Sean,
In reading the comments made by this guest, I have been very desirous to answer them myself. But since they were directed toward you, and you have handled them admirably, I decided to spend my time answering other questions elsewhere.
Though I don't know you, it sounds as if you are not a novice at debating with Calvinists. Therefore, you are probably accustomed to the lame arguments that Calvinists resort to when the straight exegesis of scripture is destroying their entire system. If you were not already familiar with these tactics, I imagine that the criticisms of this guest would amaze and frustrate you. But we have found that Calvinism is not an exegetically-founded theology. Trying to discuss scripture with a Calvinist is often like doing the same thing with a Jehovah's Witness. You say, "But let us consider this scripture, which completely demolishes your argument..." or "Let's look at the context of this scripture that you are quoting and see whether it really is saying what you think it is saying..." and instead of dealing with the text under consideration, they run to another pat argument or irrelevant passage, or appeal to the venerable Reformed heritage, or execute some other very predictable dodge. Getting them to really exegete a passage in context is like trying to nail jello to the wall.
Inevitably, they end up criticizing us for our dismissal the opinions of men (their teachers) in favor of simply studying the Bible itself. Yet their teachers allegedly advocated this very practice (they called it "sola scriptura") and were persecuted by the Roman Catholics for adopting this very approach! The Roman Catholics made the very same arguments against Luther's doctrine of justification, saying he was arrogant to think that he could read the Bible for himself even to the disregarding of the venerable traditions of their theologians. Luther scorned this criticism, and Calvinists applaud him for doing so. But then they fight tooth and nail (desperately, I might add) to defend their own traditional theologies that are just as much the product of human speculations as were the Catholic traditions that they rejected.
It is interesting that Augustine is not only the creator of Calvinism, but history knows him as the father of Roman Catholicism as well! He was the first to teach a number of distinctly Roman Catholic doctrines that are rejected by Reformed people, yet they canonize his novel ideas about sovereignty and election as if he could never be wrong, and speak as if he (and those who adopted his views) stands as the pillar of primitive apostolic theology.
It is also astonishing that, whereas Luther never claimed that the whole church had taught his controversial doctrines for the previous thousand years, this particular guest (and many Calvinists like him) claims that Calvinism was taught by the people of God consistently for 4000 years! This period would presumably begin with Abraham. Yet, I am not aware of any existence of Calvinist doctrines among the people of God prior to about 400 AD (except among some of the heretical groups refuted by the early fathers). Even much of the centuries after Augustine, these doctrines were not always the dominant views of the established church (Roman Catholic). Our friend Ken, who has written much on this forum about the Eastern Church, has pointed out that his church has been around since apostolic times, and they never embraced Augustinian or Calvinist doctrines.
Therefore, those who reject Calvinism stand only against a relatively recent and narrow stream of Christian thinkers throughout history, and yet, when Calvinists cannot support their positions with anything like responsibly biblical exegesis, they resort to equally fallacious reconstructions of the history of doctrine. How valid can a viewpoint be that depends entirely upon such thoroughgoing misrepresentation?
By the way, this guest suggests that it is arrogant to think that in your one, short lifetime, you can study and gain adequate understanding of what the Bible teaches. Strange. Is the Bible so obscure, that, though a dedicated reader could conceivably read through the entire book several times a year, yet in seventy such years, he could never hope to understand it? How many lifetimes did the original readers of Paul's epistles have available to them to figure out what he meant? Did not Augustine arrive at his spanking-new understanding of theology in a single lifetime? Why can't anyone else hope to do so? How many lifetimes does a man have to spend in a Calvinist seminary to learn the Calvinist view of scripture?
The sentiment expressed by this guest seems to assume that God is very difficult to know, and none but the accumulated theories of wise theologians can be trusted to disclose this mysterious being. By contrast, Jesus said, "I thank you, Father...that you have hidden these things from the wise and the prudent, and have revealed them unto babes!" (Matt.11:25). The simplest Christian reader can have the truth of God revealed to him in the scriptures, while the wise and prudent theologians, devoting themselves to the writings of previous wise and prudent theologians may be "ever learning, but never coming to the knowledge of the truth."
It may be possible to spend an entire lifetime (or even endless ages) learning more and more about the unsearchable riches of Christ, but this does not mean that the heart and ways of God cannot be quickly discerned by an unbiased reader of the scriptures. "Let not the wise man glory in his wisdom...but let him who glories glory in this, that he understands and knows me, that I am the Lord exercising lovingkindness, judgment and righteousness in the earth. For in these I delight, says the Lord" (Jer.9:23-24).
I can see why an indoctrinated Calvinist may think it takes more than a lifetime to understand the scriptures! His training has so confused him that some of the plainest declarations of God's universal mercy and grace make no sense to him and have to be regarded as "mysteries" relegated to the theological experts to sort out.
A Good Work?
Last edited by FAST WebCrawler [Crawler] on Sat Jun 02, 2007 12:10 pm, edited 3 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
In Jesus,
Steve
Steve
-
_Anonymous
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2008 10:03 pm
Since this discussion may continue for awhile, to avoid confusion, I'm changing my id from guest to de.
>> We are in the image of God, and the image of Adam. Adam made a choice, and so can we.
g> Made in the image of Adam? I don't understand what you are saying here. Do you think that man was in any changed by the Fall?
Because of Adam's sin, God pronounced a curse. I don't recall the curse including the inability to make choices since God repeatedly asks Israel to repent. Even fallen we are still in the likeness of God (James 3:9)
de> Ok, so let me get this straight; you believe that men were not changed in any way by the fall?????
de> Do you think that you & I bear any guilt for the actions of Adam?
-------------------------------------
>> Not only do all sin, but all can allow or "kick against the goads" of the Spirit as Jesus said to Saul/Paul. The ability to make to choice is not made in a vacuum, as stated in my previous post.
g> Yes, that is the general call of the scripture. But how was Paul able to respond positively to God?
How was he able to "Kick against the goads"? In Acts 7:51 Stephen says "You stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears! You always resist the Holy Spirit; as your fathers did, so do you." Apparently they resisted.
de> Some resist because their time has not yet come. You never can tell when the HS will choose to act. Some resist because they are not elect. Fortunately, God will sort them out. This is not a relevent point.
-------------------------------------
g> As Paul says in Romans 8:6, "The mind of sinful man is death, but the mind controlled by the Spirit is life and peace; 7 the sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so." Paul is reminding his Christian readers that, in contrast to Christians, unbelievers are unable to submit to God's law. Is accepting Christ according to God's law? Of course. So unbelievers are unable to believe.
I didn't know that belief was a work of the law. Paul spends the entire chapter 4 of Romans explaining this is not the case:
"Now to the one who works, his wage is not credited as a favor, but as what is due. But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness"
de> This whole "works of the Law' thing is a red herring. What is the first & greatest commandment? "Love God." Is that a work? No. It is required by the Law? Yes. Paul's point in Rom 8 is that unbelievers are unable to submit to God's Law. He says nothing there about "works." Are unbelievers able to love God? No - else they would be believers. Anyone who things that a person can love God without being a believer is fundamentally confused.
de> In Rom4, Paul tells us that it is a man's faith that God credits to him as righteousness, not his works. I think that we agree on that. BTW, lecturing a Calvinist about grace is about like teaching a fish about water; grace is where we live.
de> So where did the man's faith come from? Let's look at Rom 9. Paul contrasts Jacob & Esau, & shows His sovereign choice as the only determiner of destiny. God chose Jacob over Esau before they were born. God hardened Pharaoh's heart. God tells Moses that He shows mercy to who He chooses, and to cries of "Unfair!" says I AM - deal with it. God has prepared some to be objects of His wrath. And He justifies those who do not seek righteousness. How can that be if a man can have faith himself? Wouldn't his faith i God make him a persuer of righteousness? Certainly!
de. The only possible conclusion is that God gives saving faith to the elect, and withholds it from the reprobate.
de. But you say that the grace is the gift of God, but it consists merely of the information in the gospel. Rom10:16 "But not all the Israelites accepted the good news. For Isaiah says, Lord, who has believed our message? 17Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word of Christ. 18But I ask: Did they not hear? Of course they did:
“Their voice has gone out into all the earth,
their words to the ends of the world.”
19Again I ask: Did Israel not understand? First, Moses says,
“I will make you envious by those who are not a nation;
I will make you angry by a nation that has no understanding.”
20And Isaiah boldly says,
“I was found by those who did not seek me;
I revealed myself to those who did not ask for me.”
21But concerning Israel he says,
“All day long I have held out my hands
to a disobedient and obstinate people.”
Rom 11:1
I ask then: Did God reject his people? By no means! I am an Israelite myself, a descendant of Abraham, from the tribe of Benjamin. 2God did not reject his people, whom he foreknew. Don’t you know what the Scripture says in the passage about Elijah—how he appealed to God against Israel: 3“Lord, they have killed your prophets and torn down your altars; I am the only one left, and they are trying to kill me” ? 4And what was God’s answer to him? “I have reserved for myself seven thousand who have not bowed the knee to Baal.” 5So too, at the present time there is a remnant chosen by grace. 6And if by grace, then it is no longer by works; if it were, grace would no longer be grace.
