Joe Carter’s Prediction January 20, 2008
Posted by Paul Edwards in Huckabee, Joe Carter, John McCain, South Carolina Primary.trackback
Reflecting on the South Carolina Republican Primary, Joe Carter says,
Prediction — In a few weeks, when the conservative punditry realizes that a man they truly despise (McCain) will be the eventual nominee, they’ll suddenly “discover” that Huckabee’s record and positions were more conservative than they had led people to believe. The admission will lead to a backlash among conservatives who trusted that the pundits were telling the truth about Huckabee rather than unfairly maligning him because they were ashamed to have a barefoot hillbilly preacher as the head of their party.
Right on. And along the same lines…thanks a lot Fred. Your ill-advised, untimely candidacy cost the GOP a chance to have a groundbreaking new kind of conservative nominee in November. Without Thompson in the field, Huckabee would have won last night and been poised to give McCain all he wanted in Florida and on to Super Tuesday.
This is very simple. If McCain is the GOP nominee, you will have 1 of 2 things happen:
1. A truly conservative candidate will run as an independent or 3rd party candidate and pull 20% of the GOP base. Or,
2. Real conservatives will simply stay home in November.
Either option ends with a President Clinton. McCain is a fraud and I wouldn’t vote for him under any circumstances. The lesser of 2 evils, is stil evil and shouldn’t be supported.
DO WE BELIEVE ROMANS 13:1?
Unless “powers” has a different application than that of local governments.
Don,
You’re starting to sound like a Calvinist! The same Bible that says, “The powers that be are ORDAINED of God,” also says, “As many as were ORDAINED to eternal life believed.” (Acts 13:48)
God can ordain governments (and I agree he can) but he cannot ordain his elect (which you believe he can’t)?
Don’t you love it!
Not as much as I love you, man!
Please notice the distinction between ARE ordained and CAN ordain.
Also, the powers “that be” as the converse suggests, “will be”.
As Sturges used to say, “thats a rough one man”.
I’m not seeing a distinction, Don. Romans 13:1 says, “The powers that BE ARE ordained of God,” clearly indicting present tense action.
Acts 13:48 says, “As many as WERE ORDAINED (past tense - “before the foundation of the world”) to eternal life believed,” indicating a present tense reaction by the believer based on the past tense action by God.
No where in either text do I see “CAN ordain.”
The “can” was your term. If the powers that be are ordained, as is stated, how about the powers that will be, or shall be? Are they a past tense action by God also? Does God foreordain, or ordain, ALL powers that be? The distinction is between the ABILITY to do so and the actual action of DOING it. God is willing, as in the following but what happens?
Luke 13:34
O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, which killest the prophets, and stonest them that are sent unto thee; how often would I have gathered thy children together, as a hen doth gather her brood under her wings, and ye would not!
Where we disagree my brother, is somewhere there is a will that does not comply with God’s will.
Also,
Mark 3:14
“And he ordained twelve, that they should be with him, and that he might send them forth to preach”,…Judas was also ordained, to preach, and in John 15:16, to bring forth fruit that was to remain.
What happened to the one? Where is his fruit like the other eleven produced?
I love you also Paul but I still have to quote PSR, “thats a rough one man”.
The reformed position is not without its verses or it would not be accepted as widely as it is. It is where it forces a private interpretation on the others that creates the divide within me. I said in a post about nine months ago it is sometimes easier to determine what a passage of holy writ is not saying or cannot be, rather than what it is saying.
Your brother in Christ
Don,
Virtually all of the passages that supposedly “contradict” the reformed position have been answered and can be systematized. The problem is that our arminian American evangelical traditions blind us to the actual contextual-historical meaning of verses. For example you quote Luke 13:34. If you examine the context, especially where that is also quoted in Matthew you recognize that Jesus had just finished rebuking and condemning the Pharisees for trying to subvert his ministry. Then when you take into account he says “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, which killest the prophets, and stonest them that are sent unto thee; how often would I have gathered thy CHILDREN together” you realize that he is talking about the rulers/government of Jerusalem (Scribes, Pharisees, Herod) that for so long had been corrupt spiritually and had attempted to thwart the Israelites from being with their God and in NT times with Jesus. Those verses about Judas actually confirm the reformed position, because Judas was ordained as an Apostle so that he would betray Jesus as Peter says in Acts 2:23, “this Man, delivered over by the (A)predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, (B)you nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and put Him to death.”
