The Doctrines of Grace

[PinSeeker]

Okay... here... to your lead-in statements:

1. TOTAL DEPRAVITY STATES THAT MAN IS UNABLE TO SEEK GOD...

In the sense that he will not, but will naturally be inclined against the things of God, and therefore will follow his natural inclination and will thus will freely reject the things of God... because he is not of God, but of the devil; naturally ~ unless and until he is born of God by the Spirit ~ his father is the devil, rather than God.

MAN IS ABLE TO SEEK GOD...

Sure he is, but he will not ~ again, unless and until he is born of God by the Spirit ~ his father is the devil, rather than God. Until that point (if it comes at all, because for some it will not), he will always, very freely, reject the things of God, regarding it as foolishness.

2. UNCONDITIONAL ELECTION STATES THAT GOD CHOOSES WHO WILL BE SAVED AND WHO WILL BE DAMNED, ACCORDING TO REFORMED THEOLOGY.

Again, if you had stopped after 'saved,' you would have been good... <smile> Now, if you want to say that by exclusion from being chosen by God, and thus passively predestined, then that might be somewhat okay, but predestination is active by definition. It's something that God actively did. Again, for those not chosen, and not therefore predestined to be conformed to Christ, God gives them over to their own foolish passions, because they have ~ of their own free will and accord ~ exchanged the truth for a lie and worship creation rather than the Creator (Romans 1).

THE BIBLE STATES THAT GOD HAS SET CONDITIONS FOR SALVATION SO THAT ANY PERSON MAY BE SAVED:

As I have said, I agree with this, and all "the reformed" and historical Calvinists (and Calvin, of course) do (did). But, yet again, regarding all these things, still ~ and this is most certainly not in any way a denial of man's making a choice or that he acts in his own faith ~ "it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy," (Romans 9:16) and we Christians can make evident, even to ourselves, thus "work(ing) out (our) own salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in (us), both to will and to work for His good pleasure" (Philippians 2:13).

3. LIMITED ATONEMENT STATES THAT JESUS DIED FOR JUST A FEW PERSONS, ACCORDING TO REFORMED THEOLOGY.
THE BIBLE STATES THAT JESUS DIED FOR ALL MEN TO REDEEM THEM FROM SATAN'S GRIP.

Both are true, as I have said, but in different senses, namely the first being efficacy ~ limited in that respect; God applies it to only some ~ and the second being sufficiency ~ unlimited in that respect,, in terms of ability to cover all. Both are true.

4. IRRISISTIBLE GRACE TEACHES THAT MAN CANNOT RESIST GOD'S GRACE AND HE MUST ACCEPT SALVATION IF GOD SO CHOOSES, ACCORDING TO REFORMED THEOLOGY. THE BIBLE STATES THAT MAN HAS THE FREE WILL TO DENY SALVATION.

All true except for the "must accept salvation" part, because of the sense... which is nonsense... in which you say that. Again, if you were to replace 'must' with 'will,' and that it comes about because of being born again of the Spirit ~ which is only a product of God's will, but which means one changes his own will because of this... because then he is no longer of the devil but of God ~ then we will agree. But... you have free will and thus will not accept that concession.

5. PERSEVERANCE OF THE SAINTS TEACHES THAT GOD WILL MAKE TO PERSEVERE TILL THE END THOSE THAT GOD HAS CHOSEN FOR SALVATION,,,ACCORDING TO REFORMED THEOLOGY.

Well, the "make" part is in the sense of enabling, by His power, His empowering us, so the credit ~ and glory ~ is His. And this too is His amazing grace. And so, again, one cannot stop there as you have; one has to finish the thought. This is what Arminians do, at least inadvertently, because of their underestimation of man's sinful state and overly strident devotion to this thing called free will, inadvertent though it may be. To the latter, really, the issue is not really free will at all but what we might call free agency, or complete (even total) autonomy. Only God is a "free agent," or completely and totally autonomous, accountable to no one but Himself. Yes,

THE BIBLE TEACHES THAT JESUS AND PAUL, ETC. EXHORTED BELIEVERS TO KEEP THE FAITH...IT IS NOT AUTOMATIC:

Of course. See above; it applies to faith, which is the gift of God, and all of God's gifts are irrevocable (Romans 11:29).

So, we have a choice...

Yes, we do. <smile>

I choose the Word of God.

We all do. This is not really the choice we're talking about. <smile>

"Total Depravity" is understood here to be "Total Inability". This is the original Reformed understanding of Depravity, despite Pinseeker's earlier protest to the contrary.

See above, Lambano.

...no believer should ever have assurance of their salvation.

Nobody deserves it, that's for sure. But once God gives it... <smile> He most certainly does not lie or mislead folks.

...a believer who is struggling with assurance...

May be one who, according to God's will, is endowed with a smaller measure of it than another believer. This is 1 Corinthians 12 (vv, 9, 11, to be specific). But if this is the case, then that other believer is called to help the first believer, because the latter, having this greater in measure faith, is called to help the former in his faith... These spiritual gifts are for the common good (vv, 6-7), in the very sense that ~ referring to Proverbs 27:17 here ~ "iron sharpens iron," and we are to build each other up in the Lord, as Paul says in 1 Thessalonians 5:11 ~ "encourage one another and build one another up..."

...should justifiably wonder whether or not they are truly elect.

In the sense that even our belief, like everything else about us, is imperfect, this is true. But I would submit that if one is worried about whether or not he or she is truly elect, then he or she knows the importance of being one of God's elect and is therefore undoubtedly inclined to the things of God rather than to the things of the devil... which is therefore proof positive of his or her being one of God's elect. And in this way, then, we can rest assured of God's assurance (which is what our faith is... Hebrews 11:1). <smile>

Grace and peace to both of you.

 

[PinSeeker]

I was Saved in a Reformed Baptist Church, so I was a 5-Point Calvinist. I got Married and changed to an Independent Fundamental Baptist Church, and they are NOT Calvinists. I learned from both, so I think I've reconciled the problem areas...

As I have said, Calvinism and Arminianism ~ with respect to Arminius's five objections and Calvin's responses to those five objections ~ are mutually exclusive, much in the same way as with Augustine and Pelagius over a thousand years before. Regarding these particular things, they are the two basic understandings of those topics, and the two are mutually exclusive, and every Christian will inevitably fall into one "camp" or the other based on the way he or she sees these things ~ which does not necessarily mean that he or she is a follower of any of the four, but merely that he or she will agree with either Augustine and Calvin or with Pelagius and Arminius on these particular points.

Interesting personal history; I'm a "recovering Baptist," too... <smile>

One of my goals in life is to show Christians that they are more Calvinistic than they think they are.

A good goal. That's very ambitious; good luck. <smile> Ohhhh, wait... good providence... <smile>

But it's HARD to show Calvinists they are more Provisional than they think they are.

Hmmmm.... I don't think so. I mean, it's hard to overcome pride, that's for sure. But really, that depends on the person you are talking to, and how much... humility... they have.

How do I do it? Get a Calvinist to defend Faith Alone against Roman Catholics; it's a beautiful thing. They will sound more like YOU than you can fathom...

Agreed. There are other things... And hey, even GodsGrace has accused me, several times actually, of "sounding orthodox"... <smile>

Grace and peace to you, Hey You!

 

[PinSeeker]

Could it be that many who claim to know the Lord really aren’t born again but instead have only been “enlightened” by coming closer to the Kingdom of God?

Yes. I said before (more than once) that it is entirely possible to know all about the Lord without really knowing Him. Which ~ I getcha ~ you know. <smile>

Grace and peace to you.

 

[ElectedbyHim]

Okay... here... to your lead-in statements:

In the sense that he will not, but will naturally be inclined against the things of God, and therefore will follow his natural inclination and will thus will freely reject the things of God... because he is not of God, but of the devil; naturally ~ unless and until he is born of God by the Spirit ~ his father is the devil, rather than God.


Sure he is, but he will not ~ again, unless and until he is born of God by the Spirit ~ his father is the devil, rather than God. Until that point (if it comes at all, because for some it will not), he will always, very freely, reject the things of God, regarding it as foolishness.


Again, if you had stopped after 'saved,' you would have been good... <smile> Now, if you want to say that by exclusion from being chosen by God, and thus passively predestined, then that might be somewhat okay, but predestination is active by definition. It's something that God actively did. Again, for those not chosen, and not therefore predestined to be conformed to Christ, God gives them over to their own foolish passions, because they have ~ of their own free will and accord ~ exchanged the truth for a lie and worship creation rather than the Creator (Romans 1).


As I have said, I agree with this, and all "the reformed" and historical Calvinists (and Calvin, of course) do (did). But, yet again, regarding all these things, still ~ and this is most certainly not in any way a denial of man's making a choice or that he acts in his own faith ~ "it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy," (Romans 9:16) and we Christians can make evident, even to ourselves, thus "work(ing) out (our) own salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in (us), both to will and to work for His good pleasure" (Philippians 2:13).


Both are true, as I have said, but in different senses, namely the first being efficacy ~ limited in that respect; God applies it to only some ~ and the second being sufficiency ~ unlimited in that respect,, in terms of ability to cover all. Both are true.


All true except for the "must accept salvation" part, because of the sense... which is nonsense... in which you say that. Again, if you were to replace 'must' with 'will,' and that it comes about because of being born again of the Spirit ~ which is only a product of God's will, but which means one changes his own will because of this... because then he is no longer of the devil but of God ~ then we will agree. But... you have free will and thus will not accept that concession.