7What then? What Israel sought so earnestly it did not obtain, but the elect did. The others were hardened, 8as it is written:
“God gave them a spirit of stupor,
eyes so that they could not see
and ears so that they could not hear,
to this very day.”
de> So, you will recognise all of the Calvinist language that Paul is using. God sovereignly damns some Jews, and sovereignly saves others. Is it not true that God gives some kind of saving grace to some, and not to others?
de> Now salvation seems to go to those who believe, and we agree that it is our duty to believe. But (Rom6:23 For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.) it appears that saving faith is a gift from God. And a gift does not come in response to having earned the gift. So God's gift of salvation cannot come as payment for our deciding to have faith in God. So we must not be responsible for our faith. That is because saving faith is a gift from God.
de> Eph 2:8 "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith; and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God - " So this grace (a gift given without regard to the worthiness of the recipient) is a gift of God. THis gift of saving faith is not our own merit at work, but the choice of God at work.
de> That's enough for tonight.
>> We are in the image of God, and the image of Adam. Adam made a choice, and so can we.
g> Made in the image of Adam? I don't understand what you are saying here. Do you think that man was in any changed by the Fall?
Because of Adam's sin, God pronounced a curse. I don't recall the curse including the inability to make choices since God repeatedly asks Israel to repent. Even fallen we are still in the likeness of God (James 3:9)
de> Ok, so let me get this straight; you believe that men were not changed in any way by the fall?????
de> Do you think that you & I bear any guilt for the actions of Adam?
-------------------------------------
>> Not only do all sin, but all can allow or "kick against the goads" of the Spirit as Jesus said to Saul/Paul. The ability to make to choice is not made in a vacuum, as stated in my previous post.
g> Yes, that is the general call of the scripture. But how was Paul able to respond positively to God?
How was he able to "Kick against the goads"? In Acts 7:51 Stephen says "You stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears! You always resist the Holy Spirit; as your fathers did, so do you." Apparently they resisted.
de> Some resist because their time has not yet come. You never can tell when the HS will choose to act. Some resist because they are not elect. Fortunately, God will sort them out. This is not a relevent point.
-------------------------------------
g> As Paul says in Romans 8:6, "The mind of sinful man is death, but the mind controlled by the Spirit is life and peace; 7 the sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so." Paul is reminding his Christian readers that, in contrast to Christians, unbelievers are unable to submit to God's law. Is accepting Christ according to God's law? Of course. So unbelievers are unable to believe.
I didn't know that belief was a work of the law. Paul spends the entire chapter 4 of Romans explaining this is not the case:
"Now to the one who works, his wage is not credited as a favor, but as what is due. But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness"
de> This whole "works of the Law' thing is a red herring. What is the first & greatest commandment? "Love God." Is that a work? No. It is required by the Law? Yes. Paul's point in Rom 8 is that unbelievers are unable to submit to God's Law. He says nothing there about "works." Are unbelievers able to love God? No - else they would be believers. Anyone who things that a person can love God without being a believer is fundamentally confused.
de> In Rom4, Paul tells us that it is a man's faith that God credits to him as righteousness, not his works. I think that we agree on that. BTW, lecturing a Calvinist about grace is about like teaching a fish about water; grace is where we live.
de> So where did the man's faith come from? Let's look at Rom 9. Paul contrasts Jacob & Esau, & shows His sovereign choice as the only determiner of destiny. God chose Jacob over Esau before they were born. God hardened Pharaoh's heart. God tells Moses that He shows mercy to who He chooses, and to cries of "Unfair!" says I AM - deal with it. God has prepared some to be objects of His wrath. And He justifies those who do not seek righteousness. How can that be if a man can have faith himself? Wouldn't his faith i God make him a persuer of righteousness? Certainly!
de. The only possible conclusion is that God gives saving faith to the elect, and withholds it from the reprobate.
de. But you say that the grace is the gift of God, but it consists merely of the information in the gospel. Rom10:16 "But not all the Israelites accepted the good news. For Isaiah says, Lord, who has believed our message? 17Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word of Christ. 18But I ask: Did they not hear? Of course they did:
“Their voice has gone out into all the earth,
their words to the ends of the world.”
19Again I ask: Did Israel not understand? First, Moses says,
“I will make you envious by those who are not a nation;
I will make you angry by a nation that has no understanding.”
20And Isaiah boldly says,
“I was found by those who did not seek me;
I revealed myself to those who did not ask for me.”
21But concerning Israel he says,
“All day long I have held out my hands
to a disobedient and obstinate people.”
Rom 11:1
I ask then: Did God reject his people? By no means! I am an Israelite myself, a descendant of Abraham, from the tribe of Benjamin. 2God did not reject his people, whom he foreknew. Don’t you know what the Scripture says in the passage about Elijah—how he appealed to God against Israel: 3“Lord, they have killed your prophets and torn down your altars; I am the only one left, and they are trying to kill me” ? 4And what was God’s answer to him? “I have reserved for myself seven thousand who have not bowed the knee to Baal.” 5So too, at the present time there is a remnant chosen by grace. 6And if by grace, then it is no longer by works; if it were, grace would no longer be grace.
7What then? What Israel sought so earnestly it did not obtain, but the elect did. The others were hardened, 8as it is written:
“God gave them a spirit of stupor,
eyes so that they could not see
and ears so that they could not hear,
to this very day.”
de> So, you will recognise all of the Calvinist language that Paul is using. God sovereignly damns some Jews, and sovereignly saves others. Is it not true that God gives some kind of saving grace to some, and not to others?
de> Now salvation seems to go to those who believe, and we agree that it is our duty to believe. But (Rom6:23 For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.) it appears that saving faith is a gift from God. And a gift does not come in response to having earned the gift. So God's gift of salvation cannot come as payment for our deciding to have faith in God. So we must not be responsible for our faith. That is because saving faith is a gift from God.
de> Eph 2:8 "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith; and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God - " So this grace (a gift given without regard to the worthiness of the recipient) is a gift of God. THis gift of saving faith is not our own merit at work, but the choice of God at work.
de> That's enough for tonight.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Well, Adam was called good, then he sinned even though he was made by God with the ability to sin he was called good. It was not until Adam disobeyed God that God pronounced the curse. Since we are born of Adam we all sin.de wrote: de> Ok, so let me get this straight; you believe that men were not changed in any way by the fall?????
de> Do you think that you & I bear any guilt for the actions of Adam?
I don't bear Adam's sin. I am judged for my own sin. I can't remember the verse that states this.
??? So can the Holy Spirit be resited or not? Scripture says yes.de> Some resist because their time has not yet come. You never can tell when the HS will choose to act. Some resist because they are not elect. Fortunately, God will sort them out. This is not a relevent point.
Again, Romans 4 says that Abraham believed God. He didn't work and it doesn't say he loved Him or fulfilled the law. It says believe. Can I believe someone without loving them? Love can certainly spring out of belief after being born again. It's a fine line.de> This whole "works of the Law' thing is a red herring. What is the first & greatest commandment? "Love God." Is that a work? No. It is required by the Law? Yes. Paul's point in Rom 8 is that unbelievers are unable to submit to God's Law. He says nothing there about "works." Are unbelievers able to love God? No - else they would be believers. Anyone who things that a person can love God without being a believer is fundamentally confused.
What Paul is pointing out is not individual election to salvation. He is speaking about Isreal (Jacob) being His chosen people and Edom (Esau) are not. Look up the quote Paul used and see. Otherwise, if it was about election to salvation then all of Jacobs descendants were saved and all Esau's were lost. Furthurmore it says "the older will serve the younger". Did this literally happen between the two people Jacob and Esau?de> So where did the man's faith come from? Let's look at Rom 9. Paul contrasts Jacob & Esau, & shows His sovereign choice as the only determiner of destiny. God chose Jacob over Esau before they were born. God hardened Pharaoh's heart. God tells Moses that He shows mercy to who He chooses, and to cries of "Unfair!" says I AM - deal with it. God has prepared some to be objects of His wrath. And He justifies those who do not seek righteousness. How can that be if a man can have faith himself? Wouldn't his faith i God make him a persuer of righteousness? Certainly!
What do you make of this:
2Tim 2:20 But in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and silver, but also of wood and clay, some for honor and some for dishonor. 21 Therefore if anyone cleanses himself from the latter, he will be a vessel for honor, sanctified and useful for the Master, prepared for every good work.
Rom 11:32 For God has committed them all to disobedience, that He might have mercy on all.
So who does God have mercy on? All?
The ones God has "prepared for wrath" are those who have not "cleansed himself". Someone can move from dishonor to a vessel for honor. It's not fatalistically determined.
Many are called but few are chosen. (Matt 22:1-14) How is that possible if Grace is irresitable? Not all who have faith mature to bear fruit, and those who are saved and in Christ that do not continue to bear fruit are cut off. (John 15:2-6)
Sure, but what makes someone "elect" and another "reprobate"?de. The only possible conclusion is that God gives saving faith to the elect, and withholds it from the reprobate.
You stopped to soon. Keep readingde. But you say that the grace is the gift of God, but it consists merely of the information in the gospel. Rom10:16 "But not all the Israelites accepted the good news. For Isaiah says, Lord, who has believed our message? 17Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word of Christ. 18But I ask: Did they not hear? Of course they did:
“Their voice has gone out into all the earth,
their words to the ends of the world.”