Of course there is God’s Moral Will and then there is his Secret or Hidden Will for history. Ultimately God does not want there to be death, but now that sin is in the world he ordains death (Wars, Famines, Plagues) to bring history to is final conclusion and to execute judgment. So Judas’ betrayal was against God’s moral Will, but it was not against his Soveriegn Will.
Paul
One thing most of all of us fall short on is the appreciation for our brothers and sisters in Christ.
I appreciate you, your family, and your sacrifice for the kingdom. Regardless of the differences between us, the day we are united at the Supper will be a day long awaited by this sinner. I am grateful to God that he allowed me the privilege of your fellowship throughout the years my friend.
May God bless you and your efforts for His great cause.
don~~~~(naught have I gotten, but what I received)
Colin
Really! The text says he was ordained to “preach” and “bring forth fruit” and someone “would not” as to God’s will (someone is clearly resisting the irresistible). Like I said “differences”. Where we will stay in disagreement is I accept that some choices a man makes are his, not God’s. I also recognize that you find this appalling. According to many of the reformed theologians, God is the one who ordained sin so as to show his grace to those he choose. If “sin” then, is the reason for “death” (as you suggest), that God “ultimately” “does not want”, and God ordained sin (Pink), which brought about death, etc. etc. etc. BTW, there ARE more choices than that of Reformed or Armenian. Some, never had to reform from the errors of Catholicism. Neither did we carry over infant baptism and many other heresy’s because they never held them as doctrine to start with. Some started out lost sinners and ended up saved sinners with a new mind, hope and direction.
With this being just a rerun, I will state in conclusion, I love the Reformed, Armenian or any one else whom Christ died for, and here it goes, even John Hagee.
Hard to believe isn’t it? So misinformed with so much light.
don (just a sinner saved by His glorious grace)
Don,
You cannot take a word like “ordain” and find any place in the Bible where it occurs and assume that it is always talking about the same thing. In context, “ordain” as Paul quoted from Acts is talking about God’s ordaination from eternity past. When it says Jesus “ordained” the twelve to be his apostles it is talking about him appointing them on earth during the incarnation, it says nothing about God’s soveriegn eternal plan. By the way irresistable grace is just a word that fits into the acronym TULIP… Irresistable grace is the doctrine that regeneration precedes faith and causes faith. What do you do with the verses that state explicitly that regeneration precedes faith like 1 John 5:1or James 1:18 where it says “In the exercise of HIS will He brought us forth by the word of truth, so that we would be a kind of first fruits among His creatures.” Or John 1:13-14 where we find that the common denominator of all who believe is that they were (past tense) born of God not their own will. The entire Bible says that man is depraved and dead in trespasses and sins and wants nothing to do with God. God being the source of life is the only one who can bring them back to life so that they FREELY choose him (Eph. 2:1). We certainly do have a freewill, but we only choose things according to our desires. Only after God gives us a new heart (Ezekiel 36:25-27) will we choose Christ.
Also God Ordaining evil is not the same as God CAUSING evil. Him allowing sin to enter the world and directing where that sin goes and does, is not the same as him causing or being the source of it.
Who was it that never had to reform from the errors of Catholicism? The Donatists? They certaintly had plenty of errors of their own, and died out fairly quick. The Anabaptists for the most part were heretical in their views. There are plenty of different views within Christianity but the question is, which one is Biblical? I used to claim, just like you, that I was not a Calvinist or an Arminian, but could you please show me how your beliefs aren’t Arminian? Also I wouldn’t consider covenantal infant baptism to be a heresy. There are many solid reformed theologians who believe it, and it IS NOT the same as the Romish belief of infant baptismal regeneration.
Colin
As I said “differences”. Stick with your systematic system, I’m a little more simple I guess, I expect words to mean what they say, especially from my heavenly Father.
My folly, my problem.
Feel free to continue, but I shall not, out of respect for Paul.
May the Lord bless you sir. And I do mean it.
Paul
I apologize to you for entering into this arena again on your blog. This discussion is similar in futility to that of a substance abuse addict, most never come to a conclusion.
Love ya brother
Don,
Don’t apologize for engaging this issue. This is what this forum is for - open and honest debate about theological differences. I welcome it.
In the vernacular,
You da man.
