Resequitur
Javier
clboltFiled under: Uncategorized
Arminians like to argue that ‘all’ means ‘all’ in the ‘all’ texts about Jesus dying for ‘all’ …so, lets apply all to other verses:
All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23)
All means All
Therefore Jesus sinned.
Filed under: The Issues
So I just very recently tried to apologize to an enemy of mine, who apparently does not know Christ. We have had some strong issues in the past, which both of us are in the wrong. I have repented of doing the things that I have done, but he does not know Christ and therefore the burden is not on him to do the same.
I am writing this in annoyance because he will not hear my apology. With God as my witness I have tried to apologize and he will not have it, yet friends of mine say “I should know better”. There is only so much that I can do. The strength to have mercy is not from me. It is from The Lord. If it were from me I would have never apologized in the first place. There is only so much a man can do with unregenerate men.
1. Pray that God will have Grace on them as He has had for you
2. Preach the Gospel to them.
3. Develop relationship, and if not possible continue praying.
Children of wrath do not follow God’s perscriptive will, and in their rebellion, it is possible that they will prefer to keep you an enemy on their “list”. I will not have any more interactions with this person because he wants to remain my enemy. It is my hope and prayer that God will crush this person in their rebellion and give him the desire to follow Him. It is not our job to “make converts”. It will be the Holy Spirit’s job to regenerate this person and make them aware of their sins to repent of them.
But as for me, to follow God’s perscriptive will, I must continue to repent of my sins, humble myself, and pray for him, even though he is my enemy. Tough love is the route I must take here, because loving him as I would a brother is not an option at this point. Join me as I pray for this person and myself.
God will be glorified whether he repents or not.
Filed under: "In House" Apologetics
The Evangelical community is going crazy over it and I, myself, cannot see why. It seems as though the evangelicals go crazy over anything pronounced as a Christian fiction and therefore force it on Christian bookshelves. In the research I have done I want to push forward the many problems I have with the book and and stress how important Good Theology is.
According to Mack’s account, God summoned him, through a note, to a shack, the very one where, apparently, his daughter was killed. In this shack, God the Father appeared to him as an African American woman (p. 82) named Papa (p. 86). Jesus is a Middle Easterner who “was dressed like a laborer, complete with tool belt… and a plaid shirt with sleeves rolled just above the elbows,” (p. 84). The Holy Spirit was an Asian woman (p. 85) who was named Sarayu (p. 87, 110).
Problems already occur. According to John 6:46 and 1 Tim. 6:16, No one has seen the Father except for The Son. This is a big problem, It is bring God the Father down to a graven image. Lets move on to the next problem.
The Father had scars on his wrists – like the crucifixion wounds of Christ (p. 95).
Nope, Sorry . The Father DID NOT die on the cross. It was the Son who suffered on the Cross. To push forward the idea that the Father suffered on the cross is modalism, which was condemned as heresy. The Father is Spirit (John 4:24) and cannot have scars. The Son is The One who suffered the death on the cross while the Father sat in heaven.
Before moving on, There is some explaining that needs to be done on the Biblical Doctrine of “The Economic Trinity” . It describes the relationship of the members of the Godhead with each other as well as with us. For example, the Father sent the Son. The Son did not send the Father, (John 6:44; 8:18; 10:36; 1 John 4:14). Jesus came down from heaven, not to do His own will, but the will of the Father (John 6:38). The Father is the head of Christ (1 Cor. 11:3). And, 1 Cor. 15:27-28 speaks of creation being in subjection to Jesus and then in verse 28, Jesus will be subjected to the Father. All this means is that there is a hierarchy within the Trinity. But in looking at this quote on page 124
“So you think that God must relate inside a hierarchy like you do. But we do not.”
This is an obvious contradiction of the Scriptures. This book, even though declaring itself to be within the Christian worldview, is not written out of Biblical Christianity. Many come out of reading this book saying “I Understand the Trinity now”. Nope, Sorry, you do not if your idea of the Trinity is drawn from this awful Theology. You want to understand the Trinity? Read the Bible.
Truth in this generation is being watered down, especially in the evangelical community. This book is a great example of it. Lets move on.
On page 136 it says, “Mackenzie, evil is a word we use to describe the absence of Good, just as we use the word darkness to describe the absence of Light or death to describe the absence of Life. Both evil and darkness can only be understood in relation to Light and Good; they do not have any actual existence.”
Wow. Now we are just getting way out of hand. Evil is a reality, and here it is being rationalized to “the absence of God”. I think the author needs to take a look at Romans Chapter 1 here. I’m sure the author is well aware that child sacrifice to pagan gods actually exist very much so.
On page 145-146 we find, “Mack was surprised. ‘How could that be? Why would the God of the universe want to be submitted to me?’ ‘Because we want you to join us in our circle of relationship. I don’t want slaves to my will; I want brothers and sisters who will share life with me.’”
And here we have it. The Evangelical community belief that God is supposed to be submitted to all mighty man. This is a perfect example of Christian humanism. The idea that God is this huge cosmic butler, or an ASK! internet search engine. There is nowhere in scripture that expresses God being submitted to human beings. God is a Sovereign and Holy God, that casts down nations to lift others up. He is a free being and is not subject to “the almighty will of man”. Therefore He is free to have mercy on whom He has mercy, and have compassion on whom He has compassion (His Sheep or His Elect). (Exodus 33:19; John 10:14-18)
There are many more errors this book’s theology points to, so many that I could probably write a book about them all. The thing I want to point out is that Biblical Theology matters. The evangelical community needs to realize this before it endorses books like this. This book is very closely related to the book of Mormon in its Theology. Theology (knowledge of God) really impacts the way we worship Him. In John 4:24, Jesus states that we are to worship God in Spirit and In Truth. This book is very left field as far as biblical truth is concerned. Especially when one comes out of it thinking they know God better after reading the book. Sorry, but you don’t! In fact, you probably know Him a lot less. This book is a perfect example of why Theology matters.
Filed under: Uncategorized
http://www.nhclc.org/about/news/july2009_4.html
An article about the changing face of Latino religion. Its not good that Pentecostals convert from Rome, because Pentecostals can still be Romeish. Consider the sacrifice of the Mass, the climax of the Roman liturgy with the Pentecostal ‘altar call’ the climax of the Pentecostal service. Both are experientially minded, the only difference is that Pentecostals have no rich history, or councils to keep them doctrinal.
Furthermore, this also increases ecumenism with Rome. Since Roman Catholics have noticed the growing stream of Hispanic Catholics to Pentecostalism – Roman Catholics have adopted a ‘charismatic’ service, this makes it easier for former Catholics to identify with Catholicism and be more welcoming of the blasphemous doctrines of Rome. What unifies the pentecostal movment and Rome? The doctrine of the baptism in the Holy Spirit. This isn’t something to be celebrating, its just cause for more concern.
Filed under: Soteriology
The below is part of an article that Justins friend wrote against Calvinism, particularly the Doctrines of Grace…at least so she thought she was arguing against the Doctrine of Grace.
What about the verse, “WHOEVER believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.” Jesus died for everyone, not just the elect.
I don’t see how this is relevant, ‘whosoever’ doesn’t mean all can come but rather those who come will have ternal life. I don’t see how citing a small portion of a passage in John 3:16 helps her attempt at arguing against the doctrines of grace.
Verses like John 15:13-14 states that Jesus died for his friends.
I find this one interesting, afterall, doesn’t an Arminian believe teachings on how we were enemies of God? Children of wrath? or God haters, Like Paul teaches in Romans? This isn’t an argument against Calvinism, its an argument for. Afterall only those who believe are friends of God, and Jesus died for his friends therefore Jesus died for those who believe – not all.
He also tells us that we are his friends if we obey his commands.
Obedience assumes salvatioin, since obedience cannot be done before salvation.
Various verses describe Jesus as the Savior of the WORLD, and the savior of ALL MEN. In 1 John 2:2, it says “He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but for those of the WHOLE WORLD.”
Yup. She’s right. Lets take her wooden interpretation of world and apply it to all other verses, by world we mean every single person that has lived past present and future. So lets read world into all of these passages.
John 12:19
So the Pharisees said to one another, “See, this is getting us nowhere. Look how the whole world has gone after him!”
Wow!? The whole world, all humans living past present and future have gone after Jesus. Of course this is impossible but we cannot interpret world to mean anything less than everyone at all times, in all places.
Of course, the fact is that an Arminian will allow one to interpret world in other senses, in other times but when it comes to passages that say ‘world’ for the death of Christ, somehow it means all people at all times. For some reason, they don’t allow Calvinists to interpret the word with similar qualifications they use in interpreting the word ‘world’ in other places.
God does NOT predestine people to go to Heaven or go to Hell. It is man’s choice to either accept God’s path or reject it.
4For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love 5he[a] predestined us to be adopted as his sons through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will— 6to the praise of his glorious grace, which he has freely given us in the One he loves. Ephesians 1:4-6 (And thats the NIV 
)
Filed under: Uncategorized
So Calvinists believe that God dictated who would be saved before that person was even born.
i) No. Its not only Calvinists who believe in election or that God ‘dictated’ we would be saved before we were born. Arminians teach the same thing, but the basis of election was completely different. Calvinists believe that election is on a basis known to God alone, Arminians believe God elects based on foreseen faith. Election is not exclusive to the Calvinist position, its exists on both sides.
ii) Unless this person is an open theist, they cannot simply say that God allows us to choose to be saved without assaulting the doctrine of God’s omniscience.
Therefore we have no free spiritual will….
Do we have two wills? A free will, and a free physical will?
meaning we do not choose to follow God, rather God predestines us to follow God and be saved. So your saying that it’s not because you have faith in God and follow His ways, God will be merciful on you and save you.
Perhaps you should be more clear, this statement seems to be teaching that we are saved by works? Do you believe in a doctrine of justification by works? If thats the case you have more problems than just your dogmatic Arminianism.
But rather you are saying that it is because God chose you, you will serve God and be saved.
Yup. This is correct and Biblical.
I studied up on the 5 points to Calvinism.
Keep studying.
The first point, total depravity/inability, says that man is totally sinful and is not capable of being “good.” Therefore any “good” act is motivated by something evil. If we are purely evil, then man cannot obey God’s command to repent. God says he will eternally punish those who do not repent.
Total depravity teaches that sin has affected all parts of man. This is consistent with the teaching that we are ‘dead in trespasses and sins’ and that ‘the natural man cannot please God’ that ‘none seek God’ ‘all have turned away’, and that ‘the heart of men is wicked above all things’. Thus, total depravity teaches that we are sinful in all things which includes the will to obey God.
But if man is evil and therefore cannot repent, then God is not just.
i) Justice is not established by a general consensus of theologians in some Arminian ivory tower.
ii) God alone determines what is right, therefore God can determine what is just since justice is right.
iii) Its unjust to justify the wicked, so we should never cease to marvel at God’s acts in justifying sinners.
iv) Evil is punishable by death, therefore its just for God to damn all. None deserve a chance. This is why Calvinists teach a doctrine of election.
Moses even said that what he is commanding them to do is not too difficult or beyond their reach…he just commanded them to love God, to walk in his ways and his commands, decrees, and laws. But, if we are totally incapable of non-evil-motivated action, then there is a problem.
The problem is with your interpretation. You have even more problems than this. You’re teaching is not historical Protestantism (or Baptist doctrine) in any sense. In fact early Baptists were Calvinists. Secondly, you are also teaching an inspient pelagianism which the early chuch battled and anathemated (eternally damned). So what you’re trying to push, like a crack head pushes his drug, is in line with ancient heretics and not historical orthodoxy.
Limited Atonement is saying that God predestined the elect, therefore meaning that Jesus only paid for those few elect. I believe that the Calvinistic interpretation of Romans 9:15-18 is incorrect. They believe this is the proof of predestination. I believe these verses are saying that man cannot do anything by himself in order to get into Heaven.We need God’s grace and mercy, which only God can grant.
This contradicts what you said above, afterall do we not have the ‘ability’ to choose God? If we can choose, then we need no grace or mercy. We have the almighty, infallible will of man.
God gives mercy to those he gives mercy to, and according to Jesus’ teachings, God will grant mercy to those whose hearts are truly seeking God and who follow Jesus’ path in heart, mind, and action. And if man is totally incapable of doing good, then we cannot truly be remorseful or repentant. Also if man is totally incapable of doing good, then we cannot be faulted for our sins.
Wrong. Total depravity is not utter depravity. This is a perpetual misunderstanding by Arminians. Also, repentance comes by grace. We don’t repent of our will, but of regeneration. Although, in your pelagian, works righteous system I’m sure you can regenerate yourself, right?
So if God has already elected those who are going to heaven, then why should we evangelize, seek to be saved or follow God’s path? You would probably say, “Because God told us to.” But if God has already elected those who will be going to Heaven, then it doesn’t matter how much Christians witness or influence the world nothing will change who is elected or not.
The means by which God saves the elect is the proclamation of the Gospel, and the church. Thus God will save his people, through his Gospel in His Church. Thats why. Do I have to remind you that the earliest evangelical missionaries were ALL Calvinists?
God may use evangelism to save the elect, but our conscience decision not to evangelize will not affect the elect.
If God’s means of saving the elect is the proclamation of the Gospel, then the elect will be saved by hearing the Gospel proclaimed. You’re drawing conclusions that do not follow.
Also, if God predestined everything, then there is no use in praying for friends or family. God has already predestined the events and no pleading to God will change his mind…it has already been predestined and cannot be changed.
If God predestined everything, then God predestined our prayers and his response. Furthermore, I didnt know God was a cosmic Ask! search engine. Prayer is primarily a form of worship, not a pizza delivery place.
So if God predestined everything, then God did create sin. He made man act a certain way knowing in advance what it would lead to.
If God didn’t predestine everything, he still created sin, he made man act in a way knowing in advance what that actions would do. Eitherway, God knew sin would exist.
If God predestined everything, then why eternally punish the non-elect… I mean it is not their fault they were predestined to be damned.
i) The non elect are not punished because God predestined them to damnation, but rather they are punished for sin. They are ordained to be damned, but punishment doesn’t exist simply because God ordained it.
Your saying God only allows the elect to be saved and therefore predestines everyone else to burn alive in Hell for eternity all because he wants them to….sounds like a loving God to me.
No. This sounds more like a just God. A loving God sounds like the one who saves his elect from himself.
Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: Misconceptions Explained, Reformed Apologetics
I remember a few years back when I started looking deeper into what is known as “Calvinism” it never struck me as offensive. I would hear of many arguments that took place having to do with the word predestination, and what the word entails. I began asking a close mentor of mine what predestination was and does it compromise our “free will”. I remember the first thing he told me was ” The Bible never mentioned anything about free will”.
From then on I started better understanding the Calvinist’s point of view and I began hearing the beautiful Doctrines of Grace being sang out in Scripture. Many will disagree, but this note is really to clear up the misconceptions and misunderstandings of what is known as Calvinism to give the reader a better idea of where the Calvinist is coming from.
1. The biggest misconception is in saying that Calvinists teach that scripture says “we do not have a choice.” This is False. We do not endorse the idea of being robots. We agree that we do have a choice. So now that is cleared up, It is only logical to ask what our will actually consists of. What drives us to make the decisions we do? Why do we choose?
We of course want to retreat to Scripture dealing with man’s “choice”. In Romans 1:18-32, Paul hits the nail on the head of humanity. Paul is explaining the depth of the natural man, that is, the state in which Christ found us in. So in this circle of our nature, we make our choices. Free will – freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior causes or by divine intervention. So in light of this scripture and definition, we understand that our will is based upon our choices to act upon our natural desires (That is to sin) that are not determined by prior causes or by divine intervention (God). So if God did not interact, our choice is only based upon what we want and not God’s will. So we can make choices, but our slavery to sin limits us to make choices only to sin (Romans 6:19) So there must be regeneration before we could ever choose to do God’s will.
