tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24914433.post114911838340620162..comments2023-05-23T08:04:48.298-05:00Comments on Conversations In Calvinism: Does The Story of Cain Contradict Calvinism?J. Matthew Clearyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08001238704997219741noreply@blogger.comBlogger51125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24914433.post-90510558482740578582017-01-21T19:17:29.544-05:002017-01-21T19:17:29.544-05:00It is written, "God is love." Behold th...It is written, "God is love." Behold the simplicity of God: He is Love, without qualification or division against Himself. Therefore, I dare say that whoever denies the omnibenevolence of God is a blasphemer. Why then, you may ask, are not all men saved, and why does He speak of hostility toward men? What God hates is not men, but men's sins, which are antithetical to Him. In the Cross of Christ, there is sufficient grace purchased to save all men, for it is written, "He is the Savior of all men, especially those who believe." Even so, many harden themselves to God's call, and some even return to wickedness after having been converted. Them that refuse to be saved shall not be saved, not because God has not provided all the grace needed for them to be saved, but because they squandered it and determined to go to their deaths at war with God.myth busternoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24914433.post-23392252959744934782015-06-25T16:59:20.833-05:002015-06-25T16:59:20.833-05:00Mabye, you should ask why Abel's offering was ...Mabye, you should ask why Abel's offering was accepted?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24914433.post-40966008835859791672008-07-17T11:54:00.000-05:002008-07-17T11:54:00.000-05:00"Salvific call", "common call", "saving grace", "c..."Salvific call", "common call", "saving grace", "common grace", "inward/outward call" .... those are terms not found anywhere in the bible. If God grants grace to someone, then it is saving grace. There is no half-hearted grace.a helmethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10159557031242847451noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24914433.post-39450891408437937072008-04-08T19:34:00.000-05:002008-04-08T19:34:00.000-05:00If God simply predestined or chose certain people ...If God simply predestined or chose certain people to be saved, then why does Ephesians 2:8 read "...through faith"? Faith would not be necessary to receive God's salvation, because it would just be given to us by His grace. Not that those who God chose wouldn't have faith, obviously God would give that to them, but faith then would not be the means of salvation and scripture does not speak of God making us believe. To say that Arminiasts aren't Christians is just as wrong as someone saying Calvinists aren't Christians. Both believe that faith is necessary, they just believe differently on how one comes to have faith. I am not an Arminiast, nor a Calvinist. Titles are so misleading, because it fits you into this specific group and system of belief that you may not necessarily believe everything about. I think many Christians tend to have a misunderstanding of what grace means. Yes, grace means that it is outside of any works we do and merely by the lovingkindness of God. Take Titus 3:7 for example, "so that being justified by His grace we would be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life." Now, some would say that this means God just graciously chose certain people to be justified. This verse, however does not imply that at all. Now this passage talks about how we are not saved by works, which is true. Both Arminiasts and Calvinists agree on this. So what does it mean when it says we are justified by His grace? Well, what is the central purpose of the Bible? To point us to the Savior, Jesus Christ. God's grace is in the person of the Messiah. By His grace, obviously not because of anything we have done, He descended from His heavenly throne to become flesh, to live among us, and point us to Himself. He did not do this because we are good or worthy, because we aren't. We are not saved by our works, but by the work of Jesus Christ on the cross. He is our propitiation. It's because of Him that we are able to approach the Father. God is obviously still sovereign in this. Saying that God did not choose certain people to be saved does not make Him any less sovereign. God is not obligated to save us. He graciously made that decision to save us. And we are called to respond in faith. Faith is not a work. If anything, it's the complete absence of work. It's completely trusting in the Lord for salvation, because we ourselves cannot obtain it. I want to take time now to simply greet every brother and sister in Christ who has contributed to this thread. While there are obviously different view points expressed, we can all agree on Christ crucified. The most important thing is that we express love to one another and preach, as Paul put it, Christ crucified.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24914433.post-33299952538790967722008-02-23T15:37:00.000-05:002008-02-23T15:37:00.000-05:00We have cause to be distressed indeed when brother...We have cause to be distressed indeed when brothers in Christ can resort to anger and insults in an investigation that should be seeking the glory of God through the understanding of His Word, as if any given point in our theology were simply a philosophic argument to be won-- for as soon as we do not speak in love as brothers in Christ called to peace, what substance do our arguments have? Lest anyone dismiss me as some sort of universalist, let me assure you I am most certainly not. In fact, I am a "Calvinist" (misleading though that term is-- I may agree with Calvin in these matters, but my allegiance is to God and His Word), and not because of indoctrination: I was raised Christian but found myself squarely in what I later learned was the Arminian camp, until one day the Lord opened my eyes to see the very blindness I was blind to--and still would be, were it not for the regenerating grace of God: that much He made abundantly clear to me. I not only realized but saw first-hand in my own life what it means to be "dead in trespasses" (Eph. 2:5) You can talk to a dead man; you can read the Bible to him; but apart from a miracle, he's not going to respond. I realized that was ME: I was such an enemy of God, I was not only hardened against His call as a slave to sin, but I was as deaf to it as a dead man. I saw then that, if I live-- that is, if I am choosing to follow Christ rather than shun him as my enemy (even while paying Him lip-service)-- it is only because, in a miracle of creation, I have been GIVEN life by the God who speaks into nothingness and suddenly there is light-- it happens-- no questions asked. Because of this, I believe it was only an irresistible call of grace that could save this dead sinner. <BR/><BR/>So how does this relate to Cain? My understanding of how God saves sinners does not derive from the story of Cain (though it certainly "fits") but from the unified testimony of Scripture. The "problem" of Cain is in fact not specific to Cain at all: basically, how is it that a Sovereign God permits sinners to perish, even sinners who have read the Bible or heard the Gospel preached (that is, have heard the call of God to have saving faith in Christ)? Well, for one thing, I know that I am utterly incapable of "generating" or simply intrinsically having such faith on my own-- it must be a gift of God-- and so I know that if left to my depraved "free will" I would run from rather than to God (which Scripture confirms)-- therefore I must conclude that I choose God only because He has created in me a new heart that chooses Him. If Cain did not choose God unto salvation, it MUST be because he was left in sin. This is hard-- we may rightly point out that God did not MAKE Cain reject him, of course-- but still the question remains, "If God is sovereign in salvation, why didn't he regenerate Cain's nature so as to bring him to repentance and salvation?" We might as well ask, "Why doesn't God save all people, if he is loving?" But this is not peculiar to "Calvinism": why would a loving God create people he knew in advance would reject him and earn condemnation to Hell? I don't know, nor can I pretend to. But I do know that if I ever cease to be troubled by the lostness of my fellow man, I have disobeyed the great commandment of our Lord to love my neighbor as myself. And I also know that it is not my place to talk back to Almighty God, and I must be content to know that in all things God works for his own glory, in order that his wrath, power, patience, glory, and mercy might be made known (Rom. 9:22-23)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24914433.post-10570367024849484692008-01-15T16:44:00.000-05:002008-01-15T16:44:00.000-05:00Let's say those passages are talking about God sim...Let's say those passages are talking about God simply calling Cain to do what is right (not a salvific call), if it is so easy for someone to deny and reject that call to do what is right, for the sake of happiness, how much easier then would it be to deny and reject the call of salvation? If God can so easily make a person believe and be saved, why did He have such a hard time opening Cain's eyes to see that he should do what is right? Do you get my point? Does God merely encourage people for the sake of encouragement, only for them to reject His offer? To say yes is to call God a tease and a flirt.outdoorsman086https://www.blogger.com/profile/06333426502712389478noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24914433.post-5359786991023522092008-01-15T16:20:00.000-05:002008-01-15T16:20:00.000-05:00JMC,"I do not presume to know God's motivations fo...JMC,<BR/><BR/>"I do not presume to know God's motivations for communicating with Cain since the text does not address it."<BR/><BR/>Then you cannot presume to know that God was not calling Cain to salvation. <BR/><BR/> "And I do not believe that God was concerned with hurting Cain's feelings. God was merely communicating that if one does good in God's sight, than happiness follows. Again, no mention of any salvific calls."<BR/><BR/>So, basically what you're saying is God will make people happy during their lifetime, yet when that is up they will have eternal sorrow, and this because God did not chose them. You completely fail to see that God is more concerned with the eternal than He is with the temporal, yet it is what you decide in this temporal life that concludes your eternity, either heaven or hell. It is illogical, based on God's character revealed through scripture, that He was only concerned about Cain's temporal happiness.outdoorsman086https://www.blogger.com/profile/06333426502712389478noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24914433.post-1166953726090950542006-12-24T04:48:00.000-05:002006-12-24T04:48:00.000-05:00Dennis,I decided to respond to you with a new post...Dennis,<BR/><BR/>I decided to respond to you with a new post on my homepage since this thread is six months old. And after six months, I must say that I am disappointed that you couldn't come up with anything better to post. It almost seems that you are just trying to get the last word in even after all this time. I hope this isn't the case and will again state that if you cannot post here without this sort of rhetoric, you will be banned from posting here at Conversations as you have been elsewhere.J. Matthew Clearyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08001238704997219741noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24914433.post-1166670895620852932006-12-20T22:14:00.000-05:002006-12-20T22:14:00.000-05:00You aren't half as tired of my comments as I am of...You aren't half as tired of my comments as I am of the conclusions of Calvinism which will not stand the light of Scripture. And it's actually funny to be accused of repeation from the Calvinist camp! They who crank out endless books "explaining" Calvinism over and over again to the fully indoctrinated lest they forget exactly how many hairs there were on Calvin's head. The rank and file are so inundated with the flood of cookie cutter books they have little time to read the Word itself it would seem.<BR/><BR/>And then if there are not the proper "oohs" and "ahhs" from the choir at each presentation of the faded and frayed "tulip" , there will be recriminations! It will be suggested that one is not intellectual, perhaps the unpardonable sin to a Calvinist! <BR/><BR/>After all, didn't Jesus carefully seek out educated fishermen and indoctrinate them in the theological maze of Calvinism? Peter, James and John were trained theologians, having graduated from the Seminary of Full Nets with a degree in sheep feeding! Not sure if this qualified them to be serious Calvinists however, especially since they were too busy writing Scripture that refutes those nefarious doctrines to actually study Calvinism. Too bad, they could have really done something for God if they were better equipped!<BR/><BR/>Dennis CloughAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24914433.post-1150167484877710492006-06-12T21:58:00.000-05:002006-06-12T21:58:00.000-05:00Dennis, everyone who has read this does not see it...Dennis, everyone who has read this does not see it the way you describe, you have to know this. It is all plainly here for anyone to read. The same old tired straw man arguments. I guess if you keep just saying the same things over and over you've "won" the argument huh?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24914433.post-1150132101783386542006-06-12T12:08:00.000-05:002006-06-12T12:08:00.000-05:00Dennis,"Well, the big boy has cut me off from his ...Dennis,<BR/><BR/>"Well, the big boy has cut me off from his self-described "humble" blog!"<BR/><BR/>Obviously, I haven't. Yet. But with a few more completely irrelevant posts like this one, you will indeed be "cut off".<BR/><BR/>"He is not honest enough to tell people that he shut me off and that it was not my decision to drop out."<BR/><BR/>When and where did I "shut you off"? You are still here aren't you? And if you are "shut off", it will be by your own inability to post without your customary, emotionally charged rhetoric that is designed to do nothing but jab at Calvinists since you are unable to refute them. And if anyone is wondering if I'm being too harsh in my description of his tone of writing, I need only reproduce this from his latest post:<BR/><BR/>"His "LOVE" of discussing theolgy, especially Calvinism, has run out when meeting someone who knows his beloved "system" and the Scriptures as well."J. Matthew Clearyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08001238704997219741noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24914433.post-1150121835496540542006-06-12T09:17:00.000-05:002006-06-12T09:17:00.000-05:00Well, the big boy has cut me off from his self-des...Well, the big boy has cut me off from his self-described "humble" blog!<BR/>He is not honest enough to tell people that he shut me off and that it was not my decision to drop out.<BR/>His "LOVE" of discussing theolgy, especially Calvinism, has run out when meeting someone who knows his beloved "system" and the Scriptures as well.<BR/>So back to the other Blog! Dennis CloughAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24914433.post-1149949455293048662006-06-10T09:24:00.000-05:002006-06-10T09:24:00.000-05:00Dennis,"You purposely misunderstand. As I stated b...Dennis,<BR/><BR/>"You purposely misunderstand. As I stated before, all blood sacrifices pointed to the great sacrifice of Christ's precious blood, the only blood that can take away sin."<BR/><BR/>And you purposely sidestepped every point I've raised thus far. It is not a point of contention that animal sacrifice pointed to Christ's atonement. The issue is how faith related to animal sacrifice.<BR/><BR/>"Without the shedding of blood, there is no remission of sin."<BR/><BR/>Okay, since "remission" means to release, pardon, and forgive, then are you saying animal sacrifices did indeed remit sin?<BR/><BR/>"Cain offered a sacrifice in faith that his bloodless offering was good enough."<BR/><BR/>So you're saying Cain had faith? Where do the texts of Genesis 4 or Hebrews 11 say this? Or are you yet again reading things into the text of Scripture?<BR/><BR/>"But faith in the wrong offering is no faith."<BR/><BR/>Then answer the question: is it faith that pleases God as Hebrews 11 states, or animal sacrifice?<BR/><BR/>"You are so biased by your Calvinistic perceptions that you cannot even agree with me on the most basic teaching of the Word of God;..."<BR/><BR/>Empty rhetoric.<BR/><BR/>"...that faith in the blood of Christ alone saves!"<BR/><BR/>This has never been the point and you know it. Unless you can provide a quote by me where I have denied faith in Christ's atonement, you are yet again guilty of lying.<BR/><BR/>"And now your comment moderation scheme will kick in and probably not allow me to point out that you contradicted yourself re MacArthur and then tried to divert attention from that fact."<BR/><BR/>I activated the moderate comments feature to see how it worked. I wanted to know if it would be useful against folks such as yourself. At some point, you're gonna go too far in your rhetoric and dishonesty or, I will outright tire of you. If and when that comes about is up to you.<BR/><BR/>"In one post you say "I have never read MacArthur." In the next you reject his Calvinism!..."<BR/><BR/>Notice how you give a direct quote from me and then contrast that to something I never stated. Your desperation is showing Dennis. By that I mean, you know you cannot provide an explicit statement by me where I outright reject MacArthur's Calvinism. So, you add your own words and hope that nobody catches it. It's stuff like this that caused me to activate the comment moderation feature. You're gonna engage in this nonsense one too many times.<BR/><BR/>"But then he would probably fare no better than me when it comes to your unwilling comprehension."<BR/><BR/>Empty rhetoric.<BR/><BR/>"Dennis replies; It comes from God's instruction to man regarding his need of a Savior and His provision of one in Christ. The Gospel, as preached by God to Adam and Eve, saves all who believe once and for all."<BR/><BR/>So you are in fact saying that faith comes from man? Then how do you deal with the passages that state faith is a gift of God?<BR/><BR/>"This same Gospel was rejected by Cain over the pleadings of God and he was lost forever."<BR/><BR/>I have asked repeatedly for you to show where this supposed salvific call is. The vast majority of your posts here have been an attempt to justify conjecturing. So, do you admit to conjecture here? If not, then show God's salvific call from the text of Genesis 4. If so, you are admitting that you're entire argument rests on conjecture and your orginal statements about the denying the clarity of Scripture are shown to be erroneous.<BR/><BR/>"Even your favorite "calling" verse when read in context is shown to be nothing mysterious as Calvinists would make it to be, but simply the instruction of God to fallen sinners on how to get right with God; come to Christ!"<BR/><BR/>Mind explaining just what you are going on about here and how that has anything to do with Genesis 4?J. Matthew Clearyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08001238704997219741noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24914433.post-1149942756070283092006-06-10T07:32:00.000-05:002006-06-10T07:32:00.000-05:00You purposely misunderstand. As I stated before, a...You purposely misunderstand. As I stated before, all blood sacrifices pointed to the great sacrifice of Christ's precious blood, the only blood that can take away sin. <BR/><BR/>Abel's sacrifice had blood that pointed to the coming sacrifice of Christ as revealed by God to Adam and Eve.<BR/><BR/>Without the shedding of blood, there is no remission of sin.<BR/><BR/>Cain offered a sacrifice in faith that his bloodless offering was good enough. <BR/><BR/>But faith in the wrong offering is no faith.<BR/><BR/>You are so biased by your Calvinistic perceptions that you cannot even agree with me on the most basic teaching of the Word of God; that faith in the blood of Christ alone saves!<BR/><BR/>And now your comment moderation scheme will kick in and probably not allow me to point out that you contradicted yourself re MacArthur and then tried to divert attention from that fact. In one post you say "I have never read MacArthur." In the next you reject his Calvinism! I simply ask how you can judge a man you've never read?<BR/><BR/>But then he would probably fare no better than me when it comes to your unwilling comprehension.<BR/><BR/>JMC Quote:<BR/>If you say faith alone, then your point is moot because the question then reverts to where does faith come from, God or man? <BR/><BR/>Dennis replies; It comes from God's instruction to man regarding his need of a Savior and His provision of one in Christ. The Gospel, as preached by God to Adam and Eve, saves all who believe once and for all.<BR/><BR/>As Paul said, the Gospel IS the POWER of God unto salvation.<BR/>This same Gospel was rejected by Cain over the pleadings of God and he was lost forever. <BR/><BR/>Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Even your favorite "calling" verse when read in context is shown to be nothing mysterious as Calvinists would make it to be, but simply the instruction of God to fallen sinners on how to get right with God; come to Christ!<BR/><BR/>Dennis CloughAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24914433.post-1149869056959815922006-06-09T11:04:00.000-05:002006-06-09T11:04:00.000-05:00Dennis,"Dennis asks; How do you know if you've nev...Dennis,<BR/><BR/>"Dennis asks; How do you know if you've never read him?"<BR/><BR/>Are you seriously arguing that MacArthur is in fact the Gold standard for determining what is or isn't Calvinism? Further, do you mind explaining just why I must read MacArthur in order to believe this?<BR/><BR/>"Dennis replies: Compare #3 with #6<BR/>for further instruction in how difficult it is to comply with your last request."<BR/><BR/>What you've done here is to take my comments and rip them out of their contexts. For example, quote #3 is a reply to you on your reliance on commentaries for the determination of what Scripture says and does not say rather than the text itself. Quote #6 is where I stated that I am not self taught in the sense that I do not interpret Scripture in an historical vacuum. So just where is the contradiction?<BR/><BR/>And as for the rest, you know you cannot demonstrate contradiction from anything I've written so you are trying to save face by saying that I'm "back pedaling". Most disingenious of you.J. Matthew Clearyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08001238704997219741noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24914433.post-1149868180679179612006-06-09T10:49:00.000-05:002006-06-09T10:49:00.000-05:00Dennis,"As you should know, faith in anything but ...Dennis,<BR/><BR/>"As you should know, faith in anything but the blood sacrifice for salvation is no faith." <BR/><BR/>Are you actually saying that faith in animal sacrifice is what saves?<BR/><BR/>"I refer you back to the text; God had RESPECT for Abel's OFFFERING."<BR/><BR/>The text actually stated that God had regard for Abel *and* his offering. But the question is, why? Did God regard Abel because he offered his sacrifice in faith or because of the fact that it was an animal sacrifice? If you say faith alone, then your point is moot because the question then reverts to where does faith come from, God or man? If you say animal sacrifice, you indeed abandon Christianity. If you say both, then you are forced to argue that each and every jew had the same faith as Abel and should have been saved just because of the fact they participated in animal sacrifice. In other words, you should see national Israel as saved. But this isn't the case and you know it. Just because someone offered God an animal sacrifice in the old testament did not guarantee their salvation.<BR/><BR/>The entire chapter of Hebrews 11 is focused on the faith of those mentioned and not animal sacrifice. In fact Hebrews 11:2 states that they were all approved of by God because of their faith. So this means that Abel and his sacrifice were approved because of Abel's faith. Thus, you should be focusing on the question of just where Abel's faith came from. <BR/><BR/>"Faith and the right offering go together. You are really embarrassing yourself here in not knowing this elementary teaching."<BR/><BR/>But what is the "right offering"? I have just shown that Hebrews 11 teaches that men are accepted because of their faith. You are making it sound like they must exhibit faith by offering animal sacrifice. But this is flatly contradicted by Hebrews 11. In fact, verses 5 & 6 explicitly state that Enoch was taken up because of his faith and it is impossible to please God without faith. Thus, if Abel did not have faith, he could have offered fifty animal sacrifices and still would not have pleased God. So, for you to miss the point of Hebrews 11 and to misunderstand how faith relates to animal sacrifice is in actuality, an embarrasing blunder for *you*.<BR/><BR/>"Dennis replies;<BR/>What do you care what I think of you since according to you I may have "abandonded Christianity"?"<BR/><BR/>First, why refer to yourself in the third person? Second, you are dodging. You know as well as I do that you are questioning my status as a believer for personal and not doctrinal reasons.<BR/><BR/>"Dennis replies; Some are dishonest in the way they disregard the text in favor of their Calvinistic bias. They elevate a system above the Word of God while trying to convince everyone that the system IS the Word of God."<BR/><BR/>Since Calvinists believe that Calvinism is just a technical term for the gospel itself, then you are indeed charging Calvinists with dishonesty. The problem for you is that you have yet to show that Calvinism isn't the correct view of the Scriptures and until you do, your opinions in this regard are meaningless. <BR/><BR/>"I am only looking at this time for you to concede this one point. I will be interested to see your reply."<BR/><BR/>Seeing as how you have not proven a single one of your asserions in this entire exchange, I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you.J. Matthew Clearyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08001238704997219741noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24914433.post-1149864951096057572006-06-09T09:55:00.000-05:002006-06-09T09:55:00.000-05:00TO JMC;Be careful what you ask for! You asked for ...TO JMC;<BR/><BR/>Be careful what you ask for! You asked for quotes from you that would "prove" that I have quoted you correctly.<BR/><BR/>Here are a few in chronological order. Do you see any contradictions between them?<BR/><BR/>JMC said:<BR/><BR/>#1 Also, these men aren't my heroes as I haven't even read Macarthur nor do I own any of Spurgeon's works.<BR/><BR/><BR/>#2. MacArthur isn't the "gold standard" of determining what Calvinism is or isn't. <BR/><BR/>Dennis asks; How do you know if you've never read him?<BR/><BR/><BR/>#2 continued: And as for Spurgeon, I did not say that I have never read his works and sermons. I merely stated that I do not own anything written by him. So not only are you reading things into Genesis 4, you are reading things into my statements as well. Why can't you deal with things as they are written?<BR/><BR/>Dennis replies; I'll try to from now on if you'll be consistent. In one post you distance yourself from Spurgeon and then in the next you embrace him! Silly me to think you meant what your first post indicated! :)<BR/><BR/>#3. I don't need commentaries. I am relying solely on the text of Scripture<BR/><BR/>Dennis replies; Remember this famous/infamous statement? When I chastised you for such an approach to Scripture you back pedaled into this next quote. <BR/><BR/>#4. This is the second time you have failed to accurately represent what I have written. I have never stated that I do not read or make use of commentaries.<BR/><BR/>Dennis replies; oh, really? Further back pedaling continued below.<BR/><BR/>#5. Again, I never said I didn't need anyone's help in understanding the text of Scripture. I have read and even own a number of theological works from a wide range of authors.<BR/><BR/>Dennis replies; Perhaps you should never say never?<BR/><BR/>#6. I've never claimed I was self taught. Please deal with what I actually say.<BR/><BR/>Dennis replies: Compare #3 with #6<BR/>for further instruction in how difficult it is to comply with your last request.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24914433.post-1149863363485793602006-06-09T09:29:00.000-05:002006-06-09T09:29:00.000-05:00JMS said;You state that Abel became righteous as a...JMS said;<BR/>You state that Abel became righteous as a result of his offering and not because of his faith. Now, I simply ask, is a man justified by animal sacrifice, or faith? If you say faith, then you have contradicted yourself because you clearly state above that Abel was righteous only after offering the sacrifice. If you say man is justified by animal sacrifice, then you have effectively abandoned Christianity. Further, the text of Hebrews 11 does not state whether or not Abel's faith was a gift of God or if it sprang from Abel himself. So you are basically spinning your wheels here.<BR/><BR/>Dennis replies; As you should know, faith in anything but the blood sacrifice for salvation is no faith. As always, I refer you back to the text; God had RESPECT for Abel's OFFFERING. That verse in Genesis combined with Hebrews shows Abel's (respected)offering was offered in FAITH. Faith and the right offering go together. You are really embarrassing yourself here in not knowing this elementary teaching. And to not understand that animal sacrifices picture the vicarious death of Jesus Christ is a blunder of the worst degree! <BR/>And of course, as I have contended all along, Abel's instruction came from Adam and Eve who received it from God Himself.<BR/><BR/>Cain received the same instruction from his parents as Abel did, yet declined God's invitation to salvation. Whereupon, God, not yet knowing Calvinism, pursued Cain to try and get him saved.<BR/><BR/>And you are denying the intent and import of these truths because seemingly you are better schooled in Calvinism than Christianity. <BR/><BR/>JMC quoting me:<BR/>"I'm not really against you,..."<BR/><BR/>Dennis replies; Anyone who calls you or anyone else to integrity in dealing with the scriptures is doing them a favor ... <BR/><BR/>JMC asks;<BR/>Then why question my status as a believer?<BR/><BR/>Dennis replies;<BR/>What do you care what I think of you since according to you I may have "abandonded Christianity"?<BR/><BR/>JMC quoting me"...but I am against teachings that any honest person would see are in direct opposition to the Scriptural picture of a God who loves all sinners and earnestly desires them to be saved."<BR/><BR/>JMC said;<BR/>So you are basically saying that all Calvinists are dishonest, right? <BR/><BR/>Dennis replies; Some are dishonest in the way they disregard the text in favor of their Calvinistic bias. They elevate a system above the Word of God while trying to convince everyone that the system IS the Word of God. Other Calvinists are simply mistaken and get flustered and frustrated when confronted with the actual Scripture.<BR/><BR/>I don't know which you are in this assessment of mine. However, if you are HONEST, you will admit that what I said about offering the right sacrifice in faith is the proper way to be declared righteous.<BR/><BR/>I am only looking at this time for you to concede this one point. I will be interested to see your reply.<BR/><BR/>Dennis CloughAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24914433.post-1149824426534243082006-06-08T22:40:00.000-05:002006-06-08T22:40:00.000-05:00Again why assume that God is offering salvation to...Again why assume that God is offering salvation to anyone and everyone He is speaking to in the Bible? Does the Lord not have other purposes in any sort of communication? The text says nothing about salvation, why assume it? Is this not just conjecture? Why can't it just be a demonstration of sin spreading in the world, being that it comes so soon after Gen. 3? I have never heard anyone say that this is God offering Cain a chance at "salvation".Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24914433.post-1149821906233033642006-06-08T21:58:00.000-05:002006-06-08T21:58:00.000-05:00Dennis,"I would think that a man who once claimed ...Dennis,<BR/><BR/>"I would think that a man who once claimed to "only study the Bible..."<BR/><BR/>Yet again, you are mis-reading what I write. I have never stated that I only study the Bible. Please show where I stated such.<BR/><BR/>"Now that you have admitted or claimed to have enough theological books to fill a barn,..."<BR/><BR/>Are you just incapable of handling written materials without reading things into them? Where did I state that I had a library big enough to fill a barn? <BR/><BR/>"It's SOOOOO lame to say you don't know God's motivation in this text."<BR/><BR/>And it's "SOOOOO" pretentious of you to say you know God's motivations where Scripture is silent.<BR/><BR/>"God is love in all His ways,..."<BR/><BR/>Love is one of God's attributes. But love is not God's motivation in "all His ways" as you say. Unless, of course, you are willing to argue that it is an act of love for God to throw sinners into the pit of hell.<BR/><BR/>"So start with that eternal motivation on His part..."<BR/><BR/>You are essentially asking me to adopt your presupposition of God's omnibenevelence without argument. But in order for me to do so, you would need to harmonize your view of God's love with the many passages that speak of God's hatred towards men. <BR/><BR/>"A clue that might help you is found in Hebrews 11:4:"<BR/><BR/>I have no problem with Hebrews 11:4. It is you, however that has a problem here. Hebrews 11:4 states that Abel had faith and it was because of this faith that he brought his sacrifice. In this statement of yours:<BR/><BR/>"In seeing why God commended Abel and the results of his offering (he became righteous in God's eyes) you can see by contrast why God rejected Abel's."<BR/><BR/>You state that Abel became righteous as a result of his offering and not because of his faith. Now, I simply ask, is a man justified by animal sacrifice, or faith? If you say faith, then you have contradicted yourself because you clearly state above that Abel was righteous only after offering the sacrifice. If you say man is justified by animal sacrifice, then you have effectively abandoned Christianity. Further, the text of Hebrews 11 does not state whether or not Abel's faith was a gift of God or if it sprang from Abel himself. So you are basically spinning your wheels here.<BR/><BR/>"I'm not really against you,..."<BR/><BR/>Then why question my status as a believer?<BR/><BR/>"...but I am against teachings that any honest person would see are in direct opposition to the Scriptural picture of a God who loves all sinners and earnestly desires them to be saved."<BR/><BR/>So you are basically saying that all Calvinists are dishonest, right?J. Matthew Clearyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08001238704997219741noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24914433.post-1149775094029600772006-06-08T08:58:00.000-05:002006-06-08T08:58:00.000-05:00JMC said;"I have already stated that I do not know...JMC said;<BR/><BR/>"I have already stated that I do not know God's motivations for communicating with Cain since the text does not address it."<BR/><BR/>I would think that a man who once claimed to "only study the Bible" would at least offer some kind of understanding of the text! Now that you have admitted or claimed to have enough theological books to fill a barn, may I suggest that you study them and at least find out what others say about it? You will find that they are not so reluctant as you to actually study the text.<BR/><BR/>It's SOOOOO lame to say you don't know God's motivation in this text. I submit that His "motivation" is found by actually reading the text without looking through the distorting lenses of Calvinism.<BR/><BR/>God is love in all His ways, I do believe you will overcome your reluctance to agree with me on anything long enough to admit that?<BR/><BR/>So start with that eternal motivation on His part (since you supposedly don't see it in the text) and then remember that our first parents and their off-spring were depraved sinners. Now I wonder; what would a loving Holy God say to lost sinners? Get real, will you, and deal with the text. A clue that might help you is found in Hebrews 11:4:<BR/> <BR/> By faith Abel offered God a better sacrifice than Cain did. By faith he was commended as a righteous man, when God spoke well of his offerings. And by faith he still speaks, even though he is dead. <BR/><BR/>In seeing why God commended Abel and the results of his offering (he became righteous in God's eyes) you can see by contrast why God rejected Abel's. God's subsequent pleadings with Cain, a member of the non-elect, puts the lie to Calvinism. Both Calvinistic understanding of sinner's capabilities as well as the doctrine of Irresistible Grace are shown to be false conjectures. <BR/><BR/>Don't let pride keep you from admitting, not that I am right, but that the Scriptures are correct. <BR/><BR/>I'm not really against you, but I am against teachings that any honest person would see are in direct opposition to the Scriptural picture of a God who loves all sinners and earnestly desires them to be saved. <BR/><BR/>Paul said, " <BR/>Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God.<BR/><BR/>To beseech means to beg! God, through His ambassadors is begging sinners to be saved! The false concept that has Him divided against Himself in electing only a few to salvation is plainly wrong. <BR/><BR/>Jesus said, "A kingdom divided against itself CANNOT stand!" Please think about it. <BR/>Dennis CloughAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24914433.post-1149708114947853592006-06-07T14:21:00.000-05:002006-06-07T14:21:00.000-05:00Dennis,"You say God is not trying to get Cain save...Dennis,<BR/><BR/>"You say God is not trying to get Cain saved;..."<BR/><BR/>What I'm saying is that there is no mention of a salvific call to Cain. This is in response to your assertion that Scripture is clear on this supposed salvific call. I have pointed out what the text of Genesis 4 says and does not say by direct interaction with the text. Your method has been to use commentaries that do not support your contention of a salvific call.<BR/><BR/>"...well, why is He talking to this non-elect person and what is the subject of their conversation if not salvation?"<BR/><BR/>I have already stated that I do not know God's motivations for communicating with Cain since the text does not address it. I have pointed out that you continually assume that it is for the purpose of offering Cain salvation but you don't bother to show it. It is my contention that you know full well that the text of Genesis 4 is not in fact as clear as you originally suggested and that you are conjecturing as to God's motives and purposes. If you are not conjecturing, why then offer commentaries that are likewise conjecturing on this section of scripture? That is, why else but for justification of your conjecturing?<BR/><BR/>It is also my contention, that you realize that if you admit to conjecture, then your argument collapses because you know that you cannot refute Calvinism by this kind of argumentation.<BR/><BR/>Now, as to your post over at Alan's, you made an accusation without demonstration. I then challenged you for proof of your accusation or else you would be shown to be knowingly offering falsehoods. Your response to this contained no documentation needed to support your accusation. Thus, I say you are shown to be guilty of outright lying.<BR/><BR/>As to the rest of your post, again, nothing here but empty rhetoric. Assertion without argument will not win the day for you.J. Matthew Clearyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08001238704997219741noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24914433.post-1149701673568149422006-06-07T12:34:00.000-05:002006-06-07T12:34:00.000-05:00For pete's sake! You seem to be the one who can't ...For pete's sake! You seem to be the one who can't understand scripture because of calvinism! Am I to think that anytime I see God speaking to anyone in the Bible, His real purpose is to offer salvation? How about this is just a simple example of how sin is already beginning to spread? Cain and Abel offered a sacrifice. Abel's sacrifice was an atonement; Cain offered a thank offering, apparently feeling no need for atonement. He tried self justification. And he was outraged at his rejection and was angry at God but unable to strike at God he struck Abel his brother. Then he lied about it. He began a self justifier, then continued with self pity. And not a whole lot has changed up to today. In time Cain came to build one of the first cities (usually modern mans refuge instead of God) and probably died paranoid and alone. God was not even dealing with Cain in a moral sense, but in a ceremonial sense. That is to say that God was inquiring why cain had offered the wrong kind of sacrifice, not extending the hand of salvation to him if he had only done the right thing. He simply asks "why are you angry?" It desires to have him the way that sin desires to enslave all off us.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24914433.post-1149687580898753012006-06-07T08:39:00.000-05:002006-06-07T08:39:00.000-05:00You said; "I have misundertood nothing." Thanks fo...You said; "I have misundertood nothing." <BR/><BR/>Thanks for a good laugh!<BR/><BR/>I hope you see how pretentious that is! <BR/><BR/>I'm wondering if you would want to place some kind of limits on that statement? Because you certainly have demonstrated that you cannot understand scripture apart from Calvinism.<BR/><BR/>You say God is not trying to get Cain saved; well, why is He talking to this non-elect person and what is the subject of their conversation if not salvation?<BR/><BR/>And Brett, feel free to give your views on this as well.<BR/>And please,JMATT, don't tell me you have already spoken to this issue. Calvinists are nothing if not redundant, so indulge me in this please.<BR/><BR/><BR/>You wail and carry on because your handy little system cannot stand the test of full scriptural light.<BR/><BR/>You ignore my scriptural reasons for refuting Calvinism, and complain that I'm impolite to Brett and you. I'd apologize but what good is the apology of a liar like me? <BR/><BR/>But you really are not bad in the insult field by comparison to some Calvinists. Toplady's letter to John Wesley might help you sharpen your skills. It's on the web, check it out. <BR/><BR/>And I did not say all Calvinists do not know their belief system. The problem is, their belief system is not uniformly held by all. Thus, they can correctly say, individually, "You don't REALLY understand my beliefs!"<BR/><BR/>I really don't think you are the expert you pose as in this field, however. <BR/><BR/>The opposition may be using the TULIP and the defender may either not believe all five points or not have thought out the full implications of such beliefs. Or he may hold some points intensely and some lightly.<BR/><BR/>All in all, it's a tough system to attack. But it could be worse. It's tougher to defend scripturaly than it is to attack. <BR/><BR/>Dennis CloughAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24914433.post-1149614168143481542006-06-06T12:16:00.000-05:002006-06-06T12:16:00.000-05:00"Calvinism is a system that stands or falls togeth..."Calvinism is a system that stands or falls together. It is a big target as none of it's doctrines are true. Many Calvinist's disagree on the various doctrines as to their number and intensity. Anyone truly familiar with it's teachings and teachers would know that."<BR/><BR/>I'm aware that not all Calvinists agree on every point of doctrine. But as far as soteriology, they are quite uniform. But this is a rabbit trail argument. That is, you have stated more than once that Calvinists don't know much about their own system as if you somehow know better than they. You were in error on how total depravity is defined and you are now trying to gloss over this with an accusation that Calvinists are inconsistent in defining the five points. You are obliged of course to provide specific references of this. If not, you stand refuted.<BR/><BR/>"Also, he would know that some Calvinists consider Mr. White a less than complete Calvinist himself. To me, he kind of seems like the Jesse Jackson of religious debate. He shows up wherever the action is, but doesn't do much about resolving the issue."<BR/><BR/>And just what does "less than complete" mean? Can you provide the reference for a Calvinist saying this? Further, it is humorous that you would compare White to Jackson in regards to debate. Can you be more specific? Can you demonstrate this from James White's debates? How many have you seen/heard? Which ones? But more importantly, do you intend to bring this observation of yours to his attention, or are you content with sniping him from afar?<BR/><BR/>"As to Calvinists being Christians, anyone who has trusted Christ is a Christian. This does not mean that every Calvinist is automatically a Christian."<BR/><BR/>This is true. Just as it is true that because somebody is a non-Calvinist of any stripe, doesn't automatically make him a true Christian. But this really isn't your point, is it? What I see here is a "smooth over job" in regards to your assertions that I am not a Christian because I have dared take up your challenge and refute it. This is evidenced by this:<BR/><BR/>"Especially suspect in this area are those who spend more time glorying in a system rather than in a Savior who died for the world."<BR/><BR/>This is nothing but a veiled, continued attack on my status as a believer. You are intimating that I glory in Calvinism rather than Christ. And on what basis do you make this accusation? You have already stated that Calvinism does not disqualify one as a Christian by default. So what other basis is there but personal considerations?<BR/><BR/>"You have purposefully (seemingly) misunderstood me, misquoted, and attacked me as a liar. I truly hold no ill will because of that since I fully expected it from the beginning."<BR/> <BR/>I have misundertood nothing. And I ask that you provide documentation as to where I misquoted you as this is yet another falsehood on your part. I have copied, pasted, and directly reponded to each of your statements I've addressed. And I have indeed charged you with outright lying. This was done in regards to the statement you made on Alan's site and you have failed to exhonerate yourself in that regard. So the charge stands.<BR/><BR/>"To read their historic attacks on anyone who disagrees with them is to see the stark contrast between them and their Savior who "being reviled" blessed"."<BR/><BR/>You have gumption to make this statement especially in light of how you are treating Brett over at Alan's site. He has done nothing but give you the benefit of the doubt on everything and how do you repay his charity? By dodging his honest request at dialogue and taking shots at him. How long before you start to question his salvation?<BR/><BR/>As for the rest of your post, again, nothing here advances your arguments regarding Cain and a supposed salvific call in Genesis 4.J. Matthew Clearyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08001238704997219741noreply@blogger.com