Does the doctrine of election reduce God to a grand puppeteer instead of the loving Father and benevolent King He truly is? Or, was John Calvin really on to something? If Calvin was right, why bother evangelizing?

Views: 116

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Goodness gracious, let me help you out Preacher.

1. Where was Timothy when Paul wrote this message?

2. What was the physical makeup of the church at that time in history?

3. Why was it important to note that women should not have gold plated in 

    thier hair?

4. Why was it so important to not allow women to speak in church?

When you can answer these questions, you will understand what Paul meant when he penned this chapter.

Pastor Sweet, your condescension is unbecoming a man of your office. Contrary to your belief, we are not all ignorant hicks here. 

 

There is no paradox here. Man has free will, given by God. Genesis 1:26-28 clearly state that man was given dominion in the earth. This is why the authority man ceded in Genesis 3 could only be restored through the God-man, Jesus Christ.

 

Are you so bold as to suggest that sin was a tool to serve the will of God? If that is the case, how do we preach against something that is the will of God.

 

And are we to believe that God circumscribes the will of God? That free will is limited by God? That isn't free will at all. You can't have it both ways, either man has free will or he doesn't!

 

The Bible is full of explanations of the responsibility of man to choose God. God is not a puppeteer, He is a loving Father who desires a whole relationship with His children.

 

And, as for that pesky issue of predestination, here is what the Holy Spirit had to say through the Apostle Peter:

 

2 Peter 3:9

The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

 

It would seem, via simple explication, that it is God's will that all should hear his Word and have the opportunity to choose repentance! 

 

Finally, if the Calvinist position were watertight, there would be no need to preach the Gospel because all who were predestined for salvation would simply heed the call of God, whereas those predestined for perdition are going to hell anyhow...

 

 

Brother Anthony are you talking to me?
Yes we were conversing were we not?

Okay you changed subjects on me and I was not sure. For me I want to stay focus on the one topic at a time.

But to answer your question: For me it is not a question of can a woman preach, because they can! For me it is better to ask should they be preaching.

The answer to that question I find is no! If you say look at the culture of the early church (it is modeled after the Jewish culture were men are the ones in leadership “the elders.”) It is not something that fits into this discussion at this time. I have written three blog on the subject from Womanist Theology to role of women in pastoral ministry.

Please read and we can discuss them later.

Brother Day

You cited the very verse that proves the Calvinist point.

2 Peter 3:9 looks as if it teaches that God is a Universalist. “I hope that we all agree that universalism is not true. The context of the pericope is the second advent of our Lord and we know this because of the Old Testament phrase “Day of the Lord” found 21 times in the OT (Isaiah through Malachi).

I understand that you see the world “all” and think that it means everyone on the earth. That is not true to the text. Here the word all in the context of the pericope means all the saved. What you say. Let look at the total context.

1. This is now, beloved the second letter ……stirring up your sincere mind by way of reminder, 2 that you should remember the words spoken beforehand…..as well as in verse 8 Peter calls them beloved…then there is verse 9 The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance.

Notice the word “you” before “all” this is a reference to the same group of people (the elected) these are already saved.

I think that at this point it is clear to me that the other view that has gone nameless in our discussion to this point namely Arminianism underscores man’s free will to the exclusion of the sovereignty of God.

RSS

© 2021   Created by Raliegh Jones Jr..   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service