith comes by hearing the word of God. Faith comes by hearing the word of God. Faith comes by hearing the word of God. Faith comes by hearing the word of God. Faith comes by hearing the word of God. Faith comes by hearing the word of God. Faith comes by hearing the word of God. Faith comes by hearing the word of God. Faith comes by hearing the word of God. Faith comes by hearing the word of God. Faith comes by hearing the word of God. Faith comes by hearing the word of God. Faith comes by hearing the word of God. Faith comes by hearing the word of God. Faith comes by hearing the word of God. Faith comes by hearing the word of God. Get it? I believe this. I hope it sticks to you. Now stop attacking a doctrine I don't even hold too."

Really now David... you say that one "cannot" understand the word of God "unless" the Holy Spirit comes upon them to "enlighten" them and make them able to "heed" the things written, and you "do" hold to this doctrine, so what I said was true... Talk about the pot calling the kettle black...

David wrote, "The word of God is the instrument God has ordained to bring men to Faith. When have I ever said "Faith comes through a direct operation of the Holy Spirit" ??"

I don't believe that I have attributed you to saying "Faith comes through a direct operation of the Holy Spirit" however, without your "direct operation", one "cannot" come to faith in Christ because they are "totally depraved".

I wrote, "We are born again "through the word of God" and "not" through a "direct operation" of the Holy Spirit."

To which David replied, "More lies and errors. Read above."

I hate to correct you "again" David, but you do not know what you are talking about. Go back and re-read what I wrote above.

I wrote, "How can the gospel be God's power to salvation if one must have a "direct operation" to understand God's word??? Did God make his word so far above any of us that we are too stupid to understand it??? This is close to the doctrine of Catholics that say that we cannot understand God's word, hence we need an interpreter. Both of these doctrines are false to the core. Satan wants to make sure that no one can understand God's word because those who understand and do what God requires one must do to be saved will actually be saved. The devil wants everyone to burn in the lake of fire with him. If a "direct operation" of the Holy Spirit saves, then how is it possible for Satan to "take away the word out of their hearts" (Luke 8:12), if this call is "irresistable"???"

To which David replied, "Oh boy... www.monergism.com"

Please notice the first sentence I wrote, "How can the gospel be God's power to salvation if one must have a "direct operation" to understand God's word???" Just answer the questions that I have raised David instead of running to your Calvinist web sites...

I wrote, "David this is not true. Jesus himself said in Matthew 11:28"

To which David replied, "Read the verse before. Jesus still says in John 6 "No man can come to me,? You say otherwise. I believe Jesus, not Kevin."

I have read the verse before, and none of these verses say that "only" the "elect" can come to Jesus. You are assuming something that you must prove. Jesus said in John 12:32, "And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all peoples to Myself." Jesus did "not" say that He would "only" draw the "elect" to Himself, He "plainly" states He will draw "all peoples".

I wrote, "Kevin said, "He does not say "come to me through a direct operation of the Holy Spirit" now does He???"

To which David replied, "Oh boy... Perhaps a good book might help. I recommend The Potter's Freedom by James R. White."

Again, David would rather take what someone else says instead of what God has plainly revealed in His word. Again, David does not answer the question.

I wrote, "This also is "not" true. Ezekiel 18:21 says, "But if a wicked man turns from all his sins which he has committed, keeps all My statutes, and does what is lawful and right, he shall surely live; he shall not die."

To which David replied, "On what basis are you saying that "die" means damnation and "live" means salvation? Please explain from the context of the chapter how you arrived at this conclusion, because I don't see it."

You don't "see it" because your false doctrines have "blinded" you to the truth of God's word. God says in 2 Thessalonians 2:11-12, "11 And for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie, 12 that they all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness."

Look at the previous verse Ezekiel 18:20 and this most certainly states that this is "not" a physical death but a "spiritual death". Every Israelite or Jew in the Old Testament who "sinned" did not die a physical death. "20 The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself."

I wrote, "Kevin said, "How can one get worse than being "totally" depraved to a worse condition???"

To which David replied, "We don't teach utter depravity. Humans are not as evil as they can be. As an author once wrote, even Hitler didn't kill his own mother. http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/indexf.html"

I didn't ask you about "utter depravity" now did I David??? I asked you how one can go from being "totally depraved" to a "worse condition". Please answer the question.