19Again I ask: Did Israel not understand? First, Moses says,
“I will make you envious by those who are not a nation;
I will make you angry by a nation that has no understanding.”
20And Isaiah boldly says,
“I was found by those who did not seek me;
I revealed myself to those who did not ask for me.”
21But concerning Israel he says,
“All day long I have held out my hands
to a disobedient and obstinate people.”
Rom 11:1
I ask then: Did God reject his people? By no means! I am an Israelite myself, a descendant of Abraham, from the tribe of Benjamin. 2God did not reject his people, whom he foreknew. Don’t you know what the Scripture says in the passage about Elijah—how he appealed to God against Israel: 3“Lord, they have killed your prophets and torn down your altars; I am the only one left, and they are trying to kill me” ? 4And what was God’s answer to him? “I have reserved for myself seven thousand who have not bowed the knee to Baal.” 5So too, at the present time there is a remnant chosen by grace. 6And if by grace, then it is no longer by works; if it were, grace would no longer be grace.
7What then? What Israel sought so earnestly it did not obtain, but the elect did. The others were hardened, 8as it is written:
“God gave them a spirit of stupor,
eyes so that they could not see
and ears so that they could not hear,
to this very day.”
de> So, you will recognise all of the Calvinist language that Paul is using. God sovereignly damns some Jews, and sovereignly saves others. Is it not true that God gives some kind of saving grace to some, and not to others?
Romans 11:17 And if some of the branches were broken off, and you, being a wild olive tree, were grafted in among them, and with them became a partaker of the root and fatness of the olive tree, 18 do not boast against the branches. But if you do boast, remember that you do not support the root, but the root supports you.
19 You will say then, "Branches were broken off that I might be grafted in." 20 Well said. Because of unbelief they were broken off, and you stand by faith. Do not be haughty, but fear. 21 For if God did not spare the natural branches, He may not spare you either. 22 Therefore consider the goodness and severity of God: on those who fell, severity; but toward you, goodness, if you continue in His goodness. Otherwise you also will be cut off. 23 And they also, if they do not continue in unbelief, will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again.
You see, Paul is not a calvinist. He said "fear". But what do we have to fear if we are the elect with unconditional security? Paul says fear, stand by faith or be cut off. No mention of God doing the fearing, believing or having faith for man. This is conditional "if you continue" (v22).
Again, it's not "earned" by faith (believing). You keep saying that if we act as Abraham did in Romans 4 we would be earning salvation. This is non-Biblical, but it is calvinist.de> Now salvation seems to go to those who believe, and we agree that it is our duty to believe. But (Rom6:23 For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.) it appears that saving faith is a gift from God. And a gift does not come in response to having earned the gift. So God's gift of salvation cannot come as payment for our deciding to have faith in God. So we must not be responsible for our faith. That is because saving faith is a gift from God.
As far as your Rom 6:23 comment. It says eternal life is in Christ. I agree with that. It's not in us, but Christ. As long as we remain in Him (John 15:2-6). So as long as we are in the body (of Christ) we have eternal life in Christ. Grace being a gift in no way means that it does not need to be recieved. That's how Grace can bring salvation to all men (Titus 2:11) but not all men are saved. Many reject it.
Notice it says "through faith". That means faith is the way Grace is recieved. (Rom 4)de> Eph 2:8 "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith; and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God - " So this grace (a gift given without regard to the worthiness of the recipient) is a gift of God. THis gift of saving faith is not our own merit at work, but the choice of God at work.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another. (John 13:35)
Steve,
Thanks for all the kind words. I have so many Biblical questions for you. I wish I lived closer, I'd stop by and ask those questions.
I've only been saved for a few years and have many questions still. The calvinist debate and escatology have been the things I've studied the most. I don't have all the answers for member "de". I've tried my best but we both know it doesn't matter what we show a calvinist they won't change their mind. Plus I only know so much, I don't have all the answers.
I just found your website last month and have listened to six of your complete lecture series. They are very helpful and in-depth. Keep up the good work!
Thanks for all the kind words. I have so many Biblical questions for you. I wish I lived closer, I'd stop by and ask those questions.
I've only been saved for a few years and have many questions still. The calvinist debate and escatology have been the things I've studied the most. I don't have all the answers for member "de". I've tried my best but we both know it doesn't matter what we show a calvinist they won't change their mind. Plus I only know so much, I don't have all the answers.
I just found your website last month and have listened to six of your complete lecture series. They are very helpful and in-depth. Keep up the good work!
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another. (John 13:35)
Sean,
Thanks for defending what I believe to be the truth of scripture! It is truly hard to know where to begin disabusing a Calvinist of his tangled web of strange interpretations of scripture. You are doing a great job. I couldn’t resist, however, making a few comments to “de” with reference to his remarks.
de,
You wrote: “Unbelievers are unable to submit to God's law. Is accepting Christ according to God's law? Of course. So unbelievers are unable to believe. “
I have the following problems with this reasoning:
First, I find no biblical warrant for including “accepting Christ” (a term not used in scripture, but here used apparently as synonymous with “believing”) in the category of “submitting to God’s law.” The two categories are everywhere contrasted with each other in scripture, and I do not see why Calvinists insist on continually making this unbiblical identification.
Second, the scriptures do not say that “unbelievers” cannot be subject to God’s laws, but that the “carnal mind” cannot do this (Rom.8:7). The Bible does not tell us that all unbelievers, right up to the moment of their conversion, are carnally-minded. The carnal mind is “set on the things of the flesh” (Rom.8:5). In repentance (which means “a change of the mind”) the sinner ceases to set his mind on the things of the flesh, and directs his concerns to God and eternity. In this state, he is capable, with God’s help, of both believing and living in subjection to God’s law (though few would claim to do either perfectly).
How does a carnally-minded man decide to repent and turn his thoughts toward God? No doubt God’s prevenient working has a great deal to do with this. The prodigal made this decision simply by becoming sick of his condition and coming to his senses. But we know that God’s Spirit also convicts of sin, righteousness and judgment (John 16:8)—which can definitely get a guy thinking about eternity and the things of God.
The real conflict between the Calvinist and the Bible on this point is that the Calvinist does not see the ability of the human mind to change or improve its thinking on its own. That is, God must sovereignly change the man’s mind, or man will never change it himself. But why, then, do the scriptures so frequently record God’s command to men to change their own minds (Isa.55:7/ Ezek.33:11/ Zech.1:4/ Mark 1:15/ Luke 13:3, 5/Acts 2:38/ 17:30)? The preparation of the heart to seek God is repeatedly referred to as a human action and a human duty (Prov.16:1/ 1 Sam.7:3/ 2 Chron.2:14/ Ezra 7:10/ Job 11:13).
The Bible seems therefore to present a clear and unambiguous testimony that the unregenerate man not only can, but is also required to, change his mind, prepare his heart and seek the Lord.
You wrote: “lecturing a Calvinist about grace is about like teaching a fish about water; grace is where we live.”
A fish has little cognizance of water, cannot explain hydraulic power, and probably does not even know that it is wet. So also, many who benefit from grace may know little about its nature and workings.
It has always seemed strange to me that Calvinists refer to their distinctive doctrines as “the doctrines of grace.” When I read the scriptures, I see a grace that is the all-encompassing benevolence of a God who loves all sinners and calls all men to “look unto me and be saved!” When I look at Calvinist doctrines, by contrast, I see an arbitrarily restricted, jealously guarded, selective kindness that is not even made available to any but an elite band living alongside multitudes of helpless sinners in desperate need of mercy, but lacking any opportunity to avail themselves of any of it. Is this tawdry concept worthy of the biblical term “grace”?
I think the title of Clark Pinnock’s non-Calvinistic book, “Grace Unlimited” states very succinctly where the principal difference lies between Calvinistic and biblical theology. The Bible teaches a breadth of God’s mercy that desires all to be saved; Calvinism proposes a truncated, narrow and hoarded grace that really prefers that many billions of souls should burn in hell. It should go without saying that this Calvinistic libel of God’s revealed character can obtain no sound, exegetical support from scripture.
You wrote: “God sovereignly damns some Jews, and sovereignly saves others. Is it not true that God gives some kind of saving grace to some, and not to others?”
God has saved some Jews (and Gentiles) and He has also damned some Jews (and Gentiles). But He has not done any of this without consulting their choices. Faith is a condition for salvation. Therefore the ones He saved were those who believed; the ones He damned were those who did not believe.
It is true that all that God does, He does “sovereignly,” but it is a Calvinist error to equate the word “sovereign” with the concepts of “unilateral” and “unconditional.” All kings are “sovereigns” and act “sovereignly,” but this does not mean that all kings punish and reward their subjects capriciously, and without reference to their behavior. Many sovereigns have been known to “sovereignly” punish criminals because they were criminals, and to “sovereignly” reward the virtuous because they were virtuous. The idea of sovereign action has nothing to do with the capriciousness or inexplicability of such action!
When sovereignty translates into capricious decisions that deal out reward or punishment on a whim, without consideration of anything that the hapless subjects have done or could have done to avoid one fate or the other—this is the special specie of sovereignty that usually goes under the name “tyranny.” That a sovereign is free to be a tyrant if he chooses is part of what being sovereign means, but to suggest that all sovereignty is tyranny, or that God’s exercise of sovereignty is this kind of tyranny cannot be justified by any biblical data.
You wrote: “Let's look at Rom 9. Paul contrasts Jacob & Esau, & shows His sovereign choice as the only determiner of destiny. God chose Jacob over Esau before they were born. God hardened Pharaoh's heart. God tells Moses that He shows mercy to who He chooses…”
One would think that, given the immense value that Calvinists place on Romans 9, that one of them would occasionally actually look at the passage in its context and discover its plain meaning.
Yes, the passage talks about God’s unconditional choice of Jacob over Esau, but there is nothing here related to the Calvinist contention that God unconditionally chose some to be saved and some to be lost. Paul does not indicate that he believed one of these men to be saved and the other to be lost. God chose (as the Old Testament passages quoted in situ by Paul demonstrate) that Jacob’s nation would be the line to carry on the Abrahamic covenant, and Esau’s line was not. Why did God make this choice? Perhaps because Esau was to be the kind of man who would despise this birthright, as his later conduct (foreknown by God) indicated. But even if God had no particular reason for making this choice, it was not a choice that consigned either man to one eternal destiny or another. In that generation, only one man in the whole world was chosen to carry on the family line—Jacob. Were all other men on earth sent to hell? Nothing in Paul’s argument would suggest any such thing. Esau’s line wasn’t consigned to hell necessarily (Job was almost certainly of that race)…they just were not chosen to carry on the family name and covenant purposes of God on earth. It takes only an objective reading of this passage to lead one to this conclusion.
Yes, God hardened Pharaoh’s heart. What has this to do with unconditional election? God did not select Pharaoh randomly, but chose to judge Pharaoh for being just the kind of tyrant that Calvinist theology makes God out to be!
The hardening of Pharaoh’s heart was not a birth condition. God hardened his heart late in life, after a lengthy career of doing such atrocities as would warrant this judgment. There is nothing unconditional about it.
And another important thing: it is clear that the REASON for God’s hardening Pharaoh’s heart was to prevent him from repenting prematurely before God could bring all of his plagues upon him. But if a man cannot repent on his own, what is the point of God taking special measures to prevent his repentance? Hmmm?
Yes, God told Moses that He will have mercy on whomever He will have mercy, but there is no suggestion here that such mercy fails to take notice of the recipient’s actions. To whom does God will to have mercy? The scriptures are not silent on this in the least. First, at one level, God is merciful to all men (Rom.11:32), even “to the unthankful and evil” (Luke 6:35). When it comes to particular mercy, God has said that the merciful shall themselves obtain mercy, and the unmerciful will not (e.g., Matt.5:7/ 6:14-15). Of course, the mercy of ultimate salvation is given to those who have faith, and denied to those who do not. Thus, while it is obvious that God will have mercy on whomever He wills, He does not do so capriciously or unconditionally, and He has stated what the conditions are in no uncertain terms.
You wrote: “…to cries of "Unfair!" says I AM - deal with it. God has prepared some to be objects of His wrath. And He justifies those who do not seek righteousness.”
As I read Romans 9, I do not see God simply saying “Deal with it” to those who cry “Unfair!” I see in scripture generally, and in Romans especially, a great concern to demonstrate the justice and the wisdom of all of God’s dealings. For example, the Jews were crying “Unfair” in the days of Ezekiel. In response, God did not say, “Deal with it!” He laboriously and meticulously explained precisely how and why His dealings were perfectly just and fair (Ezekiel 18). It is important that God clue us in on the issues of justice that inform His actions, because He desires that we be imitators of Him (Eph.5:1), taking His example as our standard for our own dealings with others (Luke 6:36).
In saying “He justifies those who do not seek righteousness,” we are apparently looking at Romans 9:30 and 10:20. This represents a great misunderstanding of Paul’s point. He is not telling us that individuals find God who had no previous interest in seeking Him (if this was His point, what sense could we make of such passages as Deut. 4:29/ 2 Chron.15:4/ Isa.45:19/ 55:6/ Jer. 29:13/Amos 5:4/ Acts 15:17/ 17:27/ Heb.11:6, etc.?). He is saying that God has been missed by the Jews as a nation, though they (as a nation) had at times sought for God through their law, but that the Gentiles (as a class of nations) had not historically sought after Yahweh, but were now finding Him in large numbers.
You wrote: “The only possible conclusion is that God gives saving faith to the elect, and withholds it from the reprobate.”
This is not at all the “only possible conclusion.” It is not even one of the more logical conclusions available. One who has only been indoctrinated into one viewpoint without having studied the viewpoints of the earliest Christians and the large number of Christian scholars who fall outside this realm of indoctrination, should be careful about denying the existence of possible alternative conclusions. Some of us have seen the evidence for more than one side, and are in a better position than we were previously to assess the various options.
Thanks for defending what I believe to be the truth of scripture! It is truly hard to know where to begin disabusing a Calvinist of his tangled web of strange interpretations of scripture. You are doing a great job. I couldn’t resist, however, making a few comments to “de” with reference to his remarks.
de,
You wrote: “Unbelievers are unable to submit to God's law. Is accepting Christ according to God's law? Of course. So unbelievers are unable to believe. “
I have the following problems with this reasoning:
First, I find no biblical warrant for including “accepting Christ” (a term not used in scripture, but here used apparently as synonymous with “believing”) in the category of “submitting to God’s law.” The two categories are everywhere contrasted with each other in scripture, and I do not see why Calvinists insist on continually making this unbiblical identification.
Second, the scriptures do not say that “unbelievers” cannot be subject to God’s laws, but that the “carnal mind” cannot do this (Rom.8:7). The Bible does not tell us that all unbelievers, right up to the moment of their conversion, are carnally-minded. The carnal mind is “set on the things of the flesh” (Rom.8:5). In repentance (which means “a change of the mind”) the sinner ceases to set his mind on the things of the flesh, and directs his concerns to God and eternity. In this state, he is capable, with God’s help, of both believing and living in subjection to God’s law (though few would claim to do either perfectly).
How does a carnally-minded man decide to repent and turn his thoughts toward God? No doubt God’s prevenient working has a great deal to do with this. The prodigal made this decision simply by becoming sick of his condition and coming to his senses. But we know that God’s Spirit also convicts of sin, righteousness and judgment (John 16:8)—which can definitely get a guy thinking about eternity and the things of God.
The real conflict between the Calvinist and the Bible on this point is that the Calvinist does not see the ability of the human mind to change or improve its thinking on its own. That is, God must sovereignly change the man’s mind, or man will never change it himself. But why, then, do the scriptures so frequently record God’s command to men to change their own minds (Isa.55:7/ Ezek.33:11/ Zech.1:4/ Mark 1:15/ Luke 13:3, 5/Acts 2:38/ 17:30)? The preparation of the heart to seek God is repeatedly referred to as a human action and a human duty (Prov.16:1/ 1 Sam.7:3/ 2 Chron.2:14/ Ezra 7:10/ Job 11:13).
The Bible seems therefore to present a clear and unambiguous testimony that the unregenerate man not only can, but is also required to, change his mind, prepare his heart and seek the Lord.
You wrote: “lecturing a Calvinist about grace is about like teaching a fish about water; grace is where we live.”
A fish has little cognizance of water, cannot explain hydraulic power, and probably does not even know that it is wet. So also, many who benefit from grace may know little about its nature and workings.
It has always seemed strange to me that Calvinists refer to their distinctive doctrines as “the doctrines of grace.” When I read the scriptures, I see a grace that is the all-encompassing benevolence of a God who loves all sinners and calls all men to “look unto me and be saved!” When I look at Calvinist doctrines, by contrast, I see an arbitrarily restricted, jealously guarded, selective kindness that is not even made available to any but an elite band living alongside multitudes of helpless sinners in desperate need of mercy, but lacking any opportunity to avail themselves of any of it. Is this tawdry concept worthy of the biblical term “grace”?
I think the title of Clark Pinnock’s non-Calvinistic book, “Grace Unlimited” states very succinctly where the principal difference lies between Calvinistic and biblical theology. The Bible teaches a breadth of God’s mercy that desires all to be saved; Calvinism proposes a truncated, narrow and hoarded grace that really prefers that many billions of souls should burn in hell. It should go without saying that this Calvinistic libel of God’s revealed character can obtain no sound, exegetical support from scripture.
You wrote: “God sovereignly damns some Jews, and sovereignly saves others. Is it not true that God gives some kind of saving grace to some, and not to others?”
God has saved some Jews (and Gentiles) and He has also damned some Jews (and Gentiles). But He has not done any of this without consulting their choices. Faith is a condition for salvation. Therefore the ones He saved were those who believed; the ones He damned were those who did not believe.
It is true that all that God does, He does “sovereignly,” but it is a Calvinist error to equate the word “sovereign” with the concepts of “unilateral” and “unconditional.” All kings are “sovereigns” and act “sovereignly,” but this does not mean that all kings punish and reward their subjects capriciously, and without reference to their behavior. Many sovereigns have been known to “sovereignly” punish criminals because they were criminals, and to “sovereignly” reward the virtuous because they were virtuous. The idea of sovereign action has nothing to do with the capriciousness or inexplicability of such action!
When sovereignty translates into capricious decisions that deal out reward or punishment on a whim, without consideration of anything that the hapless subjects have done or could have done to avoid one fate or the other—this is the special specie of sovereignty that usually goes under the name “tyranny.” That a sovereign is free to be a tyrant if he chooses is part of what being sovereign means, but to suggest that all sovereignty is tyranny, or that God’s exercise of sovereignty is this kind of tyranny cannot be justified by any biblical data.
You wrote: “Let's look at Rom 9. Paul contrasts Jacob & Esau, & shows His sovereign choice as the only determiner of destiny. God chose Jacob over Esau before they were born. God hardened Pharaoh's heart. God tells Moses that He shows mercy to who He chooses…”
One would think that, given the immense value that Calvinists place on Romans 9, that one of them would occasionally actually look at the passage in its context and discover its plain meaning.
Yes, the passage talks about God’s unconditional choice of Jacob over Esau, but there is nothing here related to the Calvinist contention that God unconditionally chose some to be saved and some to be lost. Paul does not indicate that he believed one of these men to be saved and the other to be lost. God chose (as the Old Testament passages quoted in situ by Paul demonstrate) that Jacob’s nation would be the line to carry on the Abrahamic covenant, and Esau’s line was not. Why did God make this choice? Perhaps because Esau was to be the kind of man who would despise this birthright, as his later conduct (foreknown by God) indicated. But even if God had no particular reason for making this choice, it was not a choice that consigned either man to one eternal destiny or another. In that generation, only one man in the whole world was chosen to carry on the family line—Jacob. Were all other men on earth sent to hell? Nothing in Paul’s argument would suggest any such thing. Esau’s line wasn’t consigned to hell necessarily (Job was almost certainly of that race)…they just were not chosen to carry on the family name and covenant purposes of God on earth. It takes only an objective reading of this passage to lead one to this conclusion.
Yes, God hardened Pharaoh’s heart. What has this to do with unconditional election? God did not select Pharaoh randomly, but chose to judge Pharaoh for being just the kind of tyrant that Calvinist theology makes God out to be!
The hardening of Pharaoh’s heart was not a birth condition. God hardened his heart late in life, after a lengthy career of doing such atrocities as would warrant this judgment. There is nothing unconditional about it.
And another important thing: it is clear that the REASON for God’s hardening Pharaoh’s heart was to prevent him from repenting prematurely before God could bring all of his plagues upon him. But if a man cannot repent on his own, what is the point of God taking special measures to prevent his repentance? Hmmm?
Yes, God told Moses that He will have mercy on whomever He will have mercy, but there is no suggestion here that such mercy fails to take notice of the recipient’s actions. To whom does God will to have mercy? The scriptures are not silent on this in the least. First, at one level, God is merciful to all men (Rom.11:32), even “to the unthankful and evil” (Luke 6:35). When it comes to particular mercy, God has said that the merciful shall themselves obtain mercy, and the unmerciful will not (e.g., Matt.5:7/ 6:14-15). Of course, the mercy of ultimate salvation is given to those who have faith, and denied to those who do not. Thus, while it is obvious that God will have mercy on whomever He wills, He does not do so capriciously or unconditionally, and He has stated what the conditions are in no uncertain terms.
You wrote: “…to cries of "Unfair!" says I AM - deal with it. God has prepared some to be objects of His wrath. And He justifies those who do not seek righteousness.”
As I read Romans 9, I do not see God simply saying “Deal with it” to those who cry “Unfair!” I see in scripture generally, and in Romans especially, a great concern to demonstrate the justice and the wisdom of all of God’s dealings. For example, the Jews were crying “Unfair” in the days of Ezekiel. In response, God did not say, “Deal with it!” He laboriously and meticulously explained precisely how and why His dealings were perfectly just and fair (Ezekiel 18). It is important that God clue us in on the issues of justice that inform His actions, because He desires that we be imitators of Him (Eph.5:1), taking His example as our standard for our own dealings with others (Luke 6:36).
In saying “He justifies those who do not seek righteousness,” we are apparently looking at Romans 9:30 and 10:20. This represents a great misunderstanding of Paul’s point. He is not telling us that individuals find God who had no previous interest in seeking Him (if this was His point, what sense could we make of such passages as Deut. 4:29/ 2 Chron.15:4/ Isa.45:19/ 55:6/ Jer. 29:13/Amos 5:4/ Acts 15:17/ 17:27/ Heb.11:6, etc.?). He is saying that God has been missed by the Jews as a nation, though they (as a nation) had at times sought for God through their law, but that the Gentiles (as a class of nations) had not historically sought after Yahweh, but were now finding Him in large numbers.
You wrote: “The only possible conclusion is that God gives saving faith to the elect, and withholds it from the reprobate.”
This is not at all the “only possible conclusion.” It is not even one of the more logical conclusions available. One who has only been indoctrinated into one viewpoint without having studied the viewpoints of the earliest Christians and the large number of Christian scholars who fall outside this realm of indoctrination, should be careful about denying the existence of possible alternative conclusions. Some of us have seen the evidence for more than one side, and are in a better position than we were previously to assess the various options.
Last edited by FAST WebCrawler [Crawler] on Fri Apr 30, 2004 2:09 pm, edited 3 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
In Jesus,
Steve
Steve
-
_Anonymous
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2008 10:03 pm
-
_Anonymous
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2008 10:03 pm
de> I have no interest in changing back to a faulty understanding of our religion. I am not here for that reason. A friend of mine wrote me that this was an interesting and informative forum. It is not so for a Calvinist, since the owner is hostile. I only recently figured out that this is a Calvary Chapel website, and that of course affect the required position of the pastor.Sean wrote:Steve,
Thanks for all the kind words. I have so many Biblical questions for you. I wish I lived closer, I'd stop by and ask those questions.
I've only been saved for a few years and have many questions still. The calvinist debate and escatology have been the things I've studied the most. I don't have all the answers for member "de". I've tried my best but we both know it doesn't matter what we show a calvinist they won't change their mind. Plus I only know so much, I don't have all the answers.
I just found your website last month and have listened to six of your complete lecture series. They are very helpful and in-depth. Keep up the good work!
de> What I would challeng you to do is to get over thinking that you or your friends know everything about God, or that you even know a little about God from having studied for a few years. Pick up a Systematic Theology and see how it all fits together. At the least, you will learn that Steve makes many errors about Calvinist positions. That is reasonable, since not even all Calvinists know their religion as well as they should. Pick up a history of the theology of the church & learn about the history of the few outbreaks of Arinianism.
de> Finally, since you (like all of us) don't have all of the answers, you might want to ask yourself why you are emotionally attached to this position. Ask yourself why you insist on an Arminian answer, even before considering another explaination...
Cheers...............de
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
-
_Anonymous
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2008 10:03 pm
>> lame arguments that Calvinists resort to when the straight exegesis of scripture is destroying their entire system... Trying to discuss scripture with a Calvinist is often like doing the same thing with a Jehovah's Witness... instead of dealing with the text under consideration, they run to another pat argument or irrelevant passage, or appeal to the venerable Reformed heritage, or execute some other very predictable dodge. Getting them to really exegete a passage in context is like trying to nail jello to the wall.
de> Charming!
>> Ineveitably, they end up criticizing us for our dismissal the opinions of men (their teachers) in favor of simply studying the Bible itself.
de> And you presume to teach the bible, so why sould anyone listen to you instead of just reading the bible itself? Isn't a bit inconsistent?
de> But Paul explains that the HS gave some to be teachers. I can refer to thousands of years of Church teachers and gatherings of teachers & elders, each building on that which came before, sharpening it & increasing our understanding of God.
de> You can point to - what - Chuck Smith??
>> Yet their teachers allegedly advocated this very practice (they called it "sola scriptura") and were persecuted by the Roman Catholics for adopting this very approach!
de> Get it right. What you report is a gross perversion of the facts. Nowhere in Reformed/Calvinist thinking is the idea that you can just study the bible in a vacuum and come to the best understanding of God that is possible. All of the Reformers were profound thinkers, theologians, teachers; they each insisted that individual Christians strive to learn all that they could about the bible from those who were qualified to teach it. They taught the bible endlessly, and wrote commentaries.
de> The principle that you are reaching for is actually two principles. First is the sufficiency of scripture for salvation and Godly living. Were a man to simply hear the bible (or even the gospel) read once, it would be enough for the HS to use to save him. And then th HS is able to guide the man's moral decisions. But note that this brief glimpse of God will wont give the man a very god understanding of God. It is sufficient if that is all that the man is provided, but God commands us to love Him with all of our mind and might, so you & I must study.
de> The RCC was most unhappy about this because they had a lock on the scriptures at that time, and the Reformer's insistence on making the scriptures available to all men threatened them. Especially if people learned that salvation was by faith alone...
de> The second principle is that only the bible has the authority to bind man's belief and actions. This threatened the Magisterium - or infallible teaching authority - of the RCC. This did not mean that heresy was tolerated, or that anyone was advocating ignoring the teaching of the church.
>> ... to defend their own traditional theologies that are just as much the product of human speculations as were the Catholic traditions that they rejected.
de> You should study the theology of the RCC. It is full of wisdom and truth. There are several areas in which it errs, as proven by the Reformers, but the basic structure remains to this day.
de> Charming!
>> Ineveitably, they end up criticizing us for our dismissal the opinions of men (their teachers) in favor of simply studying the Bible itself.
de> And you presume to teach the bible, so why sould anyone listen to you instead of just reading the bible itself? Isn't a bit inconsistent?
de> But Paul explains that the HS gave some to be teachers. I can refer to thousands of years of Church teachers and gatherings of teachers & elders, each building on that which came before, sharpening it & increasing our understanding of God.
de> You can point to - what - Chuck Smith??
>> Yet their teachers allegedly advocated this very practice (they called it "sola scriptura") and were persecuted by the Roman Catholics for adopting this very approach!
de> Get it right. What you report is a gross perversion of the facts. Nowhere in Reformed/Calvinist thinking is the idea that you can just study the bible in a vacuum and come to the best understanding of God that is possible. All of the Reformers were profound thinkers, theologians, teachers; they each insisted that individual Christians strive to learn all that they could about the bible from those who were qualified to teach it. They taught the bible endlessly, and wrote commentaries.
de> The principle that you are reaching for is actually two principles. First is the sufficiency of scripture for salvation and Godly living. Were a man to simply hear the bible (or even the gospel) read once, it would be enough for the HS to use to save him. And then th HS is able to guide the man's moral decisions. But note that this brief glimpse of God will wont give the man a very god understanding of God. It is sufficient if that is all that the man is provided, but God commands us to love Him with all of our mind and might, so you & I must study.
de> The RCC was most unhappy about this because they had a lock on the scriptures at that time, and the Reformer's insistence on making the scriptures available to all men threatened them. Especially if people learned that salvation was by faith alone...
de> The second principle is that only the bible has the authority to bind man's belief and actions. This threatened the Magisterium - or infallible teaching authority - of the RCC. This did not mean that heresy was tolerated, or that anyone was advocating ignoring the teaching of the church.
>> ... to defend their own traditional theologies that are just as much the product of human speculations as were the Catholic traditions that they rejected.
de> You should study the theology of the RCC. It is full of wisdom and truth. There are several areas in which it errs, as proven by the Reformers, but the basic structure remains to this day.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
-
_Anonymous
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2008 10:03 pm
>> It is interesting that Augustine is not only the creator of Calvinism, but history knows him as the father of Roman Catholicism as well!
de> Really!?!?!? I imagine the Doctor Angelicus is chuckling about that!
He was the first to teach a number of distinctly Roman Catholic doctrines that are rejected by Reformed people, yet they canonize his novel ideas about sovereignty and election as if he could never be wrong, and speak as if he (and those who adopted his views) stands as the pillar of primitive apostolic theology.
de> Not primitive; systematic. Putting it all together.
It is also astonishing that, whereas Luther never claimed that the whole church had taught his controversial doctrines for the previous thousand years, this particular guest (and many Calvinists like him) claims that Calvinism was taught by the people of God consistently for 4000 years! This period would presumably begin with Abraham. Yet, I am not aware of any existence of Calvinist doctrines among the people of God prior to about 400 AD (except among some of the heretical groups refuted by the early fathers).
de> I did not know that you were puzzled about this. Here's the clue - there is nothing "distinctively Calvinist" about Calvinism. It is simply distinctively the theology of the people of God. There is absolute harmony between the teachings of Calvin and the full history of the church, with the exception of Arminius, Pelagius, and the corrupt Popes of the middle ages. Arminius and Pelagius were both condemned by the church, and Protestantism split from the RCC at the Reformation. This outbreak of Arminianism in the las 150 years is a momentary abberation, like modern Dispensationalism.
Even much of the centuries after Augustine, these doctrines were not always the dominant views of the established church (Roman Catholic). Our friend Ken, who has written much on this forum about the Eastern Church, has pointed out that his church has been around since apostolic times, and they never embraced Augustinian or Calvinist doctrines.
de>> Yes,they split over the procession of the Trinity and the primacy of the Patriarch of Rome long before the Reformation.
Therefore, those who reject Calvinism stand only against a relatively recent and narrow stream of Christian thinkers throughout history, and yet, when Calvinists cannot support their positions with anything like responsibly biblical exegesis, they resort to equally fallacious reconstructions of the history of doctrine. How valid can a viewpoint be that depends entirely upon such thoroughgoing misrepresentation?
de> Charming!
By the way, this guest suggests that it is arrogant to think that in your one, short lifetime, you can study and gain adequate understanding of what the Bible teaches.
de> Yeah. Settle for an adequate understanding of God. And would like an adequate marriage with that? Maybe some adequate joy and adequate love?
Strange. Is the Bible so obscure, that, though a dedicated reader could conceivably read through the entire book several times a year, yet in seventy such years, he could never hope to understand it?
de> ok, after you have read the bible through several times seventy times, let me know...
How many lifetimes did the original readers of Paul's epistles have available to them to figure out what he meant? Did not Augustine arrive at his spanking-new understanding of theology in a single lifetime? Why can't anyone else hope to do so? How many lifetimes does a man have to spend in a Calvinist seminary to learn the Calvinist view of scripture?
de> Yes, God is precisely that rich a subject for study. How many men would it take, studying God for how many years, to fully understand - not Him - but merely His revelation? More than the grains of sand in the ocean.
The sentiment expressed by this guest seems to assume that God is very difficult to know, and none but the accumulated theories of wise theologians can be trusted to disclose this mysterious being. By contrast, Jesus said, "I thank you, Father...that you have hidden these things from the wise and the prudent, and has revealed them unto babes!" (Matt.11:25). The simplest Christian reader can have the truth of God revealed to him in the scriptures, while the wise and prudent theologians, devoting themselves to the writings of previous wise and prudent theologians may be "ever learning, but never coming to the knowledge of the truth."
de> So, the less study, the better? The less you know about God, the wiser you really are?
It may be possible to spend an entire lifetime (or even endless ages) learning more and more about the unsearchable riches of Christ, but this does not mean that the heart and ways of God cannot be quickly discerned by an unbiased reader of the scriptures. "Let not the wise man glory in his wisdom...but let him who glories glory in this, that he understands and knows me, that I am the Lord exercising lovingkindness, judgment and righteousness in the earth. For in these I delight, says the Lord" (Jer.9:23-24).
de> "Understands and knows Me." Hmmm. Who knows God better, the scholor or the casual reader?
I can see why an indoctrinated Calvinist may think it takes more than a lifetime to understand the scriptures! His training has so confused him that some of the plainest declarations of God's universal mercy and grace make no sense to them and have to be regarded as "mysteries" relegated to the theological experts to sort out.
de> Confused. Do I sound confused?
de> Really!?!?!? I imagine the Doctor Angelicus is chuckling about that!
He was the first to teach a number of distinctly Roman Catholic doctrines that are rejected by Reformed people, yet they canonize his novel ideas about sovereignty and election as if he could never be wrong, and speak as if he (and those who adopted his views) stands as the pillar of primitive apostolic theology.
de> Not primitive; systematic. Putting it all together.
It is also astonishing that, whereas Luther never claimed that the whole church had taught his controversial doctrines for the previous thousand years, this particular guest (and many Calvinists like him) claims that Calvinism was taught by the people of God consistently for 4000 years! This period would presumably begin with Abraham. Yet, I am not aware of any existence of Calvinist doctrines among the people of God prior to about 400 AD (except among some of the heretical groups refuted by the early fathers).
de> I did not know that you were puzzled about this. Here's the clue - there is nothing "distinctively Calvinist" about Calvinism. It is simply distinctively the theology of the people of God. There is absolute harmony between the teachings of Calvin and the full history of the church, with the exception of Arminius, Pelagius, and the corrupt Popes of the middle ages. Arminius and Pelagius were both condemned by the church, and Protestantism split from the RCC at the Reformation. This outbreak of Arminianism in the las 150 years is a momentary abberation, like modern Dispensationalism.
Even much of the centuries after Augustine, these doctrines were not always the dominant views of the established church (Roman Catholic). Our friend Ken, who has written much on this forum about the Eastern Church, has pointed out that his church has been around since apostolic times, and they never embraced Augustinian or Calvinist doctrines.
de>> Yes,they split over the procession of the Trinity and the primacy of the Patriarch of Rome long before the Reformation.
Therefore, those who reject Calvinism stand only against a relatively recent and narrow stream of Christian thinkers throughout history, and yet, when Calvinists cannot support their positions with anything like responsibly biblical exegesis, they resort to equally fallacious reconstructions of the history of doctrine. How valid can a viewpoint be that depends entirely upon such thoroughgoing misrepresentation?
de> Charming!
By the way, this guest suggests that it is arrogant to think that in your one, short lifetime, you can study and gain adequate understanding of what the Bible teaches.
de> Yeah. Settle for an adequate understanding of God. And would like an adequate marriage with that? Maybe some adequate joy and adequate love?
Strange. Is the Bible so obscure, that, though a dedicated reader could conceivably read through the entire book several times a year, yet in seventy such years, he could never hope to understand it?
de> ok, after you have read the bible through several times seventy times, let me know...
How many lifetimes did the original readers of Paul's epistles have available to them to figure out what he meant? Did not Augustine arrive at his spanking-new understanding of theology in a single lifetime? Why can't anyone else hope to do so? How many lifetimes does a man have to spend in a Calvinist seminary to learn the Calvinist view of scripture?
de> Yes, God is precisely that rich a subject for study. How many men would it take, studying God for how many years, to fully understand - not Him - but merely His revelation? More than the grains of sand in the ocean.
The sentiment expressed by this guest seems to assume that God is very difficult to know, and none but the accumulated theories of wise theologians can be trusted to disclose this mysterious being. By contrast, Jesus said, "I thank you, Father...that you have hidden these things from the wise and the prudent, and has revealed them unto babes!" (Matt.11:25). The simplest Christian reader can have the truth of God revealed to him in the scriptures, while the wise and prudent theologians, devoting themselves to the writings of previous wise and prudent theologians may be "ever learning, but never coming to the knowledge of the truth."
de> So, the less study, the better? The less you know about God, the wiser you really are?
It may be possible to spend an entire lifetime (or even endless ages) learning more and more about the unsearchable riches of Christ, but this does not mean that the heart and ways of God cannot be quickly discerned by an unbiased reader of the scriptures. "Let not the wise man glory in his wisdom...but let him who glories glory in this, that he understands and knows me, that I am the Lord exercising lovingkindness, judgment and righteousness in the earth. For in these I delight, says the Lord" (Jer.9:23-24).
de> "Understands and knows Me." Hmmm. Who knows God better, the scholor or the casual reader?
I can see why an indoctrinated Calvinist may think it takes more than a lifetime to understand the scriptures! His training has so confused him that some of the plainest declarations of God's universal mercy and grace make no sense to them and have to be regarded as "mysteries" relegated to the theological experts to sort out.
de> Confused
. Do I sound confused?
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
-
_Anonymous
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2008 10:03 pm
>>de> Ok, so let me get this straight; you believe that men were not changed in any way by the fall?????
>>de> Do you think that you & I bear any guilt for the actions of Adam?
Well, Adam was called good, then he sinned even though he was made by God with the ability to sin he was called good. It was not until Adam disobeyed God that God pronounced the curse. Since we are born of Adam we all sin.
I don't bear Adam's sin. I am judged for my own sin. I can't remember the verse that states this.
DE> There's a reason for that.
DE> Let's think about this idea for a minute. What is your definition of sin? Does it have something to do with choosing to do something that you know is wrong? Are you aware of the billions of people who died before having the ability to make moral decisions? Did they all go to heaven or hell? If they all went to hell, isn't that a bit unfair to them, since they didn't sin (hint - a Calvinist can answer this one? If they went to heaven, how did they get there? Since they didn't sin, then they didn't need a Savior. So most of the people in heaven got there without needing Jesus' help.
DE> The only way to unravel this one is the historic understanding of original sin. Adam represented us in his sin. We were judged guilty because he was our perfect representative, just a Jesus was. Both the first and second Adam did something that affects us by proxy - they both becoime our representative. I'll tell you more aout it if you are interested.
de> This whole "works of the Law' thing is a red herring. What is the first & greatest commandment? "Love God." Is that a work? No. It is required by the Law? Yes. Paul's point in Rom 8 is that unbelievers are unable to submit to God's Law. He says nothing there about "works." Are unbelievers able to love God? No - else they would be believers. Anyone who thinks that a person can love God without being a believer is fundamentally confused.
Again, Romans 4 says that Abraham believed God. He didn't work and it doesn't say he loved Him or fulfilled the law. It says believe. Can I believe someone without loving them? Love can certainly spring out of belief after being born again. It's a fine line.
DE> It is impossible to have faith in God without loving Him, and vice versa. That is the difference between Christians and demons; both believe in the existence of God, but demons have no love for Him. "Faith/belief" includes believing in the existence of God, believing what He says, and trusting Him. Therefore, the "works" think is still a red herring. The point is obedience. Believing in God is obedience to God's commandment. Disbelief is contrary to God's commandment.
de> So where did the man's faith come from? Let's look at Rom 9. Paul contrasts Jacob & Esau, & shows His sovereign choice as the only determiner of destiny. God chose Jacob over Esau before they were born. God hardened Pharaoh's heart. God tells Moses that He shows mercy to who He chooses, and to cries of "Unfair!" says I AM - deal with it. God has prepared some to be objects of His wrath. And He justifies those who do not seek righteousness. How can that be if a man can have faith himself? Wouldn't his faith i God make him a persuer of righteousness? Certainly!
What Paul is pointing out is not individual election to salvation. He is speaking about Isreal (Jacob) being His chosen people and Edom (Esau) are not. Look up the quote Paul used and see. Otherwise, if it was about election to salvation then all of Jacobs descendants were saved and all Esau's were lost. Furthurmore it says "the older will serve the younger". Did this literally happen between the two people Jacob and Esau?
DE> Yes!!!! That is the point of an analogy; that both halves are true. Had the part about the actual people been false, the whole analogy would have been false. Both statements - about the individuals and about the nations - are true. God sovereignly chose both the person Jacob and the nation Israel.
What do you make of this:
2Tim 2:20 But in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and silver, but also of wood and clay, some for honor and some for dishonor. 21 Therefore if anyone cleanses himself from the latter, he will be a vessel for honor, sanctified and useful for the Master, prepared for every good work.
DE> As Paul is admonishing Timothy, he lists many qualities and behaviors that will keep Timothy from becoming ineffective and unproductive (2 Pet 1). Unproductive vessels in God's house will still serve Him, if only as chanber pots. But Paul charges Timothy to refine Himself, to strive to become a pot worthy of more noble use.
Rom 11:32 For God has committed them all to disobedience, that He might have mercy on all.
So who does God have mercy on? All?
The ones God has "prepared for wrath" are those who have not "cleansed himself". Someone can move from dishonor to a vessel for honor. It's not fatalistically determined.
DE> You can try to combine these two verses, but the contexts are different. That is the beauty of Systematic theology - you pay attention to such things. In Timothy, Christians are in view. In this part of Romans, Paul is speaking of the effect of the coming of the Messiah on Israel. You are familiar with the remnant? Whenever Israel went apostate, God chose a remnant that He would kep faithful to Himself.
DE> Now, the Apostles had to offer each blessing of the gospel first to the Jews, and then the Gentiles. Of course, most Jews rejected the Messiah, because they were not true Israelites. And remember that the Jews considered themselves the Owed people, not the Chosed people, so they got really angry whenever it looked like God was moving among any Gentile pigs.
DE> So Paul hopes that his ministry to the Gentiles will excite more of his people to belief. In this way. more mercy is offered to all Israel.
DE> LEt me know if that is unclear.
Many are called but few are chosen. (Matt 22:1-14) How is that possible if Grace is irresitable? Not all who have faith mature to bear fruit, and those who are saved and in Christ that do not continue to bear fruit are cut off. (John 15:2-6)
DE> Nature itself proclaims God's divine nature, and those who refuse that call are guilty. This is one call. The scriptures contain another call - the gospel. But only the call of the HS can change a man's heart. All men are called by nature. Many men are called by the gospel, but only those whom the HS calls are the chosen.
de> The only possible conclusion is that God gives saving faith to the elect, and withholds it from the reprobate.
Sure, but what makes someone "elect" and another "reprobate"?
DE> Exactly - you say that a man is capable, without any grace from God, of accepting God's call - of exercising saving faith. I say that it is impossible for a man to be saved apart from the grace of God. It is impossible for a man to believe in God without God's grace.
de> Rom 11:1
You stopped to soon. Keep reading
Romans 11:17 And if some of the branches were broken off, and you, being a wild olive tree, were grafted in among them, and with them became a partaker of the root and fatness of the olive tree, 18 do not boast against the branches. But if you do boast, remember that you do not support the root, but the root supports you.
19 You will say then, "Branches were broken off that I might be grafted in." 20 Well said. Because of unbelief they were broken off, and you stand by faith. Do not be haughty, but fear. 21 For if God did not spare the natural branches, He may not spare you either. 22 Therefore consider the goodness and severity of God: on those who fell, severity; but toward you, goodness, if you continue in His goodness. Otherwise you also will be cut off. 23 And they also, if they do not continue in unbelief, will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again.
You see, Paul is not a calvinist. He said "fear". But what do we have to fear if we are the elect with unconditional security? Paul says fear, stand by faith or be cut off. No mention of God doing the fearing, believing or having faith for man. This is conditional "if you continue" (v22).
DE> So what exactly is it that Paul is warning us to fear? Losing our salvation? Jesus said that noone could snatch us out of His hand. Paul says that faith is a gift from God. What exactly do you fear, and how would what you fear come to pass?
de> Now salvation seems to go to those who believe, and we agree that it is our duty to believe. But (Rom6:23 For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.) it appears that saving faith is a gift from God. And a gift does not come in response to having earned the gift. So God's gift of salvation cannot come as payment for our deciding to have faith in God. So we must not be responsible for our faith. That is because saving faith is a gift from God.
Again, it's not "earned" by faith (believing). You keep saying that if we act as Abraham did in Romans 4 we would be earning salvation. This is non-Biblical, but it is calvinist.