Well, the "make" part is in the sense of enabling, by His power, His empowering us, so the credit ~ and glory ~ is His. And this too is His amazing grace. And so, again, one cannot stop there as you have; one has to finish the thought. This is what Arminians do, at least inadvertently, because of their underestimation of man's sinful state and overly strident devotion to this thing called free will, inadvertent though it may be. To the latter, really, the issue is not really free will at all but what we might call free agency, or complete (even total) autonomy. Only God is a "free agent," or completely and totally autonomous, accountable to no one but Himself. Yes,


Of course. See above; it applies to faith, which is the gift of God, and all of God's gifts are irrevocable (Romans 11:29).


Yes, we do. <smile>


We all do. This is not really the choice we're talking about. <smile>


See above, Lambano.


Nobody deserves it, that's for sure. But once God gives it... <smile> He most certainly does not lie or mislead folks.


May be one who, according to God's will, is endowed with a smaller measure of it than another believer. This is 1 Corinthians 12 (vv, 9, 11, to be specific). But if this is the case, then that other believer is called to help the first believer, because the latter, having this greater in measure faith, is called to help the former in his faith... These spiritual gifts are for the common good (vv, 6-7), in the very sense that ~ referring to Proverbs 27:17 here ~ "iron sharpens iron," and we are to build each other up in the Lord, as Paul says in 1 Thessalonians 5:11 ~ "encourage one another and build one another up..."


In the sense that even our belief, like everything else about us, is imperfect, this is true. But I would submit that if one is worried about whether or not he or she is truly elect, then he or she knows the importance of being one of God's elect and is therefore undoubtedly inclined to the things of God rather than to the things of the devil... which is therefore proof positive of his or her being one of God's elect. And in this way, then, we can rest assured of God's assurance (which is what our faith is... Hebrews 11:1). <smile>

Grace and peace to both of you.

This is excellnt.

 

[Ritajanice]

Yes. I said before (more than once) that it is entirely possible to know all about the Lord without really knowing Him. Which ~ I getcha ~ you know. <smile>

Grace and peace to you.

Excellent...Amen!...I knew you’d get me, LOL.

 

[GodsGrace]

I was Saved in a Reformed Baptist Church, so I was a 5-Point Calvinist. I got Married and changed to an Independent Fundamental Baptist Church, and they are NOT Calvinists. I learned from both, so I think I've reconciled the problem areas...

Well, actually HY,,,,I'm happy that you don't have calvinist beliefs anymore.
The God we worship is Loving, and Merciful and Just.
Praise God.

 

[GodsGrace]

<chuckles>


At this point, I have no idea what you're talking about. I highly doubt I didn't reply, but only didn't reply the way you wanted me to. But, I'm freely willing... see what I did there?... to consider that I in fact didn't reply, and ask you to repeat the question, and this time you will get a very thorough reply ~ which... doesn't necessarily mean a long one... <smile>


...the way Arminians want them to.


Neither Calvinism nor Arminianism is heretical. But, one is supported by Scripture, and the other is not. And as I have been saying, the one that is not seems to be supported, because of factors like the refusal to accept the two senses of some things ~ like Jesus's atonement being in one sense for everyone and in the other sense only for the elect... and that human beings in one sense undeniably have free will while in the other sense do not.


It's not. I mean, Calvinists could level the same assertion against Arminianism, but it would be just as false.


Neither Calvinism nor Arminianism meet with that definition. We all believe the basics of Christianity, starting with the fact that... well, to repeat what Paul said to the Philippians, Jesus, the second Person of the triune Jehovah God, was in the form of God, and did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. Therefore God has highly exalted Him and bestowed on Him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

When we get into particulars, like the true human condition, the conditions or lack thereof on man for his election, even the scope of Jesus's atonement, the nature of God's saving grace and it's strength/power, and who is responsible for man's continuing in the faith... it's really okay to disagree on those things, and even to have healthy discussions and even debate regarding them..


Well... every other Arminian one, sure. <smile>


We post the same Scriptures many times, and we give our interpretations. We both do that. To say I never do is patently ridiculous and untrue.


...to your satisfaction. Your disagreement does not indicate in anyway an inability to support my point of view in any way, but only your opinion regarding my point of view. And we could turn that around ~ switch places, as it were, in that statement, or apply it to me ~ and it would be just as true.


Hmmm... God has a "point of view," and even by His own admission it is very different than that of any man, so is He heretical? Well... no...

Hopefully we can close this part out... <smile>

Continued...

You don't know what heretical means.
I've explained it but you cannot accept the truth.
Calvinism IS HERETICAL because NO OTHER DENOMINATION teaches the reformed teach.

HERETICAL means to turn away from orthodoxy.
To teach what mainline Christianity DOES NOT TEACH.

Thus...
Calvinism is heretical....by the very definition of the word heretical.

 

[GodsGrace]

I'm not sure you what you wanted me to say to that, or even if there was some question you were asking me. Perhaps you can clarify.


Right, but I did say the Adamic covenant was renewed with Noah. Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth. So really, by speaking about the Noahic covenant, I'm also speaking of the Adamic covenant, because they are the same. By the way, this is a dispensational mistake: separating the covenants as distinct and mutually exclusive of each other.

Did I make the claim that Covenants exclude each other?
I taught the Covenants Pin...
I KNOW I didn't say that because it's wrong.

In a way they are, but in a very important way they are not; to put it succinctly, covenant theology states that these "lesser" covenants are cumulative, and all culminate into the one true fulfillment of all these "lesser" covenants in the one everlasting covenant, which is embodied in Christ Jesus, Who is the way, the truth, and the life (Adamic and Noahic), will be with us always, now by the Spirit, later in Person in the New Heaven and New Earth; "the meek shall inherit the earth" (Abramic), is the true Law (Mosaic), and our now and forever King (Davidic). Look at that... a seminary class (or several) in one sentence... <smile>

You sure do assume a lot.
No seminary class needed Pin.

What's the difference between the Mosaic Covenant and the New Covenant?

 

[GodsGrace]

Okay... here... to your lead-in statements:

In the sense that he will not, but will naturally be inclined against the things of God, and therefore will follow his natural inclination and will thus will freely reject the things of God... because he is not of God, but of the devil; naturally ~ unless and until he is born of God by the Spirit ~ his father is the devil, rather than God.

No "sense Pin.
I posted many verses commanding man to SEEK GOD.
Reformed theology teaches that man is UNABLE to seek God.
And above you're doing what the reformed teach...
One must be born again before he could be born again by seeking God.
No logic.
No sense.

Believe the bible instead of John Calvin.

Sure he is, but he will not ~ again, unless and until he is born of God by the Spirit ~ his father is the devil, rather than God. Until that point (if it comes at all, because for some it will not), he will always, very freely, reject the things of God, regarding it as foolishness.

No Pin.
According to reformed theology man HAS NO FREE WILL.
As I've said...
You want to be reformed...
be reformed...

Again, if you had stopped after 'saved,' you would have been good... <smile> Now, if you want to say that by exclusion from being chosen by God, and thus passively predestined, then that might be somewhat okay, but predestination is active by definition. It's something that God actively did. Again, for those not chosen, and not therefore predestined to be conformed to Christ, God gives them over to their own foolish passions, because they have ~ of their own free will and accord ~ exchanged the truth for a lie and worship creation rather than the Creator (Romans 1).

OK
You agree that God chooses some for salvation and some for damnation....usual double talk, but that's what you're saying.
Yes..that IS what reformed theology teaches.

Now think....Romans says that God GIVES THEM OVER TO THEIR PASSIONS...

God give them over....

Gives them over.

It does NOT state that God PREDESTINED THEM to their passions.

God just allows them to do what they FREELY wish to do.

As I have said, I agree with this, and all "the reformed" and historical Calvinists (and Calvin, of course) do (did). But, yet again, regarding all these things, still ~ and this is most certainly not in any way a denial of man's making a choice or that he acts in his own faith ~ "it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy," (Romans 9:16) and we Christians can make evident, even to ourselves, thus "work(ing) out (our) own salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in (us), both to will and to work for His good pleasure" (Philippians 2:13).

Romans 9 again.
You only have a few verses to go by....I can't blame you.

As I stated: God has set conditions for mankind to be saved.
IF WE ACCEPT those conditions, of our own free will, and obey God...
WE WILL BE SAVED.

No predestinating persons for heaven or hell.
God is A JUST GOD and will give to each person what he deserves.

This is who will be saved:

Romans 2:11
9There will be tribulation and distress for every soul of man who does evil, of the Jew first and also of the Greek, 10but glory and honor and peace to everyone who does good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. 11For there is no partiality with God.

Acts 10:34
34So Peter opened his mouth and said: “Truly I understand that God shows no partiality,

1 Peter 1:17
17And if you call on him as Father who judges impartially according to each one's deeds, conduct yourselves with fear throughout the time of your exile,


Persons will be judged by their deeds...
NOT because they were chosen before the world began...
this would make God an UNJUST God.

Both are true, as I have said, but in different senses, namely the first being efficacy ~ limited in that respect; God applies it to only some ~ and the second being sufficiency ~ unlimited in that respect,, in terms of ability to cover all. Both are true.

The New Testament states that JESUS DIED FOR ALL MEN.
I supplied a few verses.
You've supplied none.

All true except for the "must accept salvation" part, because of the sense... which is nonsense... in which you say that. Again, if you were to replace 'must' with 'will,' and that it comes about because of being born again of the Spirit ~ which is only a product of God's will, but which means one changes his own will because of this... because then he is no longer of the devil but of God ~ then we will agree. But... you have free will and thus will not accept that concession.

NO.
Salvation is not accepted because one is born again of the spirit.

One is born again of the spirit BECAUSE he has chosen salvation.
Check the Ordo Salutis here:

Ephesians 2:8-9
8For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God;
9not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.

Note: We are saved by God's grace THROUGH FAITH
SAVED THROUGH FAITH
Faith is what saves.

Romans 10:13
13for “WHOEVER WILL CALL ON THE NAME OF THE LORD WILL BE SAVED.”


Note: We call on the name of the Lord
and THEN we are saved.

Reformed theology teaches that we are saved first,
and then we call on the name of the Lord.

Backwards from what the NT teaches...and also illogical.
If a person is already saved...why would they need to call on the name of the Lord?

Well, the "make" part is in the sense of enabling, by His power, His empowering us, so the credit ~ and glory ~ is His. And this too is His amazing grace. And so, again, one cannot stop there as you have; one has to finish the thought. This is what Arminians do, at least inadvertently, because of their underestimation of man's sinful state and overly strident devotion to this thing called free will, inadvertent though it may be. To the latter, really, the issue is not really free will at all but what we might call free agency, or complete (even total) autonomy. Only God is a "free agent," or completely and totally autonomous, accountable to no one but Himself. Yes,

Thanks you for admitting that reformed theology teaches that man is totally depraved ... nowhere is this found in the NT.
Thanks for admitting that reformed theology teaches that man has no free will.....the NT teaches that man has free will.
Free agency....cute wording.
WE ARE AGENTS Pin.
Check it out.

 

[Hey You!]

Well, actually HY,,,,I'm happy that you don't have calvinist beliefs anymore.
The God we worship is Loving, and Merciful and Just.
Praise God.

I wouldn't say I Don't have Calvinist Beliefs anymore, I would say I have Both Reformed Beliefs and Independent Fundamental Baptist Beliefs..

I tend to think I'm more a Fullerite; which I think are a lot Like what SBC Churches believe these days...

 

[GodsGrace]

I wouldn't say I Don't have Calvinist Beliefs anymore, I would say I have Both Reformed Beliefs and Independent Fundamental Baptist Beliefs..

I tend to think I'm more a Fullerite; which I think are a lot Luke SBC Churches believe these days...

What is a Fullerite?

 

[Hey You!]

What is a Fullerite?

Andrew Fuller used to be a Hyper Calvinist, who began to believe Christ Atoned for All. He is the Father of Sunday School, and a father of Missions. Some look at him as a 4.5 or 4.75 Point Calvinist. The Reformed Baptist Tom Ascol considers Fuller to be a 5-Point Calvinist. Fuller's most noteworthy Work is, "A Gospel Worthy of All Acceptation"...

Calvinism Lite

 

[PinSeeker]

This is excellent.

Excellent...Amen!...I knew you’d get me, LOL.

Thank you both. But, I'm sure the hard-headedness will continue.

Ohhhhhh, look. I was right.... LOL!

Grace and peace to you both. And all.

 

[PinSeeker]

Andrew Fuller used to be a Hyper Calvinist, who began to believe Christ Atoned for All. He is the Father of Sunday School, and a father of Missions. Some look at him as a 4.5 or 4.75 Point Calvinist. The Reformed Baptist Tom Ascol considers him to be a 5-Point Calvinist. Fullers most noteworthy Work is, "A Gospel Worthy of All Acceptation"...

Calvinism Lite

Very interesting. So explain where you are, Hey You, if you are so inclined. I'd like to continue this conversation... with you, at least... <smile>

I've heard of three and four, in addition to five, but 4-point-something... This is rather tongue-in-cheek, so not meant in any kind of derisive manner:

LOL!

Grace and peace to you!

 

[BreadOfLife]

Bread....it doesn't matter what PRAY means.
The dead will not hear you because they are not omnipresent.
And please don't tell me they're not dead - you must surely know our soul is eternal.

As I have explained ad nauseam – you don’t have to be omnipresent to hear the prayers of a finite number of people.

Whatever a person does in Heaven – even though it may seem impossible to YOU – is made possible by the power of GOD. For example, take Rev. 5:13, where John seems to be omniscient and omnipresent:
Rev. 5:13
Then I heard EVERY creature in heaven and on earth and under the earth and on the sea, and all that is in them, saying:
“To him who sits on the throne and to the Lamb
be praise and honor and glory and power,
for ever and ever!”

Did John hear them by his OWN power?

And Macabees....
Even the Jews did not put Macabees into their Tanak because, apparently, they didn't believe it was inspired.

And even the CC teaches that obscure verses should not be used for doctrine.

The Deuterocanonical Books were part of the open Jewish Canon until they were officially removed in the 2md century. This is AFER Jesus ascended to the Father and AFTER the destruction of the Temple.

This rabbinical gathering was led by Rabbi Akiba ben Joseph (A.D. 37-137). He was a FALSE prophet who proclaimed a man named Simon Bar Kokhba as the “real” Messiah.

Before He was crucified - Jesus passed the mantle of Authority to His Church complete Authority to represent Him on earth and to speak on His behalf (Matt. 16:18-19, Matt. 18:16-18, Luke 10:16, John 16:12-15, John 20:21-23).

As for NOT using the Deuterocanonicals for doctrine - -this is false.

As far back as St. Jerome, we see his use of these Books in debates about doctrine.
- (Ibid., Volume VI, Jerome, Prefaces to Jerome's Works, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes and the Song of Songs; Daniel, pp. 492-493).
- (Jerome, to Salvina, Letter 79:10, 400 AD, NPNF2, VI:168)

Could you post some ECFs that stated that we should pray to the dead?
I can't find any - this doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Origen
But not the high priest alone prays for those who pray sincerely, but also the angels... as also the souls of the saints who have already fallen asleep (On Prayer II [A.D. 233]).

Pectorius
Aschandius, my father, dearly beloved of my heart, with my sweet mother and my brethren, remember your Pectorius in the peace of the Fish [Christ] (Epitaph [A.D. 250]).

Cyril of Jerusalem
Then [during the Eucharistic prayer] we make mention also of those who have already fallen asleep: first, the patriarchs, prophets, apostles, and martyrs, that through their prayers and supplications God would receive our petition... (Catechetical Lectures 23:9 [A.D. 350]).

Liturgy of St. Basil
By the command of your only-begotten Son we communicate with the memory of your saints . . . by whose prayers and supplications have mercy upon us all, and deliver us for the sake of your holy name (Liturgy of St. Basil [A.D. 373]).

Gregory Nazianzen
Yes, I am well assured that [my father's] intercession is of more avail now than was his instruction in former days, since he is closer to God, now that he has shaken off his bodily fetters, and freed his mind from the clay that obscured it, and holds conversation naked with the nakedness of the prime and purest mind . . . (Orations 18:4 [A.D. 374]).

Gregory of Nyssa
Do you, [Ephraem] that art standing at the divine altar . . . bear us all in remembrance, petitioning for us the remission of sins, and the fruition of an everlasting kingdom (Sermon on Ephraem the Syrian [A.D. 380]).

Ambrose of Milan
May Peter, who wept so efficaciously for himself, weep for us and turn towards us Christ's benign countenance (Hexameron 5:25:90 [A.D. 388]).

John Chrysostom
He that wears the purple . . . stands begging of the saints to be his patrons with God, and he that wears a diadem begs the tent-maker [Paul] and the fisherman [Peter] as patrons, even though they be dead" (Homilies on 2 Corinthians 26 [A.D. 392]).

Augustine
A Christian people celebrate together in religious solemnity the memorials of the martyrs, both to encourage their being imitated and so that it can share in their merits and be aided by their prayers (Against Faustus the Manichean [A.D. 400]).

Jerome
You say in your book that while we live we are able to pray for each other, but afterwards when we have died, the prayer of no person for another can be heard . . . But if the apostles and martyrs while still in the body can pray for others, at a time when they ought still be solicitous about themselves, how much more will they do so after their crowns, victories, and triumphs? (Against Vigilantius 6 [A.D. 406]).

 

[Hey You!]

Very interesting. So explain where you are, Hey You, if you are so inclined. I'd like to continue this conversation... with you, at least... <smile>

I've heard of three and four, in addition to five, but 4-point-something... This is rather tongue-in-cheek, so not meant in any kind of derisive manner:

LOL!

Grace and peace to you!

The Percentage is a way that Calvinists reduce him but try to keep him, and a way Arminians like him but deny him. I myself wouldn't reduce him from 5-Point Calvinism, but would say he explained TULIP differently...

I am fond of how Fuller taught that God's First Commandment is that you Shall have Jesus Christ as your God and Savior...

It's not an Option, it's a Command...

 

[PinSeeker]

@GodsGrace

Look at that, I'm tagging you. I hope that makes you happy... LOL! Even if I hadn't, none of this can be classified as "gossip"... <smile>

"No "sense"

Just not the sense that you like... <smile> But yet it is what it is.​

"I posted many verses commanding man to SEEK GOD."

You did. Sure.​

"Reformed theology teaches that man is UNABLE to seek God."

Not in the sense you mean that, no.​

"And above you're doing what the reformed teach..."

Well yes, and in the sense that they teach it, which is contrary to the sense in which you mean it or want it to be.​

"One must be born again before he could be born again by seeking God."

Well now that is nonsense... but not what I said. If you cut out the nonsensical "before he could be born again" part, then you'd be on to something. One must be born again before he will earnestly seek the Lord. Otherwise, he will remain dead in his sin... at enmity with God, which means, GodsGrace, the state or feeling of being actively opposed or hostile to God.​

"No logic. No sense."

The way you state it, yes.​

"Believe the bible instead of John Calvin."

Just a very strange statement. John Calvin stated it because the Bible ~ Jesus actually, to Nicodemus in John 3 ~ did:​

​

"Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God... Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit" (John 3:5-6).​

​

And what a man cannot see ~ in the sense that before being born again by the Spirit, he is blind ~ he cannot enter the kingdom of God... he will not choose the kingdom of God.​

​

I say to you, believe the Bible instead of Jacobus Arminius. <smile>​

"No Pin."

Yes, Gosh. <smile>​

"According to reformed theology man HAS NO FREE WILL."

Again, only your wrongheaded perception. But, in a certain sense ~ man's will is never free. But again, in the sense in which you are saying what you're saying, that is not true at all.​

"As I've said..."

Right, wrongly.​

"You want to be reformed... be reformed..."

Well thanks.... <smile> But I don't need your permission... or your blessing... or anything else from you. <smile> Even your agreement... <smile>​

"OK"

Wait ~ Does that mean you're finally stopping? Eh, probably not... One can hope, though... <smile>​

"You agree that God chooses some for salvation and some for damnation...."

Nope. The first half of that yes, but the second not so much, no. But you will continue to tell me I do, I'm sure... If you say He makes some for common use, which will result in final condemnation in the Judgment, then... okay.​

"...that's what you're saying."

No it's not... <smile> That's what it seems to you I'm saying, that I get, but... not what I'm saying, no.​

"Yes..that IS what reformed theology teaches."

So it seems, to you, but no.​

"Now think...."

Ohhhhh, if you would only do just that... <smile> You know, instead of burying your head in the sand...​

"Romans says that God GIVES THEM OVER TO THEIR PASSIONS..."

Yes it does; I've cited this several times...​

"God give them over...."

Yes.​

"Gives them over."

Yes. Is there an echo in here... here... here... here...? <smile>​

"It does NOT state that God PREDESTINED THEM to their passions."

RIGHT!!!!!! EXACTLY!!!!! This has been my very point (one of them) for several posts now, yet you still continue in your false assertions about me, John Calvin, all historical Calvinists, and reformed folk of all types.​

So... what's the problem here? Who really has it?​

Love Steve Carell... LOL!​

"God just allows them to do what they FREELY wish to do."

I've said this several times... And endures them with much patience, and even giving them a measure of His grace (for starters, life)...​

"As I stated: God has set conditions for mankind to be saved."

Yes, you have. Wrongly. <smile> The responsibility of man, once he is saved, is very clear all through the Bible. Ah, I love Micah 6:8...​

​

"He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the Lord require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?"​

"IF WE ACCEPT those conditions, of our own free will, and obey God... WE WILL BE SAVED."
From a human experiential standpoint, that's absolutely true. However, something has to happen to our heart first... you can probably guess what that is. <smile> And, if God is then at work in us ~ Philippians 2:13 again ~ we will meet those conditions; this is how we make our calling and election sure to all, including to ourselves.

"No predestinating persons for heaven or hell."

Well, right, only to be conformed to the image of God's Son. Heaven is the result of that, though...​

"God is A JUST GOD and will give to each person what he deserves."

Absolutely. But the fact is that every person, even from conception, naturally speaking, deserves condemnation. And God would have been perfectly just to let us all remain in it. But... there is grace... "But God... by grace you have been saved, and this is not your own doing but the work of God, so no one may boast..." (Ephesians 2:4-10).​

"This is who will be saved: Romans 2:11 Acts 10:34 1 Peter 1:17 Persons will be judged by their deeds..."

Yes, we will all be judged according to what we have done, for sure. And, even if we do a whoooooooole lot of good deeds, if we are not in Christ and for Christ, they will remain filthy rags... and do us no good.​

"NOT because they were chosen before the world began..."

Agree, but that is a necessity for what the real 'because' is...​

"this would make God an UNJUST God."

No, as I said, God would have been perfectly just to leave us all where we were.​

"The New Testament states that JESUS DIED FOR ALL MEN."

Yes, in... one sense, as I have said many times. Yes:​

​

“For God so loved the world, that He gave his only Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him."​

​

But Jesus doesn't stop there, does He? No, continuing, he says:​

​

"Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because He has not believed in the name of the only Son of God. And this is the judgment: the Light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the Light because their works were evil. For everyone who does wicked things hates the Light and does not come to the Light, lest his works should be exposed. But whoever does what is true comes to the Light, so that it may be clearly seen that his works have been carried out in God.”​

Continued...

 

[PinSeeker]

@GodsGrace

From above...

"I supplied a few verses."

You did, yes. <smile>​

"You've supplied none."

Ohhhhh, yes I have. Over and over and over again. And here, too...​

"Salvation is not accepted because one is born again of the spirit."

It is. No man will accept something he does not see... thinks foolishness.​

"One is born again of the spirit BECAUSE he has chosen salvation."
Nope. The other way around. These last two statements "Salvation is not accepted because one is born again of the spirit" and "One is born again of the spirit BECAUSE he has chosen salvation"... It's hard to believe that someone of your intelligence could say these two sentences in the same breath. Just breath-taking, actually. Will one who is dead choose anything? No... Will one who is at enmity with God choose God? No...

"We are saved by God's grace THROUGH FAITH"

Absolutely, and... don't forget... "this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God..." See, here again, you are ~ in effect ~ saying that we manufacture our own faith, and you therefore ~ again, in effect " are making faith out to be a work of man, a gift from man to God, and thereby making man out to be at least somewhat responsible for his own salvation. Surely, you don't mean to be, but that is the unavoidable implication of what you are saying.​

"We call on the name of the Lord and THEN we are saved."

That's exactly contrary to what Joel, Paul, Peter ~ and Jesus ~ say. But so be it. No, our calling on the name of the Lord is because He calls us, and in the sense of this call ~ which you will not bring yourself to accept ~ it is only issued to His elect.​

"Reformed theology teaches that we are saved first, and then we call on the name of the Lord."

Well, our hearts are changed from stone to flesh, and we are no longer at enmity with the Lord, and then... then... yes, we call on the name of the Lord.​

"If a person is already saved...why would they need to call on the name of the Lord?"

LOL! This does bring up a good point though; there is a sense in which we are already saved, and there is also a sense in which we are still being saved, which answers your question ...though you will probably reject this, too...​

"Thanks you for admitting that reformed theology teaches that man is totally depraved ... "

Well, I never denied such... but only denied your wrongheaded understanding of what total depravity is, what John Calvin meant by that term.​

"nowhere is this found in the NT."

Jesus says, "With man, this is impossible. But with God..." <smile>​

"Thanks for admitting that reformed theology teaches that man has no free will..."

"the NT teaches that man has free will."

Sure it does. And the Old Testament too... <smile> But there is a certain sense ~ again, both in the Old Testament and the New ~ in which the will is never free. In this sense, every person is always captive, really, to one thing or the other.​

"Free agency....cute wording."

Yeah I did that just for you. <smile> It is what it is. Only God is autonomous.​

"WE ARE AGENTS Pin."

Yes! We are! LOL! Hey, are you Shield? Or Hydra? LOL! I said... free... agents... <smile> ...and clarified that as being completely autonomous, accountable to no one, and of course we are... not that. Goodness gracious.​

Grace and peace to you.

 

[PinSeeker]

The Percentage is a way that Calvinists reduce him but try to keep him, and a way Arminians like him but deny him.

Right, I understand that... I think... I mean, neither actually try to do the things you're attributing to... well, at least some of them, which I guess you would acknowledge. I guess the more common thing to hear is a 60% or 80% Calvinist (three-point or four-point). Total Depravity and/or Limited Atonement are usually the sticking points for those folks.

I myself wouldn't reduce him from 5-Point Calvinism, but would say he explained TULIP differently...

Him... you mean Fuller. Well, okay. But you know, like they say, "the devil is in the details"... <smile> I'm interested in your "details." <smile>

I am fond of how Fuller taught that God's First Commandment is that you Shall have Jesus Christ as your God and Savior...

It's not an Option, it's a Command...

Hmmm... So God gave the Commandments to Israel, which... well, now there is Greater Israel, in the same sense as the fact that Jesus is the Greater David. Right. And this Commandment is to have no other gods before Him, as you know. Do you see this as somehow different than "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength"? I mean yeah, it's not an option, for sure. None of the commandments are optional... <small> So I still don't really get ya.

Grace and peace to you.

 

[Hey You!]

Right, I understand that... I think... I mean, neither actually try to do the things you're attributing to... well, at least some of them, which I guess you would acknowledge. I guess the more common thing to hear is a 60% or 80% Calvinist (three-point or four-point). Total Depravity and/or Limited Atonement are usually the sticking points for those folks.


Him... you mean Fuller. Well, okay. But you know, like they say, "the devil is in the details"... <smile> I'm interested in your "details." <smile>


Hmmm... So God gave the Commandments to Israel, which... well, now there is Greater Israel, in the same sense as the fact that Jesus is the Greater David. Right. And this Commandment is to have no other gods before Him, as you know. Do you see this as somehow different than "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength"? I mean yeah, it's not an option, for sure. None of the commandments are optional... <small> So I still don't really get ya.

Grace and peace to you.

You gotta love it when folk don't like what you say but respond with "Right" and "Okay"...

I will have to say more later...