I wrote, "If the word is used in a different "context", then please explain what this "context" is since you are the expert here and I know nothing about it according to what you posted above."

To which David replied, "Can a word have a different meaning? Yes, it can. If you deny this then I do not want to continue discussing things with you because you would be immune to any sort of argumentation."

I didn't ask you if a word can "have a different meaning" now did I David??? I asked you to "explain" the different context of this word. Please explain what this different "context" is...

David continued with "Take for example, your favorite word "FOR". I take an Advil FOR my headache. So-and-so plans to run FOR senator. Let's see what you are trying to make me say. You are trying to say, if this word (sarx) means this in one place, it must mean that in every place it comes out in."

Again, I didn't ask for a sermon on the word "for", just answer the question.

David wrote, "So, you want me to be "consistent" huh? So if one says FOR means "in order to obtain", then I must be consistent and use that meaning when I say "I take an Advil FOR (in order to obtain) my headache" ??? How absurd!"

David you are taking one English word "for" and taking it (out of the Bible) and trying to make my argument look foolish... In order to get the proper context for "biblical" words, we "must" go to the Bible for their correct meaning, not "current" English usage of the word.

David wrote, "Like I said, I no nothing of Greek grammar, and have provided you with a link to go ask someone who knows and teaches Greek (http://aomin.org/proschat.html)"

As I also told you before, we are not discussing Greek grammer, only the "context" of the word in question.

David wrote, "Here are the verses you quoted: Hebrews 2:14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; 1 Peter 4:1 Forasmuch then as Christ hath suffered for us in the flesh, arm yourselves likewise with the same mind: for he that hath suffered in the flesh hath ceased from sin; 1 Peter 3:1 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit: 1 John 4:2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:"

Then David wrote, "The Greek word "sarx" has other meanings as well. If you look in a lexicon, it says this about "savrx" It can mean: 1.flesh (the soft substance of the living body, which covers the bones and is permeated with blood) of both man and beasts 2.the body -a.the body of a man -b.used of natural or physical origin, generation or relationship ---i.born of natural generation -c.the sensuous nature of man, "the animal nature" ---i.without any suggestion of depravity ---ii.the animal nature with cravings which incite to sin ---iii.the physical nature of man as subject to suffering 3.a living creature (because possessed of a body of flesh) whether man or beast 4.the flesh, denotes mere human nature, the earthly nature of man apart from divine influence, and therefore prone to sin and opposed to God All I can say is that I won't be "consistent" to use one meaning of this word in all places it comes out in. Different times, places, contexts, etc. I hope my "FOR" example will be enough to stop this faulty argument."

The greek word "sarx" may have other meanings, but we are "not" talking about them now are we David??? Please explain what this word means "in context" of the verse we are talking about.

I wrote, "When one is saved does God cleanse us of all of our sins yes or no??? If those "enlightened by God are not made sinless" then what happens to ones sins when they are saved???"

To which David replied, "I think I already answered this, I'm not sure... Christians are still sinners; they are just forgiven and empowered by the Holy Spirit to live a Holy life."

Ok...Where is it written that Christians are "empowered by the Holy Spirit to live a Holy life"??? Is this something that the Holy Spirit does, i.e. give us a nudge if we are heading in the wrong direction in our lives??? Please explain...

I wrote, ""Are all of ones sins removed when they are saved??? Yes or No???"

To which David replied, "They are forgiven. We still sin after we are forgiven."

This is a true statement.

I wrote, "Okay, so what is the difference between "utterly depraved" and "totally depraved"??? Was Adam saved even though he sinned???"

To which David replied, "Utter"- One is to be as evil as one can be. "Total"-the mind, heart, flesh, soul, affected AS A WHOLE. "Depraved"-inclined to do evil"

Okay, please answer the last part of the question, "Was Adam saved even though he sinned???"

I wrote, "Where do infants go that die before they have had a chance to come to Jesus??? If God "knew" before hand that they would die and not be saved, then why did He even create them in the first place???"

To which David replied, "God knew their time of death, birth, etc. Ephesians 1:11 also we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to His purpose who works all things after the counsel of His will, (NASB)" You can ask God why he created them."

