It's like the rapture with dispensationalism. Unbiblical scenarios have to be invented to make the errant theology work.
Understanding unconditional election
- Thread starter Jordon
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
It's like the rapture with dispensationalism. Unbiblical scenarios have to be invented to make the errant theology work.
Much more so than the other radio preachers, like Greg Laury, Michael Brown, the one who always said "watch this" before making a point, etc
There is no bondage of the will, as deformed theology teaches. Romans 7 makes that clear.More very insightful scripture of where true reformed faith came from, for those who will have time to listen this one I highly recommend
Also there doesn't seem to be any Calvinists mentioned here
Rom 7:15
For that which I do I allow not: for what I would (what I am willing), that do I not; but what I hate, that do I.
Rom 7:16
If then I do that which I would not (which am unwilling to do), I consent unto the law that it is good.
Rom 7:17
Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
Rom 7:18
For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.
Rom 7:19
For the good that I would (that I am willing) I do not: but the evil which I would not (am not willing), that I do.
Rom 7:20
Now if I do that I would not, (what I am unwilling to do) it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
Rom 7:21
I find then a law, that, when I would do good (when I am willing to do good), evil is present with me.
Rom 7:22
For I delight in the law of God after the inward man:
Rom 7:23
But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members
Paul clearly says that he is able to will to do good. But his body , his flesh, is bound, preventing him from doing what he freely wills.
I knew you would see the light eventually, lol
At the time I liked Sproul I didn"t know what Calvinism was, and it's impossible while driving to really focus on what is being said like you can with videos where you can pause, think, rewind, play again and realize what is really being said.
btw I appreciate the heads-up
There is no bondage in human will what ?
Every verse you quote is about inner turmoil.
Honestly I think I'll just paint a sign on my saying I'm perfect, you would probably tell me the truth then
ignorance is bliss I guess, it always was the way to give it a heads up for those wanting to rule there way. Hence one of the reasons why Augustine was against Catholic teaching, one big reason being holding the popes authority above all authority.At the time I liked Sproul I didn"t know what Calvinism was, and it's impossible while driving to really focus on what is being said like you can with videos where you can pause, think, rewind, play again and realize what is really being said.
btw I appreciate the heads-up
Yep that's bondage of the will alright.
But hey it doesn't matter that Augustine battled so hard against them, and it shouldn't matter that there will be loads of false critique about him, well to be honest it will not matter to those being a people pleaser, that's what a lot of Catholics do they look to please the pope.
It's also why many people follow the crowd when it comes to Calvin bashing.
This thread was about saint Augustine and the origin of the doctrine, along with trying to understand.
Now it's turned into another Calvin bashing.
No suprise there.
Sproul presents a false dichotomy between those who choose God and those who don't by saying that some choose God because they are righteous, and others don't choose God because they are unrighteous.
This false framing creates a straw man that is easy to knock down because the bible says none are righteous, which is true.
Why it's fallacious reasoning is because there is a 3rd option. People freely seek and choose God of their own free will because they hunger and thirst for righteousness. This implies 2 things: 1) God is teaching and leading people to belief in Christ, ie, righteousness, which scripture clearly states in John 6:45, and 2) those who hunger and thirst for righteousness are acknowledging by their own desire that they are not righteous.
This false framing creates a straw man that is easy to knock down because the bible says none are righteous, which is true.
Why it's fallacious reasoning is because there is a 3rd option. People freely seek and choose God of their own free will because they hunger and thirst for righteousness. This implies 2 things: 1) God is teaching and leading people to belief in Christ, ie, righteousness, which scripture clearly states in John 6:45, and 2) those who hunger and thirst for righteousness are acknowledging by their own desire that they are not righteous.
still no critique to fact he was arguing against the false critique of harass-moss.
Harras-moss was arguing it didn't matter if we should want to know whether our will should matter in wanting to know whether our will has anything to do with obtaining salvation, so harras-moss being a follower of the pope was saying you can't preach what the pope doesn't want people to hear
Where as Augustine was against that idea.
But hey carry on with supporting the critique of Augustine.
totally a false representation, rc sproul teaches in many sermons absolutely anybody who trust in his will, will be saved. And that means absolutely anybody. And unless I'm mistaken which I don't think I am that is not a hard core calvinist
Again carry on to ignore this and all you will be doing is covering up your reason for your impulsive reason to try to gain confidence in heishere which you've done out of nothing more than listening to the persuasion of the skeptical crowd.
yes it does, and you have not addressed anything I've suggested since you chose the road you did,. I'm sorry but people with a conservative Judgement do not just will nilly at blink of eye suddenly just decide to dislike a person whom they like.
That's not good. Even more not good when you've been giving good reason to to see what your saying is inaccurate.
The answer I've given you, gives more good reason to like a person than your reason to have him disliked.
You've chosen your path. My answer Gave good suggestion for a better one of seeing the good person you once saw , only in your continuation of your impulsiveness, you obviously don't see that as valid, right now.
I see now what he's teaching that I didn't have the sense to know when I liked listening to him on the car radio; which really isn't saying much considering the others I had to listen to; which was only done out of trying to relieve the boredom of driving without having to listen to pop music. I would never have listened to any of them otherwise.
.well you really should think about your saying here.
You liked a person once you heard on the radio, why was that ?
Well normally when you listen to a person in the radio in the the car, it's in private, you hear there heart and they speak to your heart. it s sound like you listened to him more than once to.
Guess what you like them. But more so coz you understand what there saying about God appeals to your heart
Then some villain comes along tells you he's hard core Calvinist.
So you decide in a blink of eye your going to let that though steal the good bond you once had with him ?
Seriously, but you need a reality check, he never hardly talks about John Calvin. It's always saint Augustine
Inner turmoil does not prove bondage of the will. If a mother is struggling to decide between spending money on medicine for herself or food for her children, is that a sign of a bound will?
Rom 7:18
For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will (θέλειν: present continuous infinitive, therefore, to keep on willing) is present with me; but how to perform (κατεργάζεσθαι: present continuous infinitive, therefore, how to keep on performing) that which is good I find not.7:18
οἶδα γὰρ ὅτι οὐκ οἰκεῖ ἐν ἐμοί τοῦτ᾽ ἔστιν ἐν τῇ σαρκί μου ἀγαθόν· τὸ γὰρ θέλειν παράκειταί μοι τὸ δὲ κατεργάζεσθαι τὸ καλὸν οὐχ εὑρίσκω
Paul is not saying he has never been able to do any good, but that he has not been able to keep on doing the good he was willing to do, hence he has fallen into transgressing the law and condemnation.
So, firstly, his will is not bound because he is able to will to obey God's law. And secondly, even if we take your definition of a bound will as being prevented from doing what one wills, Paul was not prevented from doing all the good he willed, but only some of it.
If a donkey is tethered to a post so that it can do its will of eating what is within its reach, but cannot do its will to eat what is beyond its reach, its will is not bound. Its body is bound. Its will is free to keep on willing to eat grass in the next field. It just can't reach that field.
Your definition of a bound will is logically incoherent.
maybe you should tell what inner turmoil of the will does mean then, again not my human reasoning but by biblical reasoning.
Like no one does good not one
You can't read Greek, obviously.
Rom 3:12
They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.
πάντες ἐξέκλιναν ἅμα ἠχρεώθησαν οὐκ ἔστιν ποιῶν χρηστότητα οὐκ ἔστιν ἕως ἑνός
3:12 πάντες (all) ἐξέκλιναν (aorist active indicative, went astray/go astray) ἅμα (together) ἠχρειώθησαν· (aorist passive indicative, became/become unprofitable) οὐκ (not) ἔστιν (is) ποιῶν (present active participle, a person keeping on doing) χρηστότητα (good) οὐκ (not) ἔστιν (is) ἕως (even) ἑνός (one).
The verse is pointing out that there is no one keeps on doing good continuously. It is not denying that any one ever does any good.
14:3 הַכֹּל סָר יַחְדָּו נֶאֱלָחוּ אֵין עֹשֵׂה־טוֹב אֵין גַּם־אֶחָד׃
They all went aside (Qal perfective), they together became filthy (Niphal perfective). There is none doing (Qal participle m.s.c.) good; no, not one.
The LXX translates this Hebrew the same as the NT Greek.
LXX 14:3 πάντες ἐξέκλιναν ἅμα ἠχρεώθησαν οὐκ ἔστιν ποιῶν χρηστότητα οὐκ ἔστιν ἕως ἑνός
well I dont ignore it and neither does rc sproul and i do understand some of it. But no one does good ultimately means God writes his moral law on unsaved hearts and then he decides who will be saved
But RC Sproul makes a good point of why greek can't always be used to work things out, from 10 minutes 15 second into this video for just a few minutes from that point on, he explains why greek can't always be used, if you can be bothered to acknowledge the reason.
I'm sure he would of studied the greek before producing this sermon and the one at the beginning of this thread, and then made his sermon with all conviction he was giving the best knowledge he could, maybe you should listen to it
From 10 mins 15 secs into the video
Well, we disagree on that point. But it wasn't till I came to this site that I realized what Calvinists really believe. Or the hardcore of them anyway.
well I dont ignore it and neither does rc sproul and i do understand some of it. But no one does good ultimately means God writes his moral law on unsaved hearts and then he decides who will be saved
But RC Sproul makes a good point of why greek can't always be used to work things out, from 10 minutes 15 second into this video for just a few minutes from that point on, he explains why greek can't always be used, if you can be bothered to acknowledge the reason.
I'm sure he would of studied the greek before producing this sermon and the one at the beginning of this thread, and then made his sermon with all conviction he was giving the best knowledge he could, maybe you should listen to it
From 10 mins 15 secs into the video
There are just too many verses to make limited atonement work.
Google gives " Calvinist doctrine stating that Jesus' sacrifice on the cross was intended to redeem only the elect (those chosen for salvation), not all humanity, making salvation certain for the chosen but not universally available. While the value of Christ's death is seen as sufficient for everyone, its efficacy (actual saving power) is limited to the specific people God chose from eternity to save, meaning it was "all the way for some," not "part of the way for all".