tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14012689.post114434257672133065..comments2024-03-24T03:21:03.154-04:00Comments on CAMPONTHIS: ARE YOU SURE YOU LIKE SPURGEON?...by Alan MabenSJ Camphttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15844201288864307481noreply@blogger.comBlogger110125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14012689.post-18906102339571957552009-01-02T11:43:00.000-05:002009-01-02T11:43:00.000-05:00J.C.Strong Tower has given you measured, tempered,...<B>J.C.</B><BR/>Strong Tower has given you measured, tempered, well researched, and biblical responses. I wish I could say the same for your continued invectives displayed here.<BR/><BR/>I think we have reached the end for your stay here. I will allow responses to your last post, but as for you it is time to move on.<BR/><BR/>I do pray for you that you will come to see how synergism is anthropocentric and monergism is theo or Christocentric. One is the biblical gospel and one is not.<BR/><BR/>Also, may i encourage you to reexamine one key element as to your use of Scripture and theological proof-texts; you seem to confuse verses regarding ones sanctification and ones salvation in making your case for "libertarian free will." I.e. - 1 Cor. 10:13/4:7. Once someone is regenerated unto salvation, there is a choice to obey or not to obey (cp, Roms. 6-7). BUT, in regards to salvation, there is no such choice or "libertarian free will" (Roms. 3:10-18, Eph. 2:1-3), but rather only sovereign election and one that is all of grace (cp, Roms. 9:11-23). <BR/><BR/>You even want to make the issue of sin and the guilt and penalty of sin in regards to personal responsibility and the necessity of the atonement not one of imputation or nature, but of only individual action and the ability to comprehend and understand the Law (thus you believe in the antinomian and fictitious "age of accountability").<BR/><BR/><B>So I will leave you to the Lord's care, God's Sovereignty. and the Holy Spirit's instruction from His eternal Word. Hear these powerful words of G.S. Bishop that I trust will be a blessing to you:</B><BR/><BR/><I>"Grace is a provision for men who are so fallen that they cannot lift the ax of justice; so corrupt that they cannot change their own natures; so adverse to God that they cannot turn to Him; so blind that they cannot see Him; so deaf that they cannot hear Him; and so dead that He Himself must open their graves."</I><BR/><BR/>In His irresistible grace,<BR/>Steve <BR/>John 6:35-44SJ Camphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15844201288864307481noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14012689.post-36025856311709558932009-01-02T10:44:00.000-05:002009-01-02T10:44:00.000-05:00Twitchell,This is simply a lie. I have answered it...Twitchell,<BR/><BR/><I>This is simply a lie. I have answered it elsewhere, and you well know that. You refuse to accept the answer, unless it is "straight" by which you mean if it doesn't contradict you.</I><BR/><BR/>Baloney, you only ranted to the point of,<BR/><BR/><I>...you make something other than Christ the way of escape.</I><BR/><BR/>Which I did not state, and which is not an answer to the question:<BR/>Can Christians who yield to temptation do otherwise or not?<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>And I don't respond to you often because of the kind of person you present yourself to be here and the impudence with which you responded at Reformed Mafia to me and others there. Your arrogance is far flung and well known.</I><BR/><BR/>Twitchell, you are the one flinging heresy charges at me and making up things that you think I believe. Of course my responses are going to be hard-hitting refutations. They're extremely reasonable to someone who refuses to be even partially civil. It's very egocentric to assume that you can hurl such accusations and not expect a solid rebuttal pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. My 'arrogance' is only in your head, don't make up motives just because I can make my point.<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>The Corinthians passage in no way makes unequivocal opportunity. The context is tied to "But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband."</I><BR/><BR/>and,<BR/><BR/><I>But, as with the rest leading up to this, it is about the right use of those things provided by God for use by man. As each is given his gift, so he is to make it work and not to do it in such a way that it brings disrepute upon the body of Christ or causes his brother to sin. That is the context of Corinthians.</I><BR/><BR/>Wrong, it was tied to the numerous ways in which the Israelites had fallen to sin in the desert, which includes sins like idolatry, lust, fornication, etc. (vs 5-10)<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>God has provided this as a way of escape, not that the temptation is defeated (escape does not speak of victory), but that the temptation is made bearable by the proper use of the means provided.</I><BR/><BR/>Yes, I agree. But if we are predetermined to fall to a temptation, we are then not able to bear it -- my point.<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>It is therefore not a matter of choosing among equivocations.</I><BR/><BR/>Among 'ambiguous expressions'? What?<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>Now, even at this point, should anyone sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus the righteous, who is always making intercession for us. In other words, should a man not be able to maintain himself, God is <BR/><BR/>faithful, providing Christ, the sure way of escape.</I><BR/><BR/>and,<BR/><BR/><I>As I have argued elswhere, and JCT simply rejected, Christ is our way of escape, even if we fail.</I><BR/><BR/>The way of escape spoken of in verse 13 is so we can endure the temptation, i.e. stand up under it; not merely escape its effects.<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>Yet, his actions were not the keeping measure of his salvation, nor were the ordinances to be acted upon as we are told, rather, it was Christ himself. So 1 Corinthians 10:13, also, is a guarantee that faith can never fail.</I><BR/><BR/>That logic doesn't follow, since Christians often fail to endure (i.e. yield to) temptation.<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>It takes man's effort and decision, the means and methods the savior, and not Christ.</I><BR/><BR/>Salvation requires endurance, but through Christ, for He says,<BR/><BR/><I>"I am the vine, you are the branches. He who abides in Me, and I in him, bears much fruit; for without Me you can do nothing."</I> (John 15:5)<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>"Therefore let anyone who thinks that he stands take heed lest he fall." We stand by grace. But JCT makes it to be cooperative grace, or grace plus works, which is idolatry.</I><BR/><BR/>Nice attempt at redefinition, but cooperation with grace is not a 'work' any more than faith is.<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>That is what 1 Cor 10:13 says. It says nothing about LFW being graciously regenerated in you so that you might choose to sin.</I><BR/><BR/>I never stated anything of the sort. Please cease trying to put words into my mouth.<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>We are made to stand, JCT, where you like to think you stand on your own even if it was first by grace that you do so.</I><BR/><BR/>and,<BR/><BR/><I>You are still wandering in the desert of despair thinking that since you have been delivered from Egypt you can find your own way home.</I><BR/><BR/>Now you're completely off-base. I never said anything about standing 'on my own,' I believe God's grace and provision is necessary for us to be able to stand, which is exactly why I was arguing that it is God who gives us the way to escape temptation from 1 Corinthians 10. Twitchell, you are now asserting that I'm arguing the opposite of the very thing I've been arguing!<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>Do you honestly think that they did not want to sin against the Lord and return to Egypt, at that point?</I><BR/><BR/>No. I don't recall saying that either.<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>For you though, it is by the flesh that you do anything, the very reason the children of Israel who were rejected died in the wilderness. Why harden yourself so?</I><BR/><BR/>Again you simply make up stances for me. I never stated anything about it being 'by the flesh.' If you hold to the doctrine of the God of truth, then why can't you make your case honestly.<BR/><BR/><BR/>I stated:<BR/><I>No, grace draws sinners to Christ, sinners can resist grace by nature.</I><BR/><BR/>You stated:<BR/><I>So, the nature is both good and evil?</I><BR/><BR/>No, I only stated that humans can resist grace by nature. Our fallen nature is evil.<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>Can sinners accept Christ out of that nature once drawn to him?</I><BR/><BR/>No, by grace, sinners may accept Christ despite their nature. I've answered this one as well.<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>So, is what you are saying is that man rejects Christ out of his nature but will does not reside there?</I><BR/><BR/>I would think not. While the two are linked, Adam had a will before his nature was corrupted, as will resurrected believers when our sinful nature is wiped away.<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>Okay, why does one man reject Christ out of his nature and another does not? Is that fair?</I><BR/><BR/>Certainly, the one who rejects freely does so.<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>Or does he reject Christ out of his nature and accept him out of his will?</I><BR/><BR/>That makes no sense. One cannot accept Christ and reject Him simultaneously.<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>See JCT, the problem is not that you didn't answer, you just redefine terms and move it back another step so that it was another question that you were answering which was not asked.</I><BR/><BR/>Pointing out the inherent fallacy in an inherently fallacious question is sufficiently answering it.<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>JUST ANSWER THE QUESTION: WHY? NOT HOW! And don't redefine, don't obfuscate. No matter where the ability resides, or doesn't, WHY does one man choose one thing and another not if all things are equal, i.e. neutral.</I><BR/><BR/>Because he freely believes, the ability to believe coming by grace. If you are asking what principle 'made' one choose and not another, then you are effectively asking 'what forces one to make a specific libertarian choice.' An 'impelled libertarian choice' is inherently contradictory.<BR/><BR/><BR/>I said:<BR/><I>The burden of proof is upon the one making assertions requiring evidence Thomas, show me where in scripture the grace that comes prior to conversion is ever called 'regeneration.'</I><BR/><BR/>You said:<BR/><I>It has already been given, you rejected it. And here is what you have done: You make grace to be one thing and then another, but Scripture makes grace our salvation. Or perhaps you didn't catch that little word charoo. Charis is the gift, charoo is the perfection of it. Simply stated it means that grace which saves is perfected from the foundations of the world as applied then and made manifest in time. Regardless of how you try to caricature it as eternal salvation, it is not. What it does mean is that the limited scope of the atonement is fixed by the perfection of the intent of it and that it is not viewed as being phased in according to the active participation of the object of it. Ephesians specifically makes the recipient passive and the grace the perfecting agent.<BR/><BR/>But so that you might not go away empty handed: "But when the goodness and loving kindness of God our Savior appeared, he saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit, whom he poured out on us richly through Jesus <BR/><BR/>Christ our Savior..." Things to notice about this Scripture, mercy, eleos, is a word equivalent to grace in this passage as it is contrasted with works and grace works by regeneration.</I><BR/><BR/>But, Titus 3:5 states nothing about regeneration coming before faith. So where exactly does scripture define grace before faith as 'regeneration?'<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>Even Arminius held that grace was regeneration, all that "appertains" to it. I thought that you were Arminian.</I><BR/><BR/>I have theology that is similar in some ways, but no, I've never adopted the label 'Arminian' for myself.<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>Let me try another word, how's about cooperates with grace? For that is what improves means: "use something well: to make good use of something or employ something to advantage." Which is the way Arminian's use the term. Unfortunately this makes grace a magician's wand, a talisman, an occult tool.</I><BR/><BR/>How would cooperating with God's grace make it a "magician's wand," since grace involves God drawing men to Himself despite their inherently evil nature?<BR/><BR/><BR/>I said:<BR/><I>I'd cited the case of Gideon achieving victory by the power of God; by your logic, was he somehow 'improving' upon the power of God by physically engaging the enemy?</I><BR/><BR/>You said:<BR/><I>No, by your logic it does. It was a stupid, or let me use your word, incoherent, as an example anyway.</I><BR/><BR/>Not so, for God used Gideon, Gideon didn't use God.<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>But according to you, it was Gideon's will that effected the victory, for without it, God powers were insufficient and he could not have had the victory.</I><BR/><BR/>Again you make up stances for me. I never stated that God couldn't achieve victory by Himself, I even cited an example of when He chose to do so. You should read carefully before you level more accusations.<BR/><BR/><BR/>I said:<BR/><I>I don't believe God has evil tendency. I believe Adam was capable of freely choosing between good and evil, though his descendants are tainted by nature due to his sin.</I><BR/><BR/>You said:<BR/><I>A trick question, I admit.</I><BR/><BR/>I'd hoped that was an accident on your part. What a childish ploy...<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>So prove it, prove he was "freely" capable. If you mean he had the ability to choose the good and reject the evil, I agree. But if you mean he was neutral in regards to it so that he could choose either one, that is Pelagian and heresy. If you believe that he was good and some how could choose evil, that is heresy and Pelagian as well.</I><BR/><BR/>But if he could choose good, and yet chose evil when presented to him (as Genesis plainly tells us), then it's obvious that he could choose either one. How is that Pelagianism? <BR/><BR/><BR/><I>Still, if Scripture teaches Adam created in the image of God, how is it that evil is in man in the beginning such that he might choose evil as presented to him and God call what he created good? Then again, good means there was nothing in Adam of an evil tendency, then to what does evil external to him appeal?</I><BR/><BR/>and,<BR/><BR/><I>You must make God the author of evil in Adam which is not the image of God, or you must make God to be good where good is both good and evil and Adam created in that image. So which is it? Was Adam created able to choose evil? The fact that he could be made to is beyond question, it happened, but only by deception (which is a corruption from without not from within and is as much as being forced against one's will). God did not grant Adam freedom to choose evil did he?</I><BR/><BR/>God didn't need to create Adam evil (which He didn't) for him to choose evil. He created Adam with a free will. He was created good, but was fallible, not inherently evil.<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>And is it not the fact that there was no evil in Adam or Eve to begin with? If he made them capable of choosing either one how so? The image of God is not that, is it?</I><BR/><BR/>God is not fallible either, I certainly wouldn't argue that that's His image. There were obvious differences between Adam and God.<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>Is God capable of choosing evil? You say no... So, what do you mean by capable?</I><BR/><BR/>Why are you asking me to define basic words?<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>Surely the will can be bent, but if you are insisting that that ability to bend it to evil is within man from the creation, that is the height of blasphemy and heretical.</I><BR/><BR/>Satan didn't force Adam to sin, he tempted him. Adam sinned of his own free will. How is that blasphemous?<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>For God does not author evil in man, does he?</I><BR/><BR/>Nope.<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>Then how did evil arise in man, seeing that it could not have been God's doing?</I><BR/><BR/>God creating a creature capable of choosing either good or evil doesn't make the creature inherently evil.<BR/><BR/><BR/>I said:<BR/><I>You are now clearly making things up and trying to put words into my mouth.</I><BR/><BR/><I>No, it is extrapolated from all you have said about man's ability to either choose Christ or reject him. He must be able to do that from something in him that has the ability to choose since you do not believe it is without him that the choice is made for him.</I><BR/><BR/>I have repeatedly stated that man can only will to do good by grace, which is in diametric opposition to what Pelagius taught, making any association between us wholly spurious. I stated nothing about being restored to an Adamic state by grace, which would require that we be not guilty of sin (as Adam was before he sinned) before we believe, and with no inherently corrupt nature still within us (which still remains even after we believe), which is nonsensical. You are employing deceit to try and lump me with Pelagius, whose distinctives I reject. Accusations must be based upon fact and proof, otherwise you are a false witness. An idea stuck in your head that I kinda sorta resemble Pelagius from your view is not proof. You jump in with accusations before you even know who you're accusing; misquote, misconstrue, and simply make up positions; employ deceit and try to ensnare with childish trick questions...who are you acting like? The Father in heaven, or the enemy - the accuser of the brethren?<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>And you define it as capability which tends toward both good and evil, equally, or in other words, you make it neutrality.</I><BR/><BR/>I never said anything about 'equally' or 'neutrality.'<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>So, the question is fair...</I><BR/><BR/>No, you are plainly putting words into my mouth and attributing statements to me which I implied nothing about. Speak the truth, or don't speak.<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>You've done far worse than this at RM, and I didn't ban you because it wasn't my place to do so.</I><BR/><BR/>Like what?J.C. Thibodauxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12884600822119690931noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14012689.post-30754344549260969192009-01-02T01:07:00.000-05:002009-01-02T01:07:00.000-05:00For those of you who might be wondering about what...For those of you who might be wondering about what follows, in part it is in response to JCT's response that was deleted.<BR/><BR/>"And for the record, I've posed the question from 1 Corinthians 10:13 to you as well, and it's in fact you who haven't given a straight answer."<BR/><BR/>This is simply a lie. I have answered it elsewhere, and you well know that. You refuse to accept the answer, unless it is "straight" by which you mean if it doesn't contradict you. And I don't respond to you often because of the kind of person you present yourself to be here and the impudence with which you responded at Reformed Mafia to me and others there. Your arrogance is far flung and well known.<BR/><BR/>So for others here is one way to approach JCT's confusion so that he can never say that I have not answered: The Corinthians passage in no way makes unequivocal opportunity. The context is tied to "But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband." God has provided this as a way of escape, not that the temptation is defeated (escape does not speak of victory), but that the temptation is made bearable by the proper use of the means provided. It is therefore not a matter of choosing among equivocations. But, as with the rest leading up to this, it is about the right use of those things provided by God for use by man. As each is given his gift, so he is to make it work and not to do it in such a way that it brings disrepute upon the body of Christ or causes his brother to sin. That is the context of Corinthians. Now, even at this point, should anyone sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus the righteous, who is always making intercession for us. In other words, should a man not be able to maintain himself, God is faithful, providing Christ, the sure way of escape.<BR/><BR/>Arminius' example of David dying before he repented and losing his salvation is ludicrous. Repentance is no magic talisman that saves, it is Christ. Arminius through all his methodistic machinations, ends up denying the very sufficiency of Christ's atonement in defending freewill. He made the methods, i.e. repenting, and the means, i.e. repentance, mediators between man and God. The efficiency of grace was bound to man's obedience, and not the obedience of Christ.<BR/><BR/>For Christians though, Christ always provides a way, for faith is a sure and certain hope, and he is our faith. What JCT does with this passage is laughable. If he would continue reading he would see that there were those among the children of Israel who did not have faith. But among the children were people like Aaron, who though he had faith, he like the others engaged in idolatry. But for him, as one of those of faith, Christ was the provision made such that he escaped final condemnation. In other places, Moses is put among those that rebelled, for it is said that he broke faith with God by striking the rock. Yet, his actions were not the keeping measure of his salvation, nor were the ordinances to be acted upon as we are told, rather, it was Christ himself. So 1 Corinthians 10:13, also, is a guarantee that faith can never fail. But for the Arminian, that is not true, is it, JCT? It takes man's effort and decision, the means and methods the savior, and not Christ. But the faith which saves depends upon the promise of escape, not man's ability to.<BR/><BR/>JCT, like Arminius was so adept at doing, neglects context: "Therefore let anyone who thinks that he stands take heed lest he fall." We stand by grace. But JCT makes it to be cooperative grace, or grace plus works, which is idolatry.<BR/><BR/>In either case, should we stand or fall, we do not have any boast to make, except in Christ who has provided all means in him, not in us. Our freedom does not grant us license to do as we so choose, neither does it grant the willing and doing unilaterally of his good pleasure as if it were we who lived and not Christ. It is God who works in us that which we will without fail do of his good pleasure. Then we know also, that if it is not by his grace that we stand, then it is by some other principle we do so, namely the flesh. But that is death. When we live by our will, our flesh, it is sin, for which we are responsible, but for which he has died to cleanse. As I have argued elswhere, and JCT simply rejected, Christ is our way of escape, even if we fail. <BR/><BR/>If anyone thinks that he can exercise LFW, which by definition is without Christ, you're welcome to it, but you will fall. That is what 1 Cor 10:13 says. It says nothing about LFW being graciously regenerated in you so that you might choose to sin.<BR/><BR/>We are made to stand, JCT, where you like to think you stand on your own even if it was first by grace that you do so. We have been translated into the kingdom, and it is no longer we who live but Christ. You are still wandering in the desert of despair thinking that since you have been delivered from Egypt you can find your own way home.<BR/><BR/>Why did God take them by the desert road, and not the sea road of the Philistines? It was because if it was left to their own freewill, the temptation to save their own skins from the Philistines would have provided opportunity to return to Egypt, or IOW, they would have had opportunity to sin against God. And why did he trap them by the sea? He turned them away from open country, on purpose. Do you honestly think that they did not want to sin against the Lord and return to Egypt, at that point? To the contrary. It is shown throughout their entire wanderings, that they did want to return and it is further proclaimed by the prophets later that in their hearts they are always turning back to Egypt unless God removes the stony heart and replaces it with a heart of flesh and causes them to walk in his way. He provides himself as the way of escape, (1 Cor 10:1; cf Hebrews 3:12-4:3) even though all did not make right use of his provision. Nor could they, because it says, he has mercy on whom he wills, and the rest he hardens (Romans 9:18, cf Romans 8:9-10). A person is either of the Spirit or not, and if of the Spirit, then it is the Spirit that makes alive, but the flesh remains dead. For you though, it is by the flesh that you do anything, the very reason the children of Israel who were rejected died in the wilderness. Why harden yourself so?<BR/><BR/>Some day JCT, you'll read all Scripture and get the full picture.<BR/><BR/><B><I>No, grace draws sinners to Christ, sinners can resist grace by nature.</I></B><BR/><BR/>So, the nature is both good and evil? Thanks for answering yes in the negative. I guess. Can one not resist the drawing out of that nature? Can sinners accept Christ out of that nature once drawn to him? Strange definition of nature, one that is both good and evil. And how is it that both good and evil can accept Christ?<BR/><BR/>You know, Arminius' definition of total depravity was not Reformed. He considered it the addition to the neutral nature, the curse of the evil choice made by Adam, so that man is unable by his will, to raise himself. And he considered grace the regeneration by the lifting of the curse of total depravity from the will so that man could exercise choice or not in obedience to God. Now, he also spoke of the differentiation between the different compartments of man's compostition. So, is what you are saying is that man rejects Christ out of his nature but will does not reside there? But where does will reside, then? Okay, why does one man reject Christ out of his nature and another does not? Is that fair? Or does he reject Christ out of his nature and accept him out of his will? See JCT, the problem is not that you didn't answer, you just redefine terms and move it back another step so that it was another question that you were answering which was not asked. JUST ANSWER THE QUESTION: WHY? NOT HOW! And don't redefine, don't obfuscate. No matter where the ability resides, or doesn't, WHY does one man choose one thing and another not if all things are equal, i.e. neutral. <BR/><BR/><B><I>The burden of proof is upon the one making assertions requiring evidence Thomas, show me where in scripture the grace that comes prior to conversion is ever called 'regeneration.'</I></B><BR/><BR/>It has already been given, you rejected it. And here is what you have done: You make grace to be one thing and then another, but Scripture makes grace our salvation. Or perhaps you didn't catch that little word charoo. Charis is the gift, charoo is the perfection of it. Simply stated it means that grace which saves is perfected from the foundations of the world as applied then and made manifest in time. Regardless of how you try to caricature it as eternal salvation, it is not. What it does mean is that the limited scope of the atonement is fixed by the perfection of the intent of it and that it is not viewed as being phased in according to the active participation of the object of it. Ephesians specifically makes the recipient passive and the grace the perfecting agent. But so that you might not go away empty handed: "But when the goodness and loving kindness of God our Savior appeared, he saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit, whom he poured out on us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior..." Things to notice about this Scripture, mercy, eleos, is a word equivalent to grace in this passage as it is contrasted with works and grace works by regeneration. Even Arminius held that grace was regeneration, all that "appertains" to it. I thought that you were Arminian. <BR/><BR/><B><I>"Your question is incoherent, since I don't believe one 'improves upon grace.'</I></B><BR/><BR/>Then you're not Arminian. Let me try another word, how's about cooperates with grace? For that is what improves means: "use something well: to make good use of something or employ something to advantage." Which is the way Arminian's use the term. Unfortunately this makes grace a magician's wand, a talisman, an occult tool. <BR/><BR/> <B><I>Giving ourselves more or better grace or something?</I></B><BR/><BR/>By Arminius' definition, yes, for what he meant by proper use of grace in his economy was that God rewards it with greater grace. But, if you're not really Arminian, then hey, what difference does it make? By the way I liked Hendryx's name for your kind: "Deviant Arminian."<BR/><BR/><B><I>I'd cited the case of Gideon achieving victory by the power of God; by your logic, was he somehow 'improving' upon the power of God by physically engaging the enemy?</I></B><BR/><BR/>No, by your logic it does. It was a stupid, or let me use your word, incoherent, as an example anyway. The point is that it is not by anything inherent in or given to Gideon by which God gains the victory. But according to you, it was Gideon's will that effected the victory, for without it, God powers were insufficient and he could not have had the victory.<BR/><BR/><B><I>I don't believe God has evil tendency. I believe Adam was capable of freely choosing between good and evil, though his descendants are tainted by nature due to his sin.</I></B><BR/><BR/>A trick question, I admit. Still, Arminius taught that Adam did have both tendencies in him in creation and that the will was neutral in regard to them and that also Adam had the capability of choosing between good and evil. So prove it, prove he was "freely" capable. If you mean he had the ability to choose the good and reject the evil, I agree. But if you mean he was neutral in regards to it so that he could choose either one, that is Pelagian and heresy. If you believe that he was good and some how could choose evil, that is heresy and Pelagian as well. Still, if Scripture teaches Adam created in the image of God, how is it that evil is in man in the beginning such that he might choose evil as presented to him and God call what he created good? Then again, good means there was nothing in Adam of an evil tendency, then to what does evil external to him appeal? And if there was evil in him in the creation where did it come from? In either case you're in a pickle. You must make God the author of evil in Adam which is not the image of God, or you must make God to be good where good is both good and evil and Adam created in that image. So which is it? Was Adam created able to choose evil? The fact that he could be made to is beyond question, it happened, but only by deception (which is a corruption from without not from within and is as much as being forced against one's will). God did not grant Adam freedom to choose evil did he? Wasn't it God who forbade the eating? Isn't it in fact the case that God did not put before them good and evil? And is it not the fact that there was no evil in Adam or Eve to begin with? If he made them capable of choosing either one how so? The image of God is not that, is it? Is God capable of choosing evil? You say no... So, what do you mean by capable? Surely the will can be bent, but if you are insisting that that ability to bend it to evil is within man from the creation, that is the height of blasphemy and heretical. For God does not author evil in man, does he? Then how did evil arise in man, seeing that it could not have been God's doing? You've got some splainin to do Lucy!<BR/><BR/><B><I>You are now clearly making things up and trying to put words into my mouth.</I></B><BR/><BR/>No, it is extrapolated from all you have said about man's ability to either choose Christ or reject him. He must be able to do that from something in him that has the ability to choose since you do not believe it is without him that the choice is made for him. And you define it as capability which tends toward both good and evil, equally, or in other words, you make it neutrality. So, the question is fair and is related to the facts of the subject of synergism which as Campi pointed out is unbiblical and can in some senses be called blasphemous and heretical depending on the extremes of the definitions applied by synergism's defenders.<BR/><BR/>So don't blame me when what you say is devilish, and don't blame Steve when what you say makes God the devil and he bans you. You've done far worse than this at RM, and I didn't ban you because it wasn't my place to do so. Though I could have asked those who know you there like I do to do so. I have turned a deaf ear to most of your recalcitrant impudence because you are a boor.Strong Towerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13834108238546908018noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14012689.post-78929152256564780182009-01-02T00:53:00.000-05:002009-01-02T00:53:00.000-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.Strong Towerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13834108238546908018noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14012689.post-4021640750969381952009-01-01T21:33:00.000-05:002009-01-01T21:33:00.000-05:00I don't know why I bother Camp, you'll probably ju...I don't know why I bother Camp, you'll probably just delete this without cause like you did my last two posts.<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>Does grace open the heart to darkness?</I><BR/><BR/>No. I've already answered you thoroughly on this before at RM. Why do you keep asking the same questions?<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>Or, to ask it another way, does grace merely afford the ability to choose either darkness or light?</I><BR/><BR/>No, grace draws sinners to Christ, sinners can resist grace by nature. <BR/><BR/><BR/><I>Show us where the grace which Scripture speaks of as saving grace, does not regenerate man as whole, initially, and perfect him according to Christ, the author and perfecter of it.</I><BR/><BR/>The burden of proof is upon the one making assertions requiring evidence Thomas, show me where in scripture the grace that comes prior to conversion is ever called 'regeneration.'<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>Then answer, what is it in subject A which improves upon the grace given, as opposed to the subject B who does not improve it.</I><BR/><BR/>Your question is incoherent, since I don't believe one 'improves upon grace.' What does that mean? Giving ourselves more or better grace or something? I'd cited the case of Gideon achieving victory by the power of God; by your logic, was he somehow 'improving' upon the power of God by physically engaging the enemy?<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>Do you believe as Arminius that God created man in his image with both good and evil tendency?</I><BR/><BR/>I don't believe God has evil tendency. I believe Adam was capable of freely choosing between good and evil, though his descendants are tainted by nature due to his sin.<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>And, is that what you mean when you say that man can, after being restored to his Adamic state, from his Pelagius' Island of neutral freewill...</I><BR/><BR/><B>"when you say that man can, after being restored to his Adamic state"??</B> I never mentioned anything about an 'Adamic state' or 'Pelagius Island,' nothing even resembling it concerning my beliefs, as anyone reading this thread can see Twitchell. You are now clearly making things up and trying to put words into my mouth. Such intellectual dishonesty speaks very poorly of the case you're attempting to make. God is truth, if your doctrine were of God, you would speak the truth.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Back to you Camp. The crux of Twitchell's post, the 'why does one choose and not another' canard (which has been pretty well-pulverized by this point) I did answer again and you deleted it, which you fail to mention in your gloating "a bit too much for J.C. to comprehend" taunt. When I posted again calling you on your accusation and asking you to cite specifically where I'd been improper or disrespectful, you again deleted my comment, this time completely without cause and without answer.J.C. Thibodauxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12884600822119690931noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14012689.post-42378703892864803322009-01-01T18:52:00.000-05:002009-01-01T18:52:00.000-05:00Strong TowerTremendous comment. Thank you for not ...<B>Strong Tower</B><BR/>Tremendous comment. Thank you for not only being well researched, but well voiced too. <BR/><BR/>It has hard to refute Scripture and the application you have made here. Fair and balanced - to coin a phrase :-). I think though the depth of your post was maybe a bit too much for J.C. to comprehend all in one sitting. Hopefully he will respond to the content of what you have stated.<BR/><BR/>Well done!<BR/><BR/>Grace and peace,<BR/>Steve<BR/>2 Cor. 4:5-7SJ Camphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15844201288864307481noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14012689.post-91175311633716398242009-01-01T17:40:00.000-05:002009-01-01T17:40:00.000-05:00J.C.Anyone is welcome at this site to post on the ...<B>J.C.</B><BR/>Anyone is welcome at this site to post on the issues and substance of the posts I choose to write and feature at COT. But, they must do so with propriety and respect for others.<BR/><BR/>You have not demonstrated this especially in your last comment and as such it has been deleted. <BR/><BR/>You may repost and do so without the needless juvenile invective or consider yourself permanently banned.<BR/><BR/>I have been patient with you, but that has run out. Stay on topic, do so with respect for this blog, its host and those who comment here and you may say what you will. Otherwise, you may address the three or four people that may visit your blog on any given week.<BR/><BR/>Grace and peace,<BR/>Steve<BR/>1 Peter 3:15SJ Camphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15844201288864307481noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14012689.post-50433873599844158332009-01-01T14:34:00.000-05:002009-01-01T14:34:00.000-05:00"The simple fact is that were it not for grace, th..."The simple fact is that were it not for grace, the human heart would remain forever closed in darkness"<BR/><BR/>Does grace open the heart to darkness?<BR/><BR/>Or, to ask it another way, does grace merely afford the ability to choose either darkness or light?<BR/><BR/>Grace, according to Arminius, provided all that "appertains" to regeneration. In other words, regeneration provided, i.e. preceded faith. Yet he maintained the liberty of freewill. He thus believed that regeneration merely reset man to his pre-lapse Adamic state, neutral, concerning good and evil in respect to his will. He believed Adam was created with both evil and good tendency within him; that the will was neutral concerning them and that he could either reject the grace given or improve upon it. From his perspective on regeneration, he taught that in prevenient grace (though he did not use that term but, initial, preventive, or prepratory) was inescapably perfect. That is, though it could be resisted after it was given, it could not be resisted in the giving of it those powers proper to it, and if applied it would without fail produce more of its kind. The thrust was that the curse was lifted by this preventive grace, preventing total depravity from intefering. He called it preventive because it prevented man from stopping it, also. At the same time, he did not consider grace to be completed grace, that is having in itself power to affect the will positively according to the nature of grace. But he did believe that it bent the will toward good without the man's consent, by the renewal of mind and affections. If one wants to picture this, he might think of a scale weighted toward evil, but grace removes the weight of sin by sitting upon the other pan, bringing ballance. It is up to man to tip the scale by moving one way or the other.<BR/><BR/>So, though he would defend himself as non-Pelagian, he was, for the position that he puts man in, at least in reference to his will, is that of moral neutrality. He was non-Pelagian in that he required of grace assistive properties. He was non-Pelagian in that he held to total depravity, also. In all, even-though he denied he was semi-Pelagian because he knew it to be no different than Pelagianism, he was. Because he proposed that man was merely renovated in regeneration in regards to his will by the removal of TD from it; he rejected the Scripture's teaching of the new creation by that same fiat.<BR/><BR/>Further, he believed that the Holy Spirit so works whereever the Word was found, that the person exposed to it could not resist the grace that was "magically" infused into man in its reading or hearing (in thus doing he denied Jesus' own teaching concerning it). So at first, he believed in irrestistiable grace, but only so in intitial, or prepratory grace. Grace, to him was the entirety of the salvation package, but not in the biblical sense of fullness of inheritance. Because for him, grace delivered no sure hope. In otherwords, he denied Hebrews definition of the faith given as grace. Faith he believed a pure gift given in grace, but rather than biblical faith, he considered it resistable, as if it were a magician's common tool. He devised a three-fold view of grace. Still, intitial grace is irresistible being not in the man that he should at first resist it, for in his ungregenerated state he was unable to do so. Resistence comes only with renovation according to Arminius.<BR/><BR/>The analysis of Arminius' grace was nothing short of Pelagian and a rejection of the grace that saves as defined in Ephesians 1:1-14. In those passages grace of salvation is described as perfected before it is given as particular in which the recipient is totally passive. And beyond that, that grace is the inheritance which adopts, contrary to Arminius who believed it only a possible, an aquired iheritance, founded in the freewill of the creature to choose to be adopted. In the end, Arminius' false hope can never be the very Lord that biblical hope is defined as.<BR/><BR/>As Arminius descibed it, the weight of the depravity was lifted from the will in this initial grace and the renovated will, freed as it were from total depravity, becomes able to choose, if it so desired, either good or evil. But, biblical grace grants the choosing of good, not the choosing of evil.<BR/><BR/>Then the question above resolves to why does a man choose one and not the other?<BR/><BR/>This is the question that you never answer JCT, no matter where you are asked it around the blogosphere. Like Arminius you deflect it, ignore it, or answer circularly.<BR/><BR/>This is really the problem. Show us where the grace which Scripture speaks of as saving grace, does not regenerate man as whole, initially, and perfect him according to Christ, the author and perfecter of it. But you do not care to go there. Then answer, what is it in subject A which improves upon the grace given, as opposed to the subject B who does not improve it. Why, if all things are equal, does one choose to follow Christ and another, not?<BR/><BR/>Do you believe as Arminius that God created man in his image with both good and evil tendency? And, is that what you mean when you say that man can, after being restored to his Adamic state, from his Pelagius' Island of neutral freewill, choose either to remain in the light or return to darkness?Strong Towerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13834108238546908018noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14012689.post-32244661239647680052009-01-01T13:30:00.000-05:002009-01-01T13:30:00.000-05:00J.C.Happy New Year to you too!A few brief correcti...<B>J.C.</B><BR/>Happy New Year to you too!<BR/><BR/>A few brief corrective thoughts for you:<BR/><BR/>1. As to the Council of Orange (529 AD). The vast entirety of the council's findings support my views here. I am surprised that you chose to quote one lonely sentence from Orange to try and prooftext your sandy beliefs (something Arminianism must do to attempt to make their case from unbiblical footing - I understand your dilemma.) <BR/><BR/>The entirety of Orange was to address the Pelagius (and semi-Pelagius) heresies against total depravity and to correct the error of man possessing a free will. It also historically in redemptive history help to lay the foundation for Calvin and Luther on the issues of the doctrine of Total Depravity and Luther's the Bondage of the Will.<BR/><BR/>Both Luther and Calvin were correct (as was Orange) in demonstrating biblically that man is not just partially corrupted by Adam's sin, but completely depraved including his will unless by grace God changes their heart of stone for a heart of flesh by which then man is "free" to believe (regeneration preceding faith).<BR/><BR/>For those of you who would like to actually read The Canons of Orange for yourselves and not just J.C.'s one sentence prooftext <A HREF="http://www.reformed.org/documents/index.html?mainframe=http://www.reformed.org/documents/canons_of_orange.html" REL="nofollow"><B>you may do so here. Enjoy.</B></A><BR/><BR/>2. As to 1 John 2:2 - the issue is not the definition of the word world. The issue is defining "propitiation" and defining "whole."<BR/><BR/>Here is the verse: <I>"He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world."</I><BR/><BR/>To propitiate means to assuage wrath and to satisfy. Upon the cross, Jesus Christ took the guilt and penalty and wrath against every sin that would ever be committed by every sinner that would ever believe (IOW, for His people chosen before the foundation of the world - only). He redeemed the elect there fully and completely. Jesus drank the cup of wrath to propitiate the Father on behalf of the sins of the people (Heb. 2:17). Again, what people are they? "to those whom the Father had given Me" (John 17; 2 Tim. 1:9; Titus 1:1; Eph. 1:4-6).<BR/><BR/>If all people ever born and unborn and their sins were propitiated by Christ to the Father, then there would no more wrath to pour out upon anyone and all would be saved. Ergo, the heretical view of Universalism is born. (Now I am confident, J.C., that not even the theological error springing from Arminianism has led you to believe such heresy.)<BR/><BR/>On the cross, Christ first and foremost died for God - to satisfy Him - His justice, holiness, and wrath. Jesus fully did. He was "pros ton theon" on our behalf to the Father (Roms. 3:21-26; 1 John 4:10; Heb. 2:17). He stood in our place; He was our divine substitute; and He actually saved us there. SDG!<BR/><BR/>As to the word whole, if you notice the Greek word here is "holos" and not "pas." Pas is mostly used to designate every single individual; whereby holos is mostly used to mean the universality of the message. IOW, John is not saying here that Jesus satisfied God and His wrath on behalf of every single person, but he is saying that this glorious salvation is not just for us, but for those of every tribe, tongue, nation and people throughout the entire world.<BR/><BR/>When you finally come to fully understand the nature of the atonement then your theological search will be over. <BR/><BR/>I must grant you this though, you are consistent in how you like to prooftext your quotes and verses. :-).<BR/><BR/>Must run for now. Will address the rest of your comment a bit later. <BR/><BR/>Grace and peace to you J.C.<BR/>Steve<BR/>Eph. 2:8-9<BR/><BR/>PS - synergism is heresy. I will address later.SJ Camphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15844201288864307481noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14012689.post-67781222492236506692009-01-01T10:20:00.000-05:002009-01-01T10:20:00.000-05:00Camp,I think the 'author of sin and evil' comment ...Camp,<BR/><BR/>I think the 'author of sin and evil' comment was merely to point out where the idea of 'no libertarian free will' leads. Consider: If human beings have no free will of our own, and all of our actions/thoughts/motives are all predetermined, then from whence do sinful desires and motives arise firstly – from the creation or the Creator?<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>Historic precedence is with me...</I><BR/><BR/>Historic precedence? You have the egocentric mentality and mass-temper-tantrum of one set of churches in Europe at a particular time. The church for a much longer time has acknowledged the necessity of grace prior to conversion and libertarian free will simultaneously (as seen in the writings of Tertullian, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tatian, et al). Even the Council of Orange declared at its conclusion,<BR/><BR/><I>We not only do not believe that any are foreordained to evil by the power of God, but even state with utter abhorrence that if there are those who want to believe so evil a thing, they are anathema.</I><BR/><BR/>The church as a whole rejected exhaustive determinism even in Augustine's day.<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>sound exegesis is with me; biblical theology and doctrine is with me...</I><BR/><BR/>Keep talking, you can't even answer the simple difficulty with determinism that I raised from 1 Corinthians 10:13. None of the latter four points of Calvinism find any solid basis in scripture. 'Limited atonement' is the biggest joke, you would think that if universal but provisional atonement were such an 'affront to the gospel' as you ridiculously claim, the writers in scripture would have been a bit more careful before they said things like,<BR/><BR/><I>“I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread that I shall give is My flesh, which I shall give for the life of the world."</I> (John 6:51)<BR/><BR/><I>And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world.</I> (1 John 2:2)<BR/><BR/>Not to mention John 3:16-17.<BR/><BR/>To try and redefine 'world' as 'only the elect' or some such finds no support in Greek. One author underscored the absurdity of such a view when he cited,<BR/><BR/><I>For when we were still without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly.</I> (Romans 5:6)<BR/><BR/>Are we to believe that 'the ungodly' means 'only the elect,' or that only the elect are ungodly? In fact there is no point in scripture that indicates that Christ died for the elect to the exclusion of everyone else. Since your view is not even stated in scripture, then on what basis do you claim that our point of disagreement with you is an 'affront to the gospel?'<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>...and the great confessions of the faith are with me.</I><BR/><BR/>The ones written by Calvinists specifically, which is no more effective than arguing, “the Calvinist confessions are with me, therefore Calvinism is true.”<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>...for a cooperative work of salvation whereby sinful man can find something of his own "decision to follow Christ" to glory in?</I><BR/><BR/>…<BR/><BR/><I>Even if it be ever so small a mention, it elevates sinful man to a place he does not deserve.</I><BR/><BR/>You really need to start relying on the Bible rather than “Owen, Watson, Spurgeon, Edwards, Manton, Calvin, Burroughs, Mead, MacArthur, Sproul and Mohler.”<BR/><BR/>Really, the whole “if God didn't do it all, it's not of God” philosophical canard doesn't really comport with the scriptural record at all. Consider the story of Gideon, even physical salvation of the righteous is 'of the Lord,' and God is certainly more than capable of defeating any threat in a completely monergistic manner if He wishes (e.g. 2 Kings 19:35). But in Gideon's case, as with many others, He chose to do so through human agents. God makes it clear from the outset that it was His power that would deliver them, and He makes sure that the Israelites have no room to boast in their own strength:<BR/><BR/><I>And the Lord said to Gideon, "The people who are with you are too many for Me to give the Midianites into their hands, lest Israel claim glory for itself against Me, saying, 'My own hand has saved me.'”</I> (Judges 7:2)<BR/><BR/>So God whittles Gideon's already comparatively feeble army down to less than 1% of its original combat power, turning already dreadfully terrible odds into astronomically hopeless odds by human reckoning, which very well settled Who the true power behind their victory was. But observe, for their victory, did God stipulate cooperation from Gideon and his men? Indeed He did. Did men obeying His voice, thus achieving victory through the power of God suddenly make their salvation 'not of the Lord?' Of course not! Did the fact that there were still that measly three companies of human participants left somehow rob God of the glory? Think again. The simple fact is that 300 men (given no extraneous factors) simply cannot defeat a comparable or better-trained enemy that large and well-equipped on their own – it had to be God. Gideon and his men had no viable room to boast in such a victory, only the Lord did. Likewise, we of ourselves are nothing. Does the fact that men freely receive the faith of Christ through the grace of God then suddenly make our salvation 'not of the Lord?' Certainly not. The simple fact is that were it not for grace, the human heart would remain forever closed in darkness – it's only by God's grace that we may believe at all. We as Christians thus have no viable room to boast in obtaining salvation, only the Lord does. Or as Jesus explicitly stated,<BR/><BR/><I>”So likewise you, when you have done all those things which you are commanded, say, 'We are unprofitable servants. We have done what was our duty to do.' "</I> (Luke 17:10)<BR/><BR/>So the Synergist view of coming to faith accords with the scriptural examples and the gospel teaching extremely well; it's the Calvinist philosophical presuppositions that are left at odds with the word of God. <BR/><BR/>After your attempt to hound me for supposedly not answering your questions, I find the fact that you refuse to even address a few simple questions of mine as to your beliefs about Arminianism/Synergism as it relates to the gospel to be most disturbing. I sincerely hope in spite of what I read from you that you have not surrendered your thinking to the cultic Neo-Gnostic Calvinism; a common practice of cults is to conceal their true beliefs for the sake of wider acceptance, either feigning ignorance, lying, changing the subject, or simply going silent whenever something that identifies them as cultic is asked.J.C. Thibodauxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12884600822119690931noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14012689.post-35353693703356330812008-12-31T15:58:00.000-05:002008-12-31T15:58:00.000-05:00Dearest Steven,As already stated, I left the Calvi...Dearest Steven,<BR/><BR/>As already stated, I left the Calvinist "camp" back in 2000. I've read those men you suggested (except Burroughs and Mead). <BR/><BR/>And for the record, it was your denial of humanity having any semblance of freedom which libels God as the author of evil ~ I certainly do not believe that.<BR/><BR/>Nonetheless, Steve, I harbor no bitter feelings toward you whatsoever. We simply sorely disagree on these matters. And I truly do want God to bless you and your ministry. I will not comment any further. But for my own peace of mind, I wanted to state these things.<BR/><BR/>God bless,<BR/><BR/>BillyAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14012689.post-41993654616574635692008-12-31T13:55:00.000-05:002008-12-31T13:55:00.000-05:00BillyHow sad my friend. You can say what you will ...<B>Billy</B><BR/>How sad my friend. You can say what you will about me, this blog, or my writings; but when your unbridled tongue tries to smear the God we so dearly love by making false claims against His character and name, attributing them to Calvinism, and stating them as truth is completely unacceptable.<BR/><BR/>This is why Calvinism represents the essential glorious truths of biblical Christianity so powerfully. For chiefly at its core, it maintains a high view of God and His Word. Spurgeon understood this very well and why he clearly stated that when one is preaching the tenants of Calvinism, one is preaching the gospel.<BR/><BR/>Arminianism fails at this juncture and your response is proof of that. Unfortunately, you are prepared to attack the very nature and character of God and misrepresent how the reformed faith understands them from the pages of Scripture.<BR/><BR/>May I encourage you Billy to lift up your gaze to that which is eternal rather than dwell on that which is more human. Put Arminius, Akin, Hunt, and Stanley in the drawer this year and instead, try reading Owen, Watson, Spurgeon, Edwards, Manton, Calvin, Burroughs, Mead, MacArthur, Sproul and Mohler. <BR/><BR/>It just might change your life.<BR/><BR/>Happy New Year.SJ Camphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15844201288864307481noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14012689.post-68651850193400886732008-12-31T10:27:00.000-05:002008-12-31T10:27:00.000-05:00Steve Camp & All,Then I am no longer welcome h...Steve Camp & All,<BR/><BR/>Then I am no longer welcome here.<BR/><BR/>God bless all you do for Him,<BR/><BR/>BillyAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14012689.post-4828671479138430992008-12-31T01:35:00.000-05:002008-12-31T01:35:00.000-05:00BillyWith a God such as the one you promote, who n...<B>Billy</B><BR/><I>With a God such as the one you promote, who needs a devil?</I><BR/><BR/>I spoke too soon. <BR/><BR/>Unless you apologize to myself and the readership of this blog for your blasphemous statement, you are no longer welcome here.<BR/><BR/>Are we clear?<BR/>Mr. Camp<BR/>Ex. 20:1-3SJ Camphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15844201288864307481noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14012689.post-50601578237566193822008-12-31T01:29:00.000-05:002008-12-31T01:29:00.000-05:00BillyI can be wrong on many an occasion; and there...<B>Billy</B><BR/>I can be wrong on many an occasion; and therefore I must remain teachable from anyone who can demonstrate from the Word of God where I have a theological blind spot. I treasure and welcome such exhortation, rebuke, correction and training in righteousness. I thank the Lord for the many faithful Bereans that comment here frequently.<BR/><BR/>But on <I>this</I> issue... I will not yield. Historic precedence is with me; sound exegesis is with me; biblical theology and doctrine is with me; and the great confessions of the faith are with me. <BR/><BR/>What I might inquire though is what led you astray, sir, to leap off the rock of Calvinism to stand so firmly in the quicksand of Arminianism? Why trade the glory of the One Triune God alone and His gospel of sola fide (Titus 3:4-7) for a cooperative work of salvation whereby sinful man can find something of his own "decision to follow Christ" to glory in? Even if it be ever so small a mention, it elevates sinful man to a place he does not deserve. <BR/><BR/><B>The essence of humility IS the gospel.</B> (cp, Phil. 2:5-11) <BR/><BR/>So I come back to my statement earlier: what charmed you to embrace Arminius's unbiblical, man-centered views of the atonement?<BR/><BR/>I see you conveniently avoided Akin's endorsement of Kreeft. If I were you, I would too. I mean... why would Akin embrace with complete support a Romanist like Kreeft who clearly embraces a different gospel of faith + works; grace + merit; and Christ + papal/church authority for salvation? Kreeft even supports The Fifth Marian Dogma; the Treasury of Merit; Purgatory; The Mass being Propitiatory, Penance, etc. and supports Inclusivism whereby even atheists will go to heaven - with Mary as the great divine Savior leading the way. Added to this, what do think of his claim of an OBE experience where he says he witnessed a conversation with Mohammed, Confucius, Moses and Mary in heaven? You have to admit, that is completely nutty even for Arminian! Would you not agree? <BR/><BR/>And this is who brother Akin is recommending to men training for the ministry and yet you think I am the one who is arrogant and have gone down a path of error? <BR/><BR/>I will gladly stand with my dear friends Sproul and MacArthur any day. Thank you for the honor of being included with them. <BR/><BR/>You are welcome here anytime to comment. <BR/><BR/>Grace and peace,<BR/>Steve<BR/>Titus 3:4-7SJ Camphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15844201288864307481noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14012689.post-90799012135339356172008-12-31T01:25:00.000-05:002008-12-31T01:25:00.000-05:00Billy, Billy, BillyIt's good to see Calvinists suc...<B>Billy, Billy, Billy</B><BR/><I>It's good to see Calvinists such as yourself at least be consistent and call God the author of sin and evil.</I><BR/><BR/>You either need some Starbucks or a great night sleep :-).SJ Camphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15844201288864307481noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14012689.post-24041881230450724882008-12-31T00:39:00.000-05:002008-12-31T00:39:00.000-05:00Libertarian Free Will: An unbiblical notion? I did...Libertarian Free Will: An unbiblical notion? I didn't "tackle" it because I thought you were joking.<BR/><BR/>It's good to see Calvinists such as yourself at least be consistent and call God the author of sin and evil. I just knew that one did not have to be named a hyper-Calvinist in order to accomplish this feat. I just knew that a Calvinist did not have to be "hyper" in order to defy Scripture and deny that man has any freedom whatsoever. With a God such as the one you promote, who needs a devil?<BR/><BR/>Thank you for exposing Calvinism in this manner. It's settled then. God determines what we say, act, feel, do, choose, eat, wear, sin, etc. And when Jesus claimed that Israel was "unwilling" to be gathered unto her Messiah, what He REALLY meant was that God had predetermined her to reject her Messiah. Perhaps Jesus, the Son of God, did not understand this facet of determinism. Or perhaps Calvinism misrepresents and misinterprets the character, plan, and motives of God. I'll freely choose to believe the latter (pun intended).<BR/><BR/>May the Lord continually bless you as you study His word,<BR/><BR/>BillyAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14012689.post-82494832131912883122008-12-31T00:24:00.000-05:002008-12-31T00:24:00.000-05:00Steve,Of all that could be said in response to wha...Steve,<BR/><BR/>Of all that could be said in response to what you have stated here, what I find most troubling about you (and SO many other Calvinists) is your utter lack of humility where theology is concerned. You have not one iota of a thought left in you that you COULD be wrong, leaving all others, those who disagree with you, puzzled as to what or whom led you down such a path. I used to get angry at comments such as those you have made here, but now I simply pity you and those whom you lead astray. Truly, may God's grace rest upon you. <BR/><BR/>"Before venturing into projects that could unwittingly lead many away from the truth of the gospel . . ." <BR/><BR/>You mean like the MacArthur Study Bible, The Reformation Study Bible (Sproul), the Spirit of the Reformation Study Bible (Zondervan),and the ESV Study Bible? Yeah . . . I know what you mean. <BR/><BR/>" . . . may I encourage you brother to give yourself some time coupled with humility [will YOU be my example?] to study, serve in ministry, and to let your life marinate in the great truths of Scripture."<BR/><BR/>That is excellent advice. And I, at 40 years of age, an ex-Calvinist, am aiming at that very thing. But if I'm to "marinate in the great truths of Scripture," I must avoid the arrogance and errors of Calvinism at all costs.<BR/><BR/>May God be with you, as always,<BR/><BR/>Billy BirchAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14012689.post-88808042370239404312008-12-30T20:53:00.001-05:002008-12-30T20:53:00.001-05:00Billy BLibertarian Free Will is an affront to the ...<B>Billy B</B><BR/>Libertarian Free Will is an affront to the gospel. I am encouraged that you did not try and make a viable defense of its unbiblical moorings.<BR/><BR/>As to an Amyraldian view of the atonement and some of the good professors at SE including Danny Akin; he has a greater issue even than that before him (though that in itself is troubling). Last year when SE and Akin were hosting Seattle Shock the Flock emerging bad boy Mark Driscoll, Akin came out in full support of Romanist Peter Kreeft's writings which included his monumental heretical tome, <I>"The Ecumenical Jihad."</I> This was most surprising and shocking that a fine man like Akin would lack this kind of doctrinal and theological discernment regarding Kreeft pertaining to such key issues as Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide, and Sola Gratia - all of which Kreeft denies.<BR/><BR/>Unfortunately, it is an Arminian worldview that widens the narrow road to unbiblical proportions.<BR/><BR/>This is far from being comical Billy. This is very serious and shouldn't be trifled with by sem students whose goals include putting <I>"the Works of Arminius into a wide margin Bible in the hopes of one day seeing an Arminian Annotated Study Bible."</I> Before venturing into projects that could unwittingly lead many away from the truth of the gospel, may I encourage you brother to give yourself some time coupled with humility to study, serve in ministry, and to let your life marinate in the great truths of Scripture.<BR/><BR/>Grace and peace,<BR/>Steve<BR/>2 Cor. 4:5-7SJ Camphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15844201288864307481noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14012689.post-51919569218851624112008-12-30T16:30:00.000-05:002008-12-30T16:30:00.000-05:00"Libertarian free will is an affront to the gospel..."Libertarian free will is an affront to the gospel at this point as well as an Amyraldian view of the atonement."<BR/><BR/>This is comical. I will let my Amyraldian professors at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary (including its president Dr. Danny Akin) know that Steve Camp thinks that what they believe concerning the atonement is an "affront to the gospel." I'm sure they'll get a kick out of that.<BR/><BR/>God's blessings upon you,<BR/><BR/>BillyAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14012689.post-27258548468553374092008-12-30T16:12:00.000-05:002008-12-30T16:12:00.000-05:00You raise a very good point Billy. As far as the o...You raise a very good point Billy. As far as the of the <I>Council of Constance</I> -er, I mean the <I>Synod of Dordt</I>, I hold to a little belief called 'Sola Scriptura' where my beliefs are concerned, meaning that with regards to the foregone and scripturally untenable condemnations of a hyper-dogmatic group of self-appointed totalitarian judges, I couldn't care less.<BR/><BR/>So Camp, you do hold that Arminianism is 'heresy;' is that a 'yes' to question a?J.C. Thibodauxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12884600822119690931noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14012689.post-5946889652219752892008-12-30T00:09:00.000-05:002008-12-30T00:09:00.000-05:00S. Camp,"Partial depravity"? This strikes me as od...S. Camp,<BR/><BR/>"Partial depravity"? This strikes me as odd. <BR/><BR/>Though I agree wholeheartedly with what the Remonstrants have stated (from which you have quoted here), and agree with your proof-texts concerning man's depravity (though we'll part ways in the solution to man's problem ~ regeneration vs. prevenient grace), I am much more concerned about Arminius's reputation, which you are maligning: you are not accurately and fairly representing him (which leads me to believe that you have not read him). <BR/><BR/>(And BTW, it is no more fair to throw Charles Finney in our face than it is for us to throw Fred Phelps in yours. So, let's be a little more considerate.)<BR/><BR/>Arminius wrote, "In this state, the Free Will of man towards the True Good is not only wounded, maimed, infirm, bent, and weakened; but it is also imprisoned, destroyed, and lost: And its powers are not only debilitated and useless unless they be assisted by grace, but it has no powers whatever except such as are excited by Divine grace. . . .<BR/><BR/>"The Mind of man, in this state, is dark, destitute of the saving knowledge of God, and, according to the Apostle, incapable of those things which belong to the Spirit of God . . . <BR/><BR/>"To this Darkness of the Mind succeeds the Perverseness of the Affections and of the Heart, according to which it hates and has an aversion to that which is truly good and pleasing to God; but it loves and pursues what is evil . . .<BR/><BR/>"Exactly correspondent to this Darkness of the Mind, and Perverseness of the Heart, is the utter Weakness of all the Powers to perform that which is truly good . . ." (Arminius, II:192-193). <BR/><BR/>If this description of the wicked depravity of man is "partial," then I suppose that Calvinists also believe in a "Partial Depravity." <BR/><BR/>I think what you, MacArthur, White, Piper, Spurgeon, and most Calvinists ad nauseum, have a problem with is not the Reformed Arminian definition of Total Depravity/Inability (for we agree with you entirely), but rather what it takes to convert a person to Christ Jesus; for you have to admit, Steve, that what you have just read of Arminius is, as R. C. Sproul Sr. wrote in his "Willing to Believe," just as strong a description of man's depravity as that of Luther and Calvin.<BR/><BR/>Though I believe Spurgeon's problem with "Arminianism" in his day was an aberration of it (and that always needs to be taken into account), it should not be applied to Classical Reformational Arminian theology today. If you and other Calvinists care not to make appropriate distinctions, then I suppose we Arminians do not need to distinguish between Classical Calvinists and hyper-Calvinists, supralapsarians, Fred Phelps-types, and heretics such as Marc Carpenter (Outside the Camp Ministries). <BR/><BR/>And as far as Dort is concerned: what bearing does that Synod truly have on us? I love it when Calvininsts remind us that "Arminianiam was condemned at the Synod of Dort." Ooooh, really? Well then, that settles it! (As if Dort really has any bearing whatsoever.) If a group of Arminians had had the political sway in Holland during that time, and had condemned Calvinism, would that have had any bearing on you today? (I should hope not, considering that you believe the Bible teaches Calvinism.) Unless, of course, you take all Church synods and councils to be infallible (and I doubt very seriously that you do ~ at least I should hope not, for that would link you more to Rome than to Protestantism). <BR/><BR/>As always, God bless,<BR/><BR/>BillyAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14012689.post-26031013761655750502008-12-29T23:24:00.000-05:002008-12-29T23:24:00.000-05:00Billy BurchThank you for your thoughts you express...<B>Billy Burch</B><BR/>Thank you for your thoughts you expressed here and for entering into this discussion. As you know the content of primary post here about Spurgeon is from Spurgeon's own hand. Therefore, as one who believes as Spurgeon did in Calvinism being the gospel and containing the gospel and rejecting Arminius's teaching - I stand in that tradition.<BR/><BR/>Secondly, being of reformed convictions biblically as to soteriology - historically, The Synod of Dort condemned the teachings of Arminius as heresy - and rightly so. In The Cannons of Dort they give a full, weighty and biblical foundation for their pronouncements over and against the Remonstrants. I would adjure you to their collective wisdom which springs from the well of God's eternal Word.<BR/><BR/>Thirdly, as to depravity, Arminius believed in a partial depravity (while affirming the need of a prevenient resistible grace given to all men equally and without distinction) which I would reject.<BR/><BR/>In the language of the opinions of the Remonstrants, here is one brief snippet: <BR/><BR/><I>Therefore God has not with this plan created in the one Adam all men in a state of rectitude, has not ordained the fall and the permission of it, has not withdrawn from Adam the grace which was necessary and sufficient, has not brought it about that the Gospel is preached and that men are externally called, does not confer on them any gifts of the Holy Spirit by means of which he leads some of them to life, but deprives others of the benefit of life, Christ, the Mediator, I not solely the executor of election, but also the foundation of that same decree of election: the reason why some are efficaciously called, justified, persevere in faith, and are glorified is not that they have been absolutely elected to eternal life. That others are left in the fall, that Christ is not given to them, that they are either not called at all or not efficaciously called – these are not the reasons why they are absolutely rejected from eternal salvation.</I> <BR/><BR/>This flies in the face of passages such as Roms. 3:10-18; Eph. 2:1-3; Roms. 5:12-17; Roms. 1:18-Roms. 3:19, etc. and was understandably rejected at Dort. It is most unfortunate that Arminius's convictions can be seen in the face of modern evangelicalism by what is commonly known as easy believism and evident in the sandy teachings of men like Finney himself. Producing temporary converts is the fruit of Arminianism - which biblical Christianity knows nothing of...<BR/><BR/>It is impossible to justify Arminius's partial depravity of man in the context of ones soteriology especially in regards to Roms. 9:11-25.<BR/><BR/>It then follows that the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints can only be thoroughly understood in light of the nature of the atonement by vicarious penal substitution; by the imputation of the perfect righteousness of Jesus Christ by faith consisting of His passive and active obedience; and that those that persevere in Christ are the ones who are eternally preserved in Christ (John 10; 6:35-44; Roms. 8, etc. <BR/><BR/>Ergo, propitiation can only pertain to the elect only. Libertarian free will is an affront to the gospel at this point as well as an Amyraldian view of the atonement.<BR/><BR/>I am very tired so I apologize I cannot be more precise at this junction. Thank you for your graciousness in putting up with my weary mind this evening.SJ Camphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15844201288864307481noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14012689.post-59208369338453932142008-12-29T21:17:00.000-05:002008-12-29T21:17:00.000-05:00Steve Camp,"And have you ever read Arminius's own ...Steve Camp,<BR/><BR/>"And have you ever read Arminius's own words on salvation?"<BR/><BR/>Please inform us as to what you have read from Arminius's three-volume Works on salvation that is so troubling to you. <BR/><BR/>You will certainly not find the philosophical notion of regeneration preceding faith, but then again, the Bible doesn't teach it either (e.g. Col. 2:13). But as far as "free will" is concerned, I'd very much like to know how Arminius's view of total depravity differs from yours (or any Calvinist's for that matter).<BR/><BR/>And further, have you read Richard A. Muller's account of Arminius in his "God, Creation, and Providence in the Thought of Jacob Arminius"? His account of and study in the Works of Arminius didn't seem so "troubling" to him ~ and I believe Muller is quite a Calvinist, eh? <BR/><BR/>I will check back soon to learn all that you have read of Arminius.<BR/><BR/>God bless,<BR/><BR/>BillyAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14012689.post-74839688011870666672008-12-28T15:03:00.000-05:002008-12-28T15:03:00.000-05:00Camp,I stated,So God's grace is what draws a man t...Camp,<BR/><BR/>I stated,<BR/><BR/><I>So God's grace is what draws a man to Him, but man may resist His grace.</I><BR/><BR/>You said,<BR/><I>Actually it is God the Father Himself who draws a man to Jesus (John 8:44).</I><BR/><BR/>Pardon, but did you read, 'Son,' or 'Holy Spirit' anywhere in that sentence?<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>John 6:37 further addresses this truth: All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out. Anyone that comes to Jesus for salvation has been chosen and regenerated apart from anything they might do or believe.</I><BR/><BR/>and,<BR/><BR/><I>Faith does not produce regeneration; but regeneration produces faith...</I><BR/><BR/>John 6:37 states nothing about men being regenerated prior to faith. Rather, Christ says,<BR/><BR/><I>Most assuredly, I say to you, the hour is coming, and now is, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God; and those who hear will live.</I> (John 5:25)<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>Saving faith is a gift from God and the result of the Holy Spirit already at work in the life.</I><BR/><BR/>Which does not imply regeneration prior to faith, nor the idea that being brought to faith is irresistible.<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>Grace is irresistible...</I><BR/><BR/>Scripture supports no such concept.<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>Before anything that was made was made, we were chosen in Him - marked out as a people for His glory...</I><BR/><BR/>According to the foreknowledge of God the Father (1 Peter 1:2, already cited), which produces no real difficulties for the concept of free agency or the resistibility of grace. <BR/><BR/><BR/><I>Therefore, the one who is saved glories that God would from all eternity mark him out for His own and extend mercy to one deserving only of His justice, wrath and enmity.</I><BR/><BR/>That point I would agree with you on, nothing we can do can merit salvation.<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>You have no part to play in it.</I><BR/><BR/><I>...if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.</I> (Romans 10:9)<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>You have no cooperation in it.</I><BR/><BR/><I>Beware, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief in departing from the living God ....</I> (Hebrews 3:12) <BR/><BR/><BR/><I>It is all of grace, all of God and all of the gospel.</I><BR/><BR/>I already clarified my position concerning <I>Grace Alone</I>.<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>You will discover not one use of sozo or soterios is in the active voice when referring to the lost; they are all in the passive voice. Why? Because salvation is not something we are actively engaged in or take an active role in; it is something done to us.</I><BR/><BR/>and,<BR/><BR/><I>You have no say in your salvation.</I><BR/><BR/><I>Take heed to yourself and to the doctrine. Continue in them, for in doing this you will save both yourself and those who hear you.</I> (1 Timothy 4:16)<BR/><BR/><I>So they said, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household."</I> (Acts 16:31)<BR/><BR/>Of course the redemptive work itself is passive as far as we're concerned, we don't save ourselves; we believe and receive ourselves through grace (and yes, 'believe' is active here), but it's God who forgives, regenerates and justifies us, making God our Savior. <BR/><BR/><BR/><I>Even the godly sorrow to repent and believe is God's gift to us.</I><BR/><BR/>Yes, I agree.<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>Glory in His grace and not in your free will my brother!</I><BR/><BR/>'Glory' in my free will? Where did you dig up that nonsense?<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>There is ONE who does have free will though - and that is God Himself. He is the only ONE.</I><BR/><BR/>Not sure what you base that on, as has already been shown, 1 Corinthians 10:13 plainly supports the idea that God makes a way for believers to endure temptation, yet Christians often demonstrate that they have the capability to yield to it, which you thus far appear unable to address. Care to explain?<BR/><BR/>Additionally, I want to make sure that I understand your position correctly:<BR/><BR/>a.) Do you believe that Arminians and those of similar belief actually believe another gospel?<BR/><BR/>b.) Do you believe that someone can be saved by believing a false gospel?J.C. Thibodauxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12884600822119690931noreply@blogger.com