I heard Paul talking about this yesterday, those of us who don’t drink the republican koolaid would find this information very disturbing.
http://www.publicintegrity.org/WarCard/Default.aspx?src=project_home&context=overview&id=945
Colin
I lied. Must be the flesh. But then again, under the reformed system, my speech is foreordained, so now I’m still confused, but here I go anyways.
Question;
In, 2 Corinthians 5:14 “…we thus judge, that if one died for all, then all were dead; And that he died for all,…”
Do all three the all’s mean all? Or does the “all” were dead, have a different defination than the died for “all”?
Don,
Concerning your first remark, this has already been address. I would just recommend that you question yourself to make sure that you are really giving the issues of ordaination vs. responsibility a fair hearing. You may be confused, but you need to ask yourself, “Am I really looking at all the biblical data and trying to seek an answer or am I just being stubborn towards something I don’t like”.
Secondly, we need to define the term “all”. All of what? All Jews? Well Romans 9:6 says that not all of Israel is Israel. All Gentiles? All Christians/elect? All nations but not nessecarily every individual in that nation? Now I know that you are KJV-only, but will you at least be honest in that the KJV translators used Greek when they were translating it and that we have at least THAT Greek today? Because that word “all” can be defined as “all kinds”. We need to look at the context, historically and linguistically. Linguistically this is a personal letter to CHRISTIANS. Secondly, we need to recognize that all throughout the New Testament and especially in Acts the biggest controversy in the early Church was how Gentiles could be included in the covenant. This is why the most immediate meaning to “all” and “world” in the Bible is Jew and Gentile. This is evidenced by many quotations in the Bible, for example when the Pharisees said that the “whole world” was going after Jesus. Does that mean every single individual (the Incan, Chinese, Aztecs) were following Jesus? No, of course not and neither should we here assume that Paul is talking about every single individual, rather he is talking about all Christians. If Christ really and truly vindicated the righteousness of God and propitiated his wrath, and he did it for every individual then why is anyone going to go to hell? If you say it’s because of their unbelief, isn’t unbelief a sin? Anyways scripture talks about people in hell suffering for specific sins (idolatry, sexual immorality) but how could that be possible if Jesus once and for all took their punishment? Single words like “all” and “world” need to be interpreted according to the rest of scripture. Long discourses on the doctrines of grace such as John 6, 8, and 10 by Jesus and Romans 8,9 and Esphesians 1 take precedence over one small word for me translated into the English.
“All” may be a small word but it is the core of the reformed position. Also the core of the historical Baptistist position. Notice, I did not say Armenian. Such a “small word”, yet such a powerful implication that rests upon it. What really matters is; What saith the Lord. You dodged the question however, for if the “all” means~ “all Christians” then it must follow that~ “all (Christians only) were dead”. What a mess. What would it do should it mean “all mankind”? If “all” mankind were dead (in trespasses and sin) then we also “thus judge” Christ died for “all” mankind. Same word, (however small) same context. I ask you again, do the three all’s define the same?
To quote John Calvin in his commentary on Isiah :53:6
” All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.”
6. We all, like sheep, have gone astray. In order to impress more deeply on our hearts the benefit of the death of Christ, he shows how necessary is that healing which he formerly mentioned. If we do not perceive our wretchedness and poverty, we shall never know how desirable is that remedy which Christ has brought to us, or approach him with due ardor of affection. As soon as we know that we are ruined, then, aware of our wretchedness, we eagerly run to avail ourselves of the remedy, which otherwise would be held by us in no estimation. In order, therefore, that Christ may be appreciated by us, let every one consider and examine himself, so as to acknowledge that he is ruined till he is redeemed by Christ.
We see that here none are excepted, for the Prophet includes “all.” The whole human race would have perished, if Christ had not brought relief. He does not even except the Jews, whose hearts were puffed up with a false opinion of their own superiority, but condemns them indiscriminately, along with others, to destruction. By comparing them to sheep, he intends not to extenuate their guilt, as if little blame attached to them, but to state plainly that it belongs to Christ to gather from their wanderings those who resembled brute beasts
It would appear than Mr. Calvin understood the term.
All, whosoever, any, are powerful words. Why relegate them to a insignificant status?
The answer to your question you will not like; ‘the will of man’.
Jesus put it this way: Luke 13:3
“I tell you, Nay: but, except YE repent, ye shall all likewise perish.”
(emphasