(JuDaS): I am currently reading the Book of Mormon.
(JuDaS): And I am wondering.
* AOMin takes interest
(JuDaS): Why do we reject other doctrines, other than the fact they are false.
(@bluelunch): I would think that would be a good enough reason in itself.
(@AOMin): how can there be a better reason?
(Tur8inFan): Judas: doctrines need warrant
(JuDaS): I am not saying that it is the best reason.
(@AOMin): or even another one?
(Tur8inFan): Doctrines not derived from Scripture lack warrant
(doulos): Do you knowingly accept a falsity?
(Tur8inFan): Therefore we reject those doctrines
(JuDaS): The same way atheists do.
(@AOMin): well, you do understand the issue of truth, correct?
(JuDaS): Do atheists not reject God?
(@AOMin): not in truth, no
(JuDaS): But they know he exists?
(@AOMin): they do so according to Romans 1
(JuDaS): Yes.
(@AOMin): suppressing the knowledge of God
(JuDaS): So, they do know that God exists.
(JuDaS): That is a fact.
(@AOMin): according to Romans 1, yes
(JuDaS): But, believe in a falsity.
(yoopertrol): when I was a roman catholic all I knew was what the church told me, when I started reading the bible they lost their authority
(@AOMin): if I understand you, yes
(JuDaS): That is how you knowingly accept a falsity, AOMin.
(@AOMin): ok
(JuDaS): Back to the initial question.
(JuDaS): Is there another reason why we reject the fallacies other than the fact they are not true?
(doulos): regeneration Judas….
(JuDaS): Regeneration…?
(@AOMin): are you suggesting that there are legitimate times to simply destroy the persons belief rather than witness God’s truth to them?
(@AOMin): I mean, I could do that
(@AOMin): I can come into a convo with a Mormon and just tear JS up one side and down the other
(JuDaS): Hmm, I wasn’t thinking about that.
(JuDaS): But, that makes sense.
(@AOMin): leaving them helpless and hopeless
(doulos): Being born again leads us to truth and gives us spiritual discernment.
(RazorsKiss): always be ready to give a defense….
(JuDaS): Well let me put it this way.
(@AOMin): but what does that achieve?
(RazorsKiss): FOR the hope that is within us
(RazorsKiss): IN gentleness, and reverence.
(GraceAlone): Hey guys, any veteran calvinists here?
(JuDaS): Is there another reason you reject false doctrine IE: Book of Mormon, Quran, NWT other than the fact it is not true?
(RazorsKiss): because of what IS true!
(GraceAlone): Hey
(@AOMin): well, since truth is the core of the Christian faith……I don’t see any other legitimate way
(JuDaS): Yes, that’s what I was aiming for.
(RazorsKiss): ~nas 2cor 10:3-5
(@Gutenberg^): 2 Cor. 10:3 For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war according to the flesh, (NASB)
(@Gutenberg^): 2 Cor. 10:4 for the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh, but divinely powerful for the destruction of fortresses. (NASB)
(@Gutenberg^): 2 Cor. 10:5 [We are destroying speculations and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God, and [we are taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ, (NASB)
(@bluelunch): GraceAlone: what do you mean by ‘veteran Calvinist’?
(@bluelunch): many here have believed in the doctrines of grace for quite some time.
(RazorsKiss): look at the contrast in verse 5.
(JuDaS): Perhaps we don’t reject the Book of Mormon because its false teachings alone.
(JuDaS): But because of its credibility.
(RazorsKiss): destroy speculations and every lofty thing – raised up against what?
(JuDaS): Or, lack of credibility.
(GraceAlone): I just have some genuine questions for those that are somewhat advanced in theier reformed study
(RazorsKiss): the (true) knowledge of God, and taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ
(@bluewoad): GraceAlone: fire away. If anyone can answer, he will.
(JuDaS): You are correct.
(RazorsKiss): as Bahnsen says – press the antithesis
(GraceAlone): Is there anything that happened that was NOT ordained by God?
(RazorsKiss): you have to push their falsity – but with what? The truth in opposition to it.
(@bluewoad): GraceAlone: nope
(RazorsKiss): You don’t push a negative deconstruction of their argument alone – you push the juxtaposition of the false and the true
(JuDaS): GraceAlone: I believe so, after the reformation, the Bible is no longer a closed text, thus making cults.
(JuDaS): Whilist I am not saying that the Bible should be a closed text.
(GraceAlone): I think the obvious theological answer is no, however, then how can sin and immorality be explained?
(JuDaS): There needs to be equilibrium.
(RazorsKiss): BY showing the true as the only alternative to all of the falsities that exist.
(GraceAlone): You’d have to jump into fatalism and double predestination or supralapsarianism if you say No…
(GraceAlone): If yes, then wouldn’t that destroy the full purpose of God’s FULL sovereignty?
(JuDaS): I am not saying yes/no.
(RazorsKiss): GraceAlone: While God did ordain all events, Romans 9 gives the answer as to why evil exists, and what purpose it has.
(RazorsKiss): ~nas rom 9:14-16
(@Gutenberg^): Romans 9:14 What shall we say then? There is no injustice with God, is there? May it never be! (NASB)
(@Gutenberg^): Romans 9:15 For He says to Moses, “I WILL HAVE MERCY ON WHOM I HAVE MERCY, AND I WILL HAVE COMPASSION ON WHOM I HAVE COMPASSION.” (NASB)
(@Gutenberg^): Romans 9:16 So then it [does not [depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy. (NASB)
(RazorsKiss): ~nas rom 9:17-19
(@Gutenberg^): Romans 9:17For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “FOR THIS VERY PURPOSE I RAISED YOU UP, TO DEMONSTRATE MY POWER IN YOU, AND THAT MY NAME MIGHT BE PROCLAIMED THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE EARTH.” (NASB)
(@Gutenberg^): Romans 9:18 So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires. (NASB)
(JuDaS): There was benefits and… Misfortunes.
(@Gutenberg^): Romans 9:19 You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?” (NASB)
(GraceAlone): So is it double predestination, or single predestination?
(JuDaS): In the reformation.
(RazorsKiss): God ordains all. Period.
(RazorsKiss): However, some are ordained for differing *purposes*.
(RazorsKiss): Some for dishonor, and some for honor.
(RazorsKiss): ~nas rom 9:20-22
(@Gutenberg^): Romans 9:20 On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, “Why did you make me like this,” will it? (NASB)
(@Gutenberg^): Romans 9:21 Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use? (NASB)
(@Gutenberg^): Romans 9:22 What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction? (NASB)
(RazorsKiss): ~nas rom 9:23
(@Gutenberg^): Romans 9:23 And [He did so to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory, (NASB)
(GraceAlone): Has God ordained sin? I don’t mean by adversity and destruction, but I mean immorality and unholiness
(RazorsKiss): The vessels of wrath were prepared for destruction.
(GraceAlone): So it is double predestination?
(RazorsKiss): Well, we don’t know exactly, I think, is the only answer we make.
(@Algo): Wow….I step out for a sec. and it’s grand Central.
(RazorsKiss): I think trying to make it a “double predestination”, as if God’s decree is a separate thing for believers and unbelievers…
(RazorsKiss): Is not really looking at the problem holistically.
(GraceAlone): are you supralapsarian RazorsKiss?
(RazorsKiss): Does God declare the end from the beginning? Yes, according to Isaiah 46:10
(RazorsKiss): Supra/infra is a bit of an angels dancing on the heads of pins discussion.
(GraceAlone): Infra is more passive while Supra is hard, straight and every close to hyper
(RazorsKiss): So, does/did God ordain that evil men exist? If so, to what purpose does He do so?
(GraceAlone): I don’t know, is it possible that it was ordained for a greater end or means?
(RazorsKiss): Romans 9 tells us – He did so to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy.
(GraceAlone): It’s hard to be completely ound calvinist without going into supralapsarianism and fatalism
(GraceAlone): sound*
(RazorsKiss): Why is it fatalism to accept God’s sovereignty?
(RazorsKiss): Man is responsible for His deeds – because God says he is.
(graceb4me): GraceAlone: are you a Calvinist?
(GraceAlone): Fatalism is God being 100% the cause of everything
(RazorsKiss): God is Just, therefore, God’s judgement of the matter is Just.
(RazorsKiss): No, that’s determinism.
(@bluewoad): GraceAlone: there’s a difference between ’cause’ and ‘ordain’
(GraceAlone): Somewhat yes, but I’m trying to study on infra and supralapsarianism
(RazorsKiss): Fatalism says that no matter what we do, it’s all determined.
(@brigand): Fatalism is even outside of God’s ability to effect.
(RazorsKiss): and that we can do whatever we want, because it doesn’t matter.
(@brigand): infra and supra are pre-Fall considerations that we really don’t have the insight into.
(RazorsKiss): Well, maybe instead of trying to split hairs on the “order of the decree”, maybe we should try to look to Scripture to see what God’s decree is.
(RazorsKiss): Because, really, that’s all infra/supra is, ultimately.
(@brigand): (and those aren’t the only two options)
(GraceAlone): I see absolute sovereignty, anyone else?
(JuDaS): Before you continue, who are you referring to when you say ”God”, RazorsKiss?
(RazorsKiss): Maybe it’s worthwhile to study, maybe not – but I think your questions are more deep-seated.
(doulos): From Him and through Him and To Him are all things.
(GraceAlone): meaning God has ordained the fall, rather than only “allowing” it to happen, although arguably it could be the same
(RazorsKiss): The trinitarian, Christian creator of heaven and Earth – the Alpha and Omega.
(RazorsKiss): The one and only God 😀
(JuDaS): Are you talking about…!?
(JuDaS): ”I Am?”
(RazorsKiss): How can God allow anything which He has not ordained?
(RazorsKiss): Yes 😀
(@Algo): ……….For Those Of Us In The Slow Group—> http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/articles/sup_infr.htm
(doulos): Is it evil that God ordained sin to be?
(JuDaS): Nay, but rather beneficial.
(RazorsKiss): Nope. Cannot do evil.
(GraceAlone): That’s a question that I had too
(RazorsKiss): Good is what, when you get down to it?
(GraceAlone): Would God be in one contextual sense, the author of sin, but not in another contextual sense?
(doulos): Was God’s INTENTION in the act, evil Gracealone?
(GraceAlone): Probably not
(RazorsKiss): God ordained creatures that would act contrary to His will, and that their acts would only rebound to His glory, in Eternity.
(RazorsKiss): In Judgment of their sins, which has also been ordained from the beginning.
(GraceAlone): so all the sin is for better end?
(RazorsKiss): GraceAlone: exactly.
(RazorsKiss): What did Joseph says to his brothers?
(RazorsKiss): *say.
(JuDaS): Razorskiss: Do you believe in double predestination?
(RazorsKiss): “you meant this for evil – but God meant it for good”
(GraceAlone): I have that position atm
(RazorsKiss): JuDaS- I don’t think the term is sufficient for a definition, really.
(GraceAlone): Wouldn’t Calvinism be unsound if Calvinists were not double predestinaters then?
(RazorsKiss): As it’s commonly used, perhaps I would be – but I don’t think that “double predestination” is sufficiently precise.
(JuDaS): Some of us aren’t Calvinists, though.
(RazorsKiss): Calvinism has never been a monolithic thing.
(JuDaS): Regardless, I think double predestination leaves no room for freewill.
(RazorsKiss): Some have always tried to moderate some things, to the detriment of others.
(RazorsKiss): You’re right.
(RazorsKiss): No will is free save God’s.
(GraceAlone): There is no free will in single either lol
(JuDaS): Ah, ah, but there is.
(@brigand): Read Sproul on Double Pre.
(RazorsKiss): Because no will has freedom to act in any way that is possible, save God’s.
(@bluewoad): brigand: but he’s a Van Halen groupie!
(RazorsKiss): All wills are controlled by the desires that the will acts upon.
(GraceAlone): brb
(doulos): posse peccare non posse non peccare
(JuDaS): What we cannot fail to understand is.
(JuDaS): God did not create us.
(JuDaS): Giving us cards.
(JuDaS): Saying whether we went to hell or not.
(RazorsKiss): No – He created us before the foundation of the world, with the intent, and the decree that specific people would, or would not.
(JuDaS): But rather, the Adversary is giving us ”going to hell” cards.
(JuDaS): And with Jesus, we are exchanging them for ”going to heaven” cards.
(RazorsKiss): As well as decreeing every action we would make, throughout time – as is His prerogative.
(doulos): How does this “exchange” take place?
(RazorsKiss): JuDaS- that’s not only unbiblical, it’s also untrue 😀
(@bluewoad): JuDaS: Satan does not send us to hell. Our sin sends us to hell.
(JuDaS): Let me explain.
(RazorsKiss): God sends us to Hell, actually.
(JuDaS): Or elaborate.
(RazorsKiss): well, those who are going.
* bluewoad nods at RazorsKiss
(JuDaS): Our sin.
(JuDaS): Is transferred to Jesus Christ.
(@brigand): JuDaS: Satan could be nonexistant and sinners would still sin and hate God.
(doulos): Only if Jesus died for them Judas.
* Algo hopes to see this discussion summarized on RazorsKiss’s blog later.
(JuDaS): And righteousness is given to us believers.
(RazorsKiss): heh
(@Algo): Heh
(JuDaS): Thus propitiation is given to God the Father.
(RazorsKiss): hey, it just happened to catch me on the way in
(JuDaS): Through Jesus.
(JuDaS): Does that make more sense now?
(JuDaS): And we gain justification.
(RazorsKiss): Sure. But who did Christ die for?
(JuDaS): Or, are justified.
(doulos): Who is “we” in the justification?
(JuDaS): Us.
(RazorsKiss): Who is “us”.
(JuDaS): Believers, of course.
(RazorsKiss): Ok, so those who don’t believe, are not part of that equation.
(JuDaS): Not necessarily.
(GraceAlone): Hey RazorsKiss, God’s absolute decree in all, would it make God in a contextual sense the author of sin?
(JuDaS): No, actually.
(doulos): What does propitiate and EXpiation mean?
(GraceAlone): He would not be the author of sense as sin being the actual end and reason, but rather a better cause and goodness.
(RazorsKiss): As God decrees the end from the beginning, He decreed the number and the manner of the salvation of God’s Own – and those are whom Christ’s death was both effective and intended for.
(RazorsKiss): GraceAlone- in effect.
(JuDaS): Hmm…
(GraceAlone): In a sense; yes, you mean?
(RazorsKiss): Basically, that God has a plan within which all sin will have a purpose, to bring glory to God, and to display His mercy.
(RazorsKiss): On those whom were spared the wrath of God by the sacrifice of His Son.
(JuDaS): I think Razor nailed it pretty good there.
(doulos): Did Jesus die to purchase faith for those who will NOT believe?
(RazorsKiss): So: If God decrees those who are saved, and those who are not – as well as the acts throughout history, made by every man, and all to His greater glory – can we possibly say, like the objector in Romans 9, that God is unjust?
(doulos): By no means!
(RazorsKiss): God has mercy on whom He has mercy – and hardens whom He will harden – and all to His glory.
(GraceAlone): Of course not, but it is not God rejecting the salvation of man, it is God ordaining sin, that’s a very tough stumbling block for me
(RazorsKiss): Our perception of the justice of the thing – or the lack thereof, is completely irrelevant.
(RazorsKiss): Why? God creates men for whatever purpose He desires.
(doulos): We are but dust.
(RazorsKiss): Does God sin by creating peoople who will sin, even under the Arminian scheme?
(RazorsKiss): It’s the same question, just pushed back one level.
(RazorsKiss): God says, resoundingly, in Romans 9 – “Who are you, to answer back to God?”
(GraceAlone): in Arminianism, arminians basically give up the idea of God’s absolute sovereignty
* bluewoad nods at RazorsKiss
(RazorsKiss): God, very evidently, is nothing of the sort.
(@bluewoad): GraceAlone: you basically have to be either an open theist, or believe in the ordaining of sin.
(JuDaS): RazorsKiss, so do you in fact, believe there is no such thing as freewill?
(doulos): A biblical free will
(RazorsKiss): No, only contingent will.
(RazorsKiss): Contingent upon God’s ordination.
(UncleStudy): What about the nature of Justice? Is it a mere ‘levelling of the scales’? Or is it in someway restorative?
(UncleStudy): i.e. If your daughter is raped, is justice satisfied because the rapist receives retribution?
(GraceAlone): basically either open theist, or supralapsarian + double predestinater
(RazorsKiss): ~nas romans 9:16
(@Gutenberg^): Romans 9:16 So then it [does not [depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy. (NASB)
(RazorsKiss): Man does will – but how does he will? In accordance with his desires.
* doulos nods
(RazorsKiss): If a man’s desires are continually evil – what is his will?
(RazorsKiss): If a man has the sanctifying presence of the Holy Spirit, he is ABLE to have that war that Paul desribes in Romans 7, between flesh and spirit.
(JuDaS): Quite frankly, I think predestination well… Double predestination is completely unBiblical as well.
(RazorsKiss): Why? Because he has a new spirit.
(doulos): text please?
(RazorsKiss): UncleStudy: Justice: That which is in accordance with the nature of God.
(RazorsKiss): God IS Just. Therefore, accordance with God = Justice.
(RazorsKiss): Well, i gotta head down to the ballfield.
(RazorsKiss): But I hope that was beneficial somehow 😀
(JuDaS): Yes…