Okay, you didn't answer the question.

David wrote, "As I said, it is up to God if he saves them or not. We cannot say for sure that all babies who die in infancy go to heaven, nor can we say that all go to hell."

God says in Matt 19:14, "Let the little children come to Me, and do not forbid them; for of such is the kingdom of heaven."

I wrote, "Where does it state in the Bible that Christ died "only for the elect"???"

To which David replied, "Just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many (Matthew 20:28)."

This verse does "not" prove that Jesus "only" died for the "elect". You are "assuming" this verse teaches this however you are wrong in your interpretation. God says in 1 John 2:2, "And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world."

David continued, "I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep....just as the Father knows me and I know the Father---and I lay down my life for the sheep (John 10:11, 15)."

Yes, Christ laid down His life for "the sheep" but also for the "whole world" as plainly revealed above.

I wrote, "I guess God made a mistake when He wrote in Isaiah 45:22...Or this passage in Ezekiel 18:23...Here is another one in Ezekiel 18:32...One more in Ezekiel 33:11...Here is one in the New Testament from John 3:15"

To which David replied, "I have posted above what you have to show on Ez 18:23 and Ez 18:32."

And I also answered you above and again showed that you do not know what you are talking about...

David wrote, "You quote John 3:15, which read, "so that whoever believes will in Him have eternal life."

Then writes, "Amen! It is amazing you still do not believe this truth."

Actually, I do believe this to be true and have "never" said anything contrary to this fact. You are the one who does "not" hold to this "truth" that is plainly revealed in Scripture because you state that only the "elect" are able to believe in Him (Jesus) and not "whoever" which means anyone who is "able" can believe and be saved.

David continued, "The ones who believe HAVE eternal life! Amen."

Yes, the one's who "believe" have eternal life. You change this to say only the "elect" who are "led to understand God's word through a direct operation of the Holy Spirit" are able to believe and be saved which is a direct "contrast" to what has been revealed in Scripture.

David continued, "However, you quote it as to try to say we are able to believe. I however, take Scripture en toto, and know that one cannot believe unless it is granted to him."

Again David throws out his "only the Holy Spirit can cause one to believe" by his statement "one cannot believe unless it is granted to him" to say that "not" everyone has the opportunity to be saved. This is contrary to Scripture for "all" who can read and understand God's word and do what it says i.e. "obey the gospel" can be saved.

I wrote, "Has the grace of God appeared to "all men" or only the "elect"??? Titus 2:11 gives us the answer, "For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men,"

To which David replied, "All men" refers to Christians. Read the passage."

Where is your "proof" that "all men" refers to Christians??? I did "read the passage" and nothing in this context would make one believe that "all men" = Christians except of course one has a doctrine that they do not want to dismiss such as you hold to David.

Let's read it again..."For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men," (Titus 2:11).

I wrote, "One final one in 2 Peter 3:9, "The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that ALL should come to repentance."

To which David replied, "This is referring to all believers. This passage is speaking to believers, and you still have not proved that "all" means every single individual. I know you will just ignore the context and keep repeating your assertion. v.1 beloved, I now write unto you v.2 your apostles v.3 their mocking v.8 beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing. The point of this passage is that God is not willing that any of them perish: so they don't."

Why should a "Christian" who has been saved have to come to "repentance" if "all" means "only the believers"??? You are the one "ignoring" the context David especially since it does not fit what you have been taught. If this passage of Scripture is talking about "believers", then how is it possible that they might "perish" in light of your OSAS doctrine???

I wrote, "Just because God hardens the hearts of some people does "not" mean that only the "elect" have the opportunity to be saved."

To which David replied, "If God hardens the heart of just one person, then he really doesn't draw "all men" does he?"

Just because God "hardens" the heart of one person, this does still mean that He draws "all men" and calls on every single individual to "repent" and be saved.

David continued, "You claimed that He draws "all men" (every single individual), but now it's every single individual "except" that poor unlucky person that God hardened?"

Every individual whether or not God hardens their heart has an opportunity to be saved, otherwise we do "not" have free will.

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), September 11, 2004.

Kevin, after reading this all I can say is you do not care for this one thing called CONTEXT. People should not bother getting into discussions with you.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), September 11, 2004.

Maybe I can get a quick reply before I leave, but you obviously don't know what we really teach. I hope someone else will come and stand up for the truth.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), September 11, 2004.

David,

You wrote, "Kevin, after reading this all I can say is you do not care for this one thing called CONTEXT."

If I am "not" writing "in context" you most certainly have "not" proven otherwise except to "complain" about it.

You wrote, "People should not bother getting into discussions with you."

That is for them to decide, not David.

You wrote, "Maybe I can get a quick reply before I leave, but you obviously don't know what we really teach."

If I have "misrepresented" what you "really teach", you most certainly have "not" corrected my misunderstanding now have you David??? The truth of the matter is I have "not" done any "misrepresentation" of what you teach, you are just unwilling to accept what the Bible plainly reveals.

You wrote, "I hope someone else will come and stand up for the truth."

Your so-called "truth" cannot be found in the pages of the Bible.

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), September 11, 2004.

A few things I want to point out. Kevin thinks he knows what we believe, but he has shown fundamental errors that, to any reader, make it crystal clear that he does not know what he is talking about. He scolds me for referring people to "Calvinist websites" so they can learn what we teach and maybe form a real argument instead of straw men. The first two obvious errors are: "The Bible states it is "through faith" and "not" through a direct operation of the Holy Spirit"; and confusing Total Depravity with Utter depravity.

Firstly, Calvinist do believe that Faith comes by hearing the Word of God. No Calvinist denies this. It is the instrument God has ordained to use to bring men to Christ. Secondly, utter depravity is to be as evil and sinful as one can be. Total depravity is sin affecting the heart, the mind, the flesh, the soul, etc, a person as a whole.

Kevin then posts a question dealing with the Greek word 'sarx' and tries to make me say something I do not believe. I stand by my statement: Words have different meanings in different contexts. I have shown Kevin the different meanings the Greek word "sarx" has, from a Bible lexicon. This is the question he posted:

9. Why is the Greek word "sarx" (English=flesh, Mistranslated "sinful nature" throughout the NIV) which Calvinists say teaches the inherited depraved sinful nature of man, also used in scripture of Jesus in Heb 2:14; 1 Pe 4:1; 3:18; 1 Jn 4:2?

Obviously, what the author of this question is trying to say, is if "savrx" means "sinful nature" in this place (different book, time, context), it must mean "sinful nature" in these places (Heb 2:14; 1 Pe 4:1; 3:18; 1 Jn 4:2?) where is speaks about Jesus. Can you see how absurd this is? I take an Advil FOR my headache. Sand the wood & apply a coat of varnish FOR a glossy finish. One word. Two different meanings. What if I argue what Kevin suggests? I take an Advil FOR (in order to obtain) my headache? Or, Sand the wood & apply a coat of varnish FOR (because of) a glossy finish? See what happens? All I can say is that Christ does not have a sinful nature, so you Kevin, must cease and desist this argument.

A horrible method of argumentation is also used by Kevin. His seemingly favorite one is "where does it say the words _______________?". One example I can give of this is when he attacked a verse I gave that supports the conception of a direct operation of the Holy Spirit. Kevin asked where the words 'direct operation' were found in the text. I simply replied by telling him I would take such a argument seriously when he would show me the verses that say Trinity, Bible, and Sola Scripture. He has not done so. This argument, from my POV, is done only to bolster and make his posts look pretty. The important thing to do is argue if the concept is found Scripture. A rose by any other name still smells as sweet.

Kevin has a problem with this one thing called CONTEXT. The biggest example of this is his refusal to admit that those in John 6, that are drawn by the Father are raised on the last day to eternal life.

We read in John 6:

v.68 'eternal life' v.58 'live forever' v.57 'will live' v.54 'eternal life' v.53 Opposite: 'unless you eat... you have no life' v.51 'he will live forever' v.50 'one may eat of it and not die' v.44 'eternal life' v.40 'eternal life' v.39 'I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day' v.37 'I will certainly not cast out' v.27 'eternal life'

He simply denies this. He did not, can not, and will not give us a positive interpretation of the passage, but continues to say (something along the lines of) 'it does not mean this'

Because of this, Kevin also has problems proving his assertions. Take for example 2 Peter 3:9. We only hear why it can't mean what David Ortiz thinks it means. He has yet to tell us why he thinks this passage is speaking to non-believers.