DE> Faith is a gift from God. Exactly what are you called on to do that is not smething that God gives you? Are you called on to come up with your own faith? DO you have to decide something or have some faith that God does not give you? How is it that you are able to have faith in God, and someone else is not?
As far as your Rom 6:23 comment. It says eternal life is in Christ. I agree with that. It's not in us, but Christ. As long as we remain in Him (John 15:2-6). So as long as we are in the body (of Christ) we have eternal life in Christ. Grace being a gift in no way means that it does not need to be recieved. That's how Grace can bring salvation to all men (Titus 2:11) but not all men are saved. Many reject it.
DE> What about God's gifts and His call being irrevocable? How are you able to receive God's grace and the next person not able to receive God's grace? Are you just a better person? Did you just make better choices? Are you just more Godly? If you are in some way better than the unsaved person, then you have earned your salvation in some way, and therefore you have something about which to boast. You have, in fact, done something that makes you more worthy of salvation than the next man.
>>de> Do you think that you & I bear any guilt for the actions of Adam?
Well, Adam was called good, then he sinned even though he was made by God with the ability to sin he was called good. It was not until Adam disobeyed God that God pronounced the curse. Since we are born of Adam we all sin.
I don't bear Adam's sin. I am judged for my own sin. I can't remember the verse that states this.
DE> There's a reason for that
.DE> Let's think about this idea for a minute. What is your definition of sin? Does it have something to do with choosing to do something that you know is wrong? Are you aware of the billions of people who died before having the ability to make moral decisions? Did they all go to heaven or hell? If they all went to hell, isn't that a bit unfair to them, since they didn't sin (hint - a Calvinist can answer this one
? If they went to heaven, how did they get there? Since they didn't sin, then they didn't need a Savior. So most of the people in heaven got there without needing Jesus' help.DE> The only way to unravel this one is the historic understanding of original sin. Adam represented us in his sin. We were judged guilty because he was our perfect representative, just a Jesus was. Both the first and second Adam did something that affects us by proxy - they both becoime our representative. I'll tell you more aout it if you are interested.
de> This whole "works of the Law' thing is a red herring. What is the first & greatest commandment? "Love God." Is that a work? No. It is required by the Law? Yes. Paul's point in Rom 8 is that unbelievers are unable to submit to God's Law. He says nothing there about "works." Are unbelievers able to love God? No - else they would be believers. Anyone who thinks that a person can love God without being a believer is fundamentally confused.
Again, Romans 4 says that Abraham believed God. He didn't work and it doesn't say he loved Him or fulfilled the law. It says believe. Can I believe someone without loving them? Love can certainly spring out of belief after being born again. It's a fine line.
DE> It is impossible to have faith in God without loving Him, and vice versa. That is the difference between Christians and demons; both believe in the existence of God, but demons have no love for Him. "Faith/belief" includes believing in the existence of God, believing what He says, and trusting Him. Therefore, the "works" think is still a red herring. The point is obedience. Believing in God is obedience to God's commandment. Disbelief is contrary to God's commandment.
de> So where did the man's faith come from? Let's look at Rom 9. Paul contrasts Jacob & Esau, & shows His sovereign choice as the only determiner of destiny. God chose Jacob over Esau before they were born. God hardened Pharaoh's heart. God tells Moses that He shows mercy to who He chooses, and to cries of "Unfair!" says I AM - deal with it. God has prepared some to be objects of His wrath. And He justifies those who do not seek righteousness. How can that be if a man can have faith himself? Wouldn't his faith i God make him a persuer of righteousness? Certainly!
What Paul is pointing out is not individual election to salvation. He is speaking about Isreal (Jacob) being His chosen people and Edom (Esau) are not. Look up the quote Paul used and see. Otherwise, if it was about election to salvation then all of Jacobs descendants were saved and all Esau's were lost. Furthurmore it says "the older will serve the younger". Did this literally happen between the two people Jacob and Esau?
DE> Yes!!!! That is the point of an analogy; that both halves are true. Had the part about the actual people been false, the whole analogy would have been false. Both statements - about the individuals and about the nations - are true. God sovereignly chose both the person Jacob and the nation Israel.
What do you make of this:
2Tim 2:20 But in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and silver, but also of wood and clay, some for honor and some for dishonor. 21 Therefore if anyone cleanses himself from the latter, he will be a vessel for honor, sanctified and useful for the Master, prepared for every good work.
DE> As Paul is admonishing Timothy, he lists many qualities and behaviors that will keep Timothy from becoming ineffective and unproductive (2 Pet 1). Unproductive vessels in God's house will still serve Him, if only as chanber pots. But Paul charges Timothy to refine Himself, to strive to become a pot worthy of more noble use.
Rom 11:32 For God has committed them all to disobedience, that He might have mercy on all.
So who does God have mercy on? All?
The ones God has "prepared for wrath" are those who have not "cleansed himself". Someone can move from dishonor to a vessel for honor. It's not fatalistically determined.
DE> You can try to combine these two verses, but the contexts are different. That is the beauty of Systematic theology - you pay attention to such things. In Timothy, Christians are in view. In this part of Romans, Paul is speaking of the effect of the coming of the Messiah on Israel. You are familiar with the remnant? Whenever Israel went apostate, God chose a remnant that He would kep faithful to Himself.
DE> Now, the Apostles had to offer each blessing of the gospel first to the Jews, and then the Gentiles. Of course, most Jews rejected the Messiah, because they were not true Israelites. And remember that the Jews considered themselves the Owed people, not the Chosed people, so they got really angry whenever it looked like God was moving among any Gentile pigs.
DE> So Paul hopes that his ministry to the Gentiles will excite more of his people to belief. In this way. more mercy is offered to all Israel.
DE> LEt me know if that is unclear.
Many are called but few are chosen. (Matt 22:1-14) How is that possible if Grace is irresitable? Not all who have faith mature to bear fruit, and those who are saved and in Christ that do not continue to bear fruit are cut off. (John 15:2-6)
DE> Nature itself proclaims God's divine nature, and those who refuse that call are guilty. This is one call. The scriptures contain another call - the gospel. But only the call of the HS can change a man's heart. All men are called by nature. Many men are called by the gospel, but only those whom the HS calls are the chosen.
de> The only possible conclusion is that God gives saving faith to the elect, and withholds it from the reprobate.
Sure, but what makes someone "elect" and another "reprobate"?
DE> Exactly - you say that a man is capable, without any grace from God, of accepting God's call - of exercising saving faith. I say that it is impossible for a man to be saved apart from the grace of God. It is impossible for a man to believe in God without God's grace.
de> Rom 11:1
You stopped to soon. Keep reading
Romans 11:17 And if some of the branches were broken off, and you, being a wild olive tree, were grafted in among them, and with them became a partaker of the root and fatness of the olive tree, 18 do not boast against the branches. But if you do boast, remember that you do not support the root, but the root supports you.
19 You will say then, "Branches were broken off that I might be grafted in." 20 Well said. Because of unbelief they were broken off, and you stand by faith. Do not be haughty, but fear. 21 For if God did not spare the natural branches, He may not spare you either. 22 Therefore consider the goodness and severity of God: on those who fell, severity; but toward you, goodness, if you continue in His goodness. Otherwise you also will be cut off. 23 And they also, if they do not continue in unbelief, will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again.
You see, Paul is not a calvinist. He said "fear". But what do we have to fear if we are the elect with unconditional security? Paul says fear, stand by faith or be cut off. No mention of God doing the fearing, believing or having faith for man. This is conditional "if you continue" (v22).
DE> So what exactly is it that Paul is warning us to fear? Losing our salvation? Jesus said that noone could snatch us out of His hand. Paul says that faith is a gift from God. What exactly do you fear, and how would what you fear come to pass?
de> Now salvation seems to go to those who believe, and we agree that it is our duty to believe. But (Rom6:23 For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.) it appears that saving faith is a gift from God. And a gift does not come in response to having earned the gift. So God's gift of salvation cannot come as payment for our deciding to have faith in God. So we must not be responsible for our faith. That is because saving faith is a gift from God.
Again, it's not "earned" by faith (believing). You keep saying that if we act as Abraham did in Romans 4 we would be earning salvation. This is non-Biblical, but it is calvinist.
DE> Faith is a gift from God. Exactly what are you called on to do that is not smething that God gives you? Are you called on to come up with your own faith? DO you have to decide something or have some faith that God does not give you? How is it that you are able to have faith in God, and someone else is not?
As far as your Rom 6:23 comment. It says eternal life is in Christ. I agree with that. It's not in us, but Christ. As long as we remain in Him (John 15:2-6). So as long as we are in the body (of Christ) we have eternal life in Christ. Grace being a gift in no way means that it does not need to be recieved. That's how Grace can bring salvation to all men (Titus 2:11) but not all men are saved. Many reject it.
DE> What about God's gifts and His call being irrevocable? How are you able to receive God's grace and the next person not able to receive God's grace? Are you just a better person? Did you just make better choices? Are you just more Godly? If you are in some way better than the unsaved person, then you have earned your salvation in some way, and therefore you have something about which to boast. You have, in fact, done something that makes you more worthy of salvation than the next man.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason: