|
|
Post by Admin on Nov 22, 2023 12:35:36 GMT -5
Soteriology101 π©Έ
@soteriology101
On the one hand, Calvinists will often argue (using passages like Rom 9) that mankind has as much control over how he believes and behaves as a piece of clay has over its own shape, while on the other hand vehemently objecting to their opponentβs accusations of making men into mere puppets.
Some Calvinists want to have their cake and eat it too on this point. If they are going to interpret these biblical analogies in such a way that removes mankindβs responsibility in the process, then they cannot object to another analogy which draws the exact same conclusion. After all, what more or less responsibility does a puppet have in relation to the puppet master than a lump of clay has in relation to the potter on Calvinismβs interpretation? If you want to interpret Paulβs analogy of the potter and the clay literally to mean that man has no say in how he believes and responds, then own it. Donβt object to other analogies that draw the exact same implications unless you are not willing to live with those implications.
Sophie Levasseur π
@refsojourner
Β·
8h
The Holy Spirit does not force or pressure us to believe and repent unwillingly, but through the hearing and reflecting on God's Word He renews and moves our wills and hearts so that we sincerely desire to be governed by Him.
- Ursinus, The Larger Catechism, Q. 218
|
|
|
|
Post by martinmarprelate on Nov 24, 2023 18:40:24 GMT -5
Flowers fails to understand the nature of human inability as it is presented to us in the Bible. It is not a physical inability, but a spiritual and moral one.
I am unable to walk on the ceiling. That is a physical inability; I am simply not constructed to do it. For God to blame me for that, or to hold me responsible for it would be unfair; if I could do it, I would. It might be fun!
But our inability to live righteous and holy lives is not physical; there is nothing in our physical make-up that prevents us from doing so. Nor does God prevent us; rather He calls us to live such a life. Our fault is in ourselves. 'And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil'(John 3:19).
Do we have free will? Yes we do, but if you offer me the choice between coffee and tea, do I have free will as to which one I choose, or is my will over-ridden by the fact that I prefer coffee? And if, before the Lord saved me, you had offered me the choice between sin and righteousness, I would have chosen sin for the same reason - I preferred it.
Men and women are not puppets, but they are slaves to their own evil desires and prejudices. They will always reject the Gospel because it bids them repent and cease from their darling sins. Unless God, in His mercy, had not chosen to save a vast number (Rev. 7:9-10) of undeserving sinners to be saved; if He had not given them a new heart and a new spirit; if the Lord Jesus had not willingly come to provide satisfaction to God's outraged justice, then no one could be saved. But praise His name! He has done these things and given an absolute promise that 'Whoever calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved'(Joel 2:32; Acts 2:21; Romans 10:13). Instead of complaining that God is unfair, let people come to Christ in repentance and faith; He will not cast them out (John 6:37). But when they come, it will be because God has loved them from eternity, and drwn them to Him with lovingkindness (Jeremiah 31:3).
|
|
|
|
Post by SovereignGrace on Nov 24, 2023 19:54:21 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Nov 26, 2023 0:34:48 GMT -5
Joshua Haymes
@haymes_joshua
Lacrae has correctly identified a damnable problem in the western Church. But fails to offer up a biblical solution.
Most evangelical churches in America are discipling their parishioners to be consumers.
They put on a concert and a TED talk In their churches that look like shopping malls, and then wonder why our culture is so shallow and consumeristic.
Lecrae sees this broken unbiblical church model and throws the baby out with the bath water.
The Church is an institution that has been commissioned by Christ to proclaim The Good news of the Kingdom, train the saints for the work of ministry, rightly administer the sacraments, and exercise church discipline/excommunication through qualified male elders.
And the central hub for all her (the churchβs) activity is Worship on The Lordβs day.
But what kind of church?
I think Lecrae is right to critique the big famous model of churches, but the answer isnβt decentralized Bible studies where we all βdo lifeβ together.
Instead, find a church that proclaim the gospel, trains the Saints, for the work of ministry, rightly administers the sacraments, and takes church discipline very seriously.
In my experience, these churches will also have a liturgical worship service.
The liturgy trains the parishioners to be partakers in worship rather than consumers.
Worship on The Lordβs Day is a work that all Godβs people gather together to perform.
Making the move to a solid church with a liturgical worship service has proven to be an incredible blessing to me and my family.
Honestly, I canβt recommend it highly enough.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Nov 26, 2023 16:53:13 GMT -5
Statements like this πdemonstrate that on Calvinism most of humanity is hopelessly βunsavableβ because Jesus didnβt come to purchase their freedom despite the explicit passages of scripture that teach otherwise:
βHe Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also ππ π£ π₯ππ π€πππ€ π π π₯ππ π¨ππ ππ π¨π π£ππ.β - 1 John 2:2
βBut false prophets also appeared among the people, just as there will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even ππππͺπππ π₯ππ πππ€π₯ππ£ π¨ππ ππ π¦πππ₯ π₯πππ, bringing swift destruction upon themselves.β - 2 Peter 2:1
Not to mention statements from the namesake of their system: For instance, John Calvin inconsistently said, ββπ πππ ππ€ ππ©πππ¦πππ ππ£π π πππππππ π¦π‘π π πΎπ π, π₯ππ πππ₯π π π π€πππ§ππ₯ππ π ππ€ π€ππ₯ π π‘ππ π¦ππ₯π πππ πππ: ππππ₯πππ£ ππ€ π₯πππ£π πππͺ π π₯πππ£ π₯ππππ π¨ππππ ππππ‘ππ₯π π¦π€ ππππ ππ£π π πππ₯ππ£πππ ππ, π€ππ§π π πππͺ π π¦π£ π π¨π π¦πππππππ.β
|
|
|
|
Post by martinmarprelate on Nov 26, 2023 18:25:30 GMT -5
I think Lecrae is right to critique the big famous model of churches, but the answer isnβt decentralized Bible studies where we all βdo lifeβ together. Instead, find a church that proclaim the gospel, trains the Saints, for the work of ministry, rightly administers the sacraments, and takes church discipline very seriously. In my experience, these churches will also have a liturgical worship service. The first bit of this is right. One thing I discovered at the FIEC conference is that in the UK, churches that preach the Gospel faithfully and train the saints for acts of righteousness are mostly growing, while those that don't are falling off a cliff. As the Church of England continues to self-destruct, this pattern will, I believe, accelerate. I don't have a big problem with liturgy, but I think it's very easy for the congregation to parrot the words without really thinking about the meaning. I wouldn't mind all reciting the Creed together, maybe once a month, but if you do it once a week, it becomes sort of Ho-hum. |
|
|
|
Post by martinmarprelate on Nov 26, 2023 18:36:47 GMT -5
Statements like this πdemonstrate that on Calvinism most of humanity is hopelessly βunsavableβ because Jesus didnβt come to purchase their freedom despite the explicit passages of scripture that teach otherwise: Statements like this show that the author (Flowers?) is confusing Calvin with his evil younger brother, Hypercalvin. Also, the Bible states (Rev 7:9-10) that there is a vast crowd of saved people, so huge that no one can count it. So.... 1. How come Flowers gets to count it and decide that it is too small? 2. How does the crowd get any larger under Arminianism, Pelagianism or whatever crackpot system it is that Flowers embrases? |
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Nov 26, 2023 19:51:55 GMT -5
ππ₯π¦π±π’π
π’ππ―π‘
@hwseleutheroi
Over the years I have repeatedly pointed out that Leighton Flowers and the "Provisionists" flatten out the biblical revelation concerning God's knowledge and purposes and man's fallen state, sacrificing the full-orbed truth on the altar of a simple, two-dimensional, human-focused tradition. They simply refuse to accept all Scripture teaches, especially when it goes beyond the comprehension of man and requires us to confess God's ultimacy and sovereign freedom.
@soteriology101
(irony, isn't it: the truths of Scripture on this topic are definitely Soteriology 505, but if you refuse to go beyond the 101 level, you have to sacrifice all the depth that the 505 classes bring you) just posted a comment in response to a woman who said,
====
I have a question for you. God saved me, I am born again. I labored for years over a loved one, with the gospel, prayers and many tears. He died without Christ. What is the difference between him and me? Is it God? Or me?
====
There is some ambiguity in the question, admittedly, but it is an important reality. In the synergistic world, God did all He could do. Maximum effort, but, there's only so much God can do upon the principles of synergism. So, the reason she is saved, and the other person lost, was all about them. She was more spiritually sensitive, more spiritually understanding than the other, more humble, more pliable, etc.
Soteriology101 commented,
If Calvinism is true, the reason her loved one didn't come to faith is because God didn't love that person as much as she did. God rejected that person before they were created and didn't send Christ for that person on Calvinism. That is far more problematic than simply confessing that the reason your loved one perished is because "they refused to love the truth so as to be saved."
Now, consider the last sentence first. Every Calvinist would say, "Yes, they refused to love the truth so as to be saved." This comment ignores man's deadness in sin because, honestly, the author doesn't believe in it. You see, outside of grace, everyone would likewise refuse to love the truth because they instead love themselves and their sin and their rebellion. Only in the synergistic system do you have people who are able to somehow overcome their slavery to sin, their spiritual deadness, and come to love truth rather than their own sin.
Next is the irony of the alluded to text. Read what Paul actually said:
β...and with all the deception of unrighteousness for those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth so as to be saved. And for this reason God sends upon them a deluding influence so that they will believe what is false, in order that they all may be judged who did not believe the truth, but took pleasure in unrighteousness. But we should always give thanks to God for you, brothers beloved by the Lord, because God has chosen you as the first fruits (later manuscripts read "from the beginning) for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth. It was for this He called you through our gospel, that you may obtain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.β (2 Thessalonians 2:10-14)
Remember, everyone loves darkness rather than light, and hence, at some point, rejects the truth, and everyone takes pleasure in unrighteousness. And God justly judges those who so do. But, there are those who are "beloved by the Lord" who God has chosen for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth. Please note, in opposition to Leighton's constant assertion, for Paul, "faith in the truth" is the result of, not the grounds of, being chosen by God. God chose them for salvation. This is in direct contrast to those who receive God's just judgment upon them. This is not say God chose that those who freely accept salvation will then receive forgiveness or something of the kind. No, God chose those He beloved for salvation, and the means He uses to bring this about is sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth, the very truth those not beloved reject and despise.
7:38 PM Β· Nov 26, 2023
Β·
2,046
Views
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Nov 26, 2023 19:53:19 GMT -5
A Jew
@grengoli
Β·
11m
Dr. Flowers' community is probably one of the most spiteful communities I've encountered. The fact he refuses to address this matter and encourage his followers/viewers to humbly engage in debate/conversation is a huge red flag.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Nov 30, 2023 10:07:47 GMT -5
Here is Leighton trying again,
Jared Longshore and Lee Strobel follow
Soteriology101 π©Έ
@soteriology101
Suppose you had a horrible gambling addiction and as a result accrued a debt so large that it was literally impossible for you to repay. Would your inability to pay off this debt excuse you from paying it? Of course not. You SHOULD pay off this debt regardless of whether or not you COULD pay off this debt. This is an example of where inability does not remove responsibility and thus SHOULD does not mean that one necessarily COULD.
Likewise, the scriptures teach us that we SHOULD obey the law of God perfectly (Matt. 5:48), but it also teaches us that no one COULD (Rom. 3:23). Our moral inability to fulfill the lawβs demands does not remove our moral responsibility to the law. We have a sin debt that we cannot pay, yet scripture seems to teach that we are held accountable for that debt nonetheless. In this instance, it certainly does seem that SHOULD does not imply COULD.
But, continuing with the analogy above, suppose your wealthy and benevolent father offered to pay your gambling debt for you if you would confess your addiction and go to rehab. Clearly, this is something you SHOULD do, but COULD you? Of course, you COULD! Your inability to pay off the debt in no way hinders you from accepting the benevolent offer of your fatherβs provision.
Likewise, with regard to the law, your benevolent and gracious Father offers to pay your sin debt if you confess your sin addiction and trust in Him. Clearly, this is something you SHOULD do, but COULD you? Of course, you COULD! Your inability to pay off your sin debt in no way hinders you from accepting the benevolent offer of your Fatherβs gracious provision.
Suppose someone tried to convince you that oneβs inability to pay off their debt equaled their inability to accept help when it was offered. Would you believe them? I ask because that is what our Calvinistic friends are attempting to get the church to believe.
Allow me to explain further⦠soteriology101.com/2018/12/06/does-should-always-imply-could-2/
7:55 AM Β· Nov 30, 2023
Β·
1,647
ViewsAnthony Darienzo @tonyd8567 Β· Now LF, you are still denying the noetic effects of the fall, and once again deny 1 Cor.2 it total. You should have made progress on this by now, but rather offer stale ,unbiblical analogies?
|
|