So where do we get this desire to do God’s will? Well, Paul tells us this in 1 Corinthians 2:6-16. We get this from the Spirit of God. Jesus talks about the means in which we are saved in John 6 starting at verse 35. Jesus said to them, I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst.
36 But I said to you that you have seen me and yet do not believe.
37 All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out.
38 For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me.
39 And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nYeahothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day.
40 For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.
So here we are seeing what Christ came to do, The will of His Father. He states the Father’s will in verse 39 and 40. “For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of Him who sent me. And This is the will of Him who sent me, that I should lose NOTHING of all that He has given me, but raise it up on the last day”. So it is right here that we see that Jesus is talking about His mission, to lose none of which the Father has given. In verse 36 and 37 we see Jesus talking to the specifically to the ones who did not believe. Moving down to 41 we see that the Jews began grumbling about Jesus because of His statement in being “The bread that came down from heaven” ( Let me note here that Jesus was comparing Himself to the manna that came down from heaven in Exodus, except He would never perish and the ones that came to Him would not perish either. The manna from heaven was a shadow or prototype in which God revealed to Moses and the Israelites about the coming Christ). 42 They said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How does he now say, I have come down from heaven?
43 Jesus answered them, Do not grumble among yourselves. So it is at 44 Jesus makes his message clear : ” No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day.” So right here, we see election coming more clear, The Father gives the elect (The people who believe ) to Christ to Purchase, Christ dies for those the Father gives to purchase them, and Then The Father draws them to fulfill raising them on up on the last day.
What we need to understand is that when Christ died, He did not die to make men ‘savable’ He did with the intention to save those the Father had given Him. Christ perfectly saves those who believe (note that belief means repenting of your sins, relying on Christ as means of 1. Justification 2. Sanctification and 3. Glorification, and following Him). He did not meet us halfway here, He did not say “Justin, I’m going to die for you, now all you have to do is believe and you are fine” No. He Chose me at the very beginning (including all those who believe) and Christ came to purchase the believers and sent us the Holy Spirit to regenerate so that it would be possible for us to have the faith that we have. Man cannot give himself the justifying faith. Salvation is from God, and He purchased it by coming down to earth and following all of the Jewish laws, being tempted as we are, and dying a gruesome R rated death on our behalf to be the propitiation for the sinners whom He chose before the foundation of the world.
Many would say to this “Well this limits the Salvation, and this shouldn’t be the way we put it across”. I would tell them that this is the way that Jesus put it across, This is the way that Paul and Peter put it across, why are we ashamed to proclaim the truth of God? The Truth is ours to proclaim and not to edit! Don’t water down the truth of the Gospel. Instead of saying “Christ died for your sins” say “Christ died for Sinners” this does not hold back from evangelism. You may say you don’t like it, well we don’t have to like the truth. Christ did not die for the atheist who lives continually suppressing the truth of God without repenting, and eventually dies without ever repenting and goes to Hell. Intentional Atonement may limit the quantity (which we know Not everybody goes to heaven) but unlimited atonement is limiting by quality. Unlimited atonement says “ There had to have been something in the person who went to heaven that the person who went to hell doesn’t have, because the person in heaven chose to accept Christ while the person in hell didn’t”. Limited (Intentional) Atonement says “ The Sheppard knows all of His sheep by name (John 10:26,27) and He guides them, and they listen to His voice. He lays down His life for His sheep (John 10:15). Which is seems to be the most biblical. Test the spirits for each to see if this teaching is from God ( 1 John 4: 1- 6) If it is not, show me why you think it as a false teaching.
I leave this for you to read,
God Bless,
Justin Mccurry
Filed under: The Issues
Shiachat crybabies. I was banned today, probably for saying Imam Mehdi is in hell. I’m sorry, I’m a Christian, what else would they expect? That he’s sippin a margarita with Muhammad on a fluffy cloud while women dressed in full garb (hijab and all) are fanning them until his ‘return’ ? Muslims are the religious drama queens. (I hope this doesn’t cause an embassy to burn).
Filed under: Free!
Download Free here!
I’m a Calvinist, and by Calvinist I mean one who affirms the soteriological position of one John Calvin. Historically speaking this position was affirmed by the Synod of Dordt in response to the Remonstrants who sought to ratify the soteriological position of the Reformed Church at the time. I’m a ‘new Calvinist’ apparently, I’m a ‘new Calvinist’ because I’ve been branded by the ‘Old Calvinists’ as a ‘new Calvinist’ I don’t know exactly what it means, indeed the definition remains aloof.
The definition seems to be pitted against another, after all, Baptist, and Reformed (another example) have argued that ‘new Calvinism’ is a departure from historical confessional Calvinism or blended with ‘worldliness’. So, us ‘new calvinists’ have to be branded either as a conglamoration of paganism with Christian truth, or non-Reformed ecclesial bodies with Reformed soteriology.
One, R. Scott Clark has fought for the definition of Calvinism so much that the amount of posts about how ‘new Calvinists’ are not real Calvinists has already created a bitter taste it my mouth so much that he can take the name back. I don’t want it, you can have it. Another, Baptist minister Peter Masters of Spurgeons old church has called the new Calvinists syncretists because of Christian Hip Hop with Reformed lyrics, or flashy lights during worship service. Indeed, both have offered sharp critiques. The reason I write this is because I’m almost disappointed at the seemingly graceless attitude that has been taken by the ‘Old Calvinists’.
So, whatever it is it sure ain’t Calvinism! Granted the Baptist (Masters) and the Reformed (Clark) would also argue over who is truly Reformed amongst themselves.
First, let me make this clear I don’t agree with what a lot of what Mark Driscoll said about why ‘new calvinism’ is better. One of the reasons is that to compare Old Calvinism to New Calvinism fails to take into account historical context. Old Calvinism fought more with Rome than with Rob Bell, Old Calvinism despised the Pope and his blasphemies and not Rick Warren and his compromise. Indeed, the contexts are different and the theological atmosphere is different. While we can encounter vestiges of Rome in Warren, Rob Bell and most Evangelical Arminianism its not profusely Romanist. So that we cannot fault Old Calvinism for what it didn’t do, indeed New Calvinists should learn (and they do) from Old Calvinists.
Secondly, new Calvinism didn’t come out of a vibrant American Christian community that proclaimed the Gospel and spoke truth into a dark society. New Calvinism was birthed out of a depraved, immoral and doctrinally dark age of American Christianity. We can fault much of this on the revivalism and Arminianism of Finney. The inability of ministers to defend the church of God at that time shines through in the fruits of this doctrinal dark age we have endured in America for the last few decades. New Calvinism didn’t come out as a response to Old Calvinism, rather it arose out of the doctrinally depraved American Evangelical culture. Indeed, we all know of Horton’s book Christless Christianity where he cites that the de-emphasizing of doctrine doesn’t only exist in the more mystical, or experiential churches but rather exists also in the staunchly Reformed, Baptist and Lutheran churches. So, that New Calvnism arose out of a church that took its focus off of doctrine and became the metaphorical trendy fourteen year old girl, who wants to look cool, please her friends, has developed text message arthritis – oh and loves American Idol.
Finally, I find the issue petty. Its akin to the new ‘five pointer’ who just discovered God’s sovereignty in salvation and wants to make everyone a Calvinist, its the guy who needs to be kept in a cage, the guy who calls everyone else an Arminian and perhaps goes too far. Its when a Calvinist becomes a Hyper Calvinist, when they demand strict doctrinal precision to every doctrine they affirm. Indeed, if I’m a new Calvinist the old Calvinists are the New Hyper Calvinists.