His biggest problem is his tradition, and his insertion of libertarian free will into every passage he reads. While Kevin claims that "Every man can come", he directly contradicts Jesus Christ who said "No man can come". He has yet to prove libertarian free will.

He also seems to have some reading problems. Perhaps this comes from his refusal to read the context of things.

He quotes me: "David wrote, "Whom to believe?" Believe the word of God and not David whose doctrines are contrary to God's word.""

I wrote 'Jesus said No man can come to him. Kevin said Everyman can come to him.', but never did I mention anything about what David believes.

I warn readers to avoid discussing things with this man unless you have alot of free time. You can never stay on a topic or passage long enough to find the truth (This is obvious from how many passages he has brought up to counter John 6). He throws to many screwballs at you. The place to start a discussion with types like him is with God's sovereignty and Adam's fall as his heretical doctrines (condemned by the early church), which come from Pelagius and Campbell, are based on faulty views on this. Any topic you get into with him will eventually lead you to his gospel of "be dipped or be damned".

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), September 12, 2004.

"A few things I want to point out. Kevin thinks he knows what we believe, but he has shown fundamental errors that, to any reader, make it crystal clear that he does not know what he is talking about."

The reader can also see that David has yet to point out these so called "fundamental errors" that I am guilty of making.

"He scolds me for referring people to "Calvinist websites" so they can learn what we teach and maybe form a real argument instead of straw men."

David claims again (he claimed this on another thread and never bothered to prove it) that I am making "straw men". If this is the case, then let him point out to everyone here how I am "guilty" of making "straw men".

"The first two obvious errors are: "The Bible states it is "through faith" and "not" through a direct operation of the Holy Spirit"

I didn't equate David with saying he believes that one is saved through a "direct operation of the Holy Spirit". All one has to do is go back and re-read my post when I said, "I don't believe that I have attributed you to saying "Faith comes through a direct operation of the Holy Spirit" however, without your "direct operation", one "cannot" come to faith in Christ because they are "totally depraved".

"; and confusing Total Depravity with Utter depravity."

I did "not" intentionally confuse the two, when you corrected what I wrote, I no longer used the word "utter".

"Firstly, Calvinist do believe that Faith comes by hearing the Word of God. No Calvinist denies this. It is the instrument God has ordained to use to bring men to Christ."

I never claimed that you denied this doctrine.

"Secondly, utter depravity is to be as evil and sinful as one can be. Total depravity is sin affecting the heart, the mind, the flesh, the soul, etc, a person as a whole."

Can evil men wax worse and worse under "Total depravity"???

"A horrible method of argumentation is also used by Kevin."

Since when did David become an expert on the rules of argumentation???

"His seemingly favorite one is "where does it say the words _______________?". One example I can give of this is when he attacked a verse I gave that supports the conception of a direct operation of the Holy Spirit. Kevin asked where the words 'direct operation' were found in the text. I simply replied by telling him I would take such a argument seriously when he would show me the verses that say Trinity, Bible, and Sola Scripture. He has not done so."

David has still not answered my argument where it states a "direct operation of the Holy Spirit" is required in order to make one understand God's word. Instead he brings up other words "Trinity", "Bible" and "Sola Scripture" that are not found in the Bible to prove that he does not need to provide an answer to my question. God expects everyone to understand His word and do what He says one must do in order to be saved.

God says in Ephesians 5:17, "Therefore do not be unwise, but understand what the will of the Lord is."

God also says in Proverbs 2:1-5: "1 My son, if you receive my words, And treasure my commands within you, 2 So that you incline your ear to wisdom, And apply your heart to understanding; 3 Yes, if you cry out for discernment, And lift up your voice for understanding, 4 If you seek her as silver, And search for her as for hidden treasures; 5 Then you will understand the fear of the LORD, And find the knowledge of God."

"This argument, from my POV, is done only to bolster and make his posts look pretty. The important thing to do is argue if the concept is found Scripture. A rose by any other name still smells as sweet."

I don't write anything "to make my posts pretty", this is nothing but a smoke screen which proves that David does not have an answer to the questions that I have asked him. If the concept was found in Scripture, he should be able to back it up with Scripture. The truth of the matter is his Calvinistic doctrines are "contrary" to Scripture and are to be rejected.

"Kevin has a problem with this one thing called CONTEXT. The biggest example of this is his refusal to admit that those in John 6, that are drawn by the Father are raised on the last day to eternal life. We read in John 6: v.68 'eternal life' v.58 'live forever' v.57 'will live' v.54 'eternal life' v.53 Opposite: 'unless you eat... you have no life' v.51 'he will live forever' v.50 'one may eat of it and not die' v.44 'eternal life' v.40 'eternal life' v.39 'I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day' v.37 'I will certainly not cast out' v.27 'eternal life' He simply denies this. He did not, can not, and will not give us a positive interpretation of the passage, but continues to say (something along the lines of) 'it does not mean this'"

Please also notice readers that David can "accuse" me all he wants of not being in "CONTEXT" however, this is not true. This is the verse David is quoting John 6:39, "This is the will of the Father who sent Me, that of all He has given Me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up at the last day." Please also notice that this verse was fulfilled in John 17:12, "While I was with them in the world, I kept them in Your name. Those whom You gave Me I have kept; and none of them is lost except the son of perdition, that the Scripture might be fulfilled."

Jesus did lose one - Judas so that the Scripture might be fulfilled. His OSAS argument is false.

"Because of this, Kevin also has problems proving his assertions. Take for example 2 Peter 3:9. We only hear why it can't mean what David Ortiz thinks it means. He has yet to tell us why he thinks this passage is speaking to non-believers."

David can claim that I have a problem "proving" my assertions but does he bother to prove that this passage is speaking to only believers??? I specifically wrote, "Why should a "Christian" who has been saved have to come to "repentance" if "all" means "only the believers"??? You are the one "ignoring" the context David especially since it does not fit what you have been taught. If this passage of Scripture is talking about "believers", then how is it possible that they might "perish" in light of your OSAS doctrine???" Instead of answering my question, David can only say that I have a problem "proving my assertions".

"His biggest problem is his tradition, and his insertion of libertarian free will into every passage he reads. While Kevin claims that "Every man can come", he directly contradicts Jesus Christ who said "No man can come". He has yet to prove libertarian free will."

What tradition is David talking about here??? I am not contradicting Christ, that is David's opinion. God says in John 12:32, "And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all peoples to Myself." David has to explain away the clear meaning of this verse because it doesn't fit his false doctrines.

"He also seems to have some reading problems. Perhaps this comes from his refusal to read the context of things."

No reading problem here David, again that is your opinion.

"He quotes me: "David wrote, "Whom to believe?" Believe the word of God and not David whose doctrines are contrary to God's word." I wrote 'Jesus said No man can come to him. Kevin said Everyman can come to him.', but never did I mention anything about what David believes."

Please notice readers that I did "not" mention what David "believes" I cautioned people to Believe the word of God and to not believe David's doctrines that are contrary to God's word.

"I warn readers to avoid discussing things with this man unless you have alot of free time. You can never stay on a topic or passage long enough to find the truth (This is obvious from how many passages he has brought up to counter John 6)."

The truth has been presented to you David, you have made it clear that you have no desire to change your beliefs even though they are contrary to God's word.

"He throws to many screwballs at you."

False teachers always have a hard time answering the truth don't they...

"The place to start a discussion with types like him is with God's sovereignty and Adam's fall as his heretical doctrines (condemned by the early church), which come from Pelagius and Campbell, are based on faulty views on this."

If "condemned by the early church" concerning the fall of Adam he means the Catholic Church this is a true statement however, this doctrine of Original Sin taught by the Catholic Church is "not" found in the Bible and is to be rejected.

"Any topic you get into with him will eventually lead you to his gospel of "be dipped or be damned"."

Really David??? If I am guilty of this on every thread, then I challenge you to prove this to be true.

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), September 12, 2004.

And then it just STOPS.

-- Samuel Tannenbaum (smt21@hotmail.com), February 08, 2005.

Samuel,

It stopped because David went to Marine boot camp...

-- Kevin Walker ("navyscporetired@comcast.net"), February 10, 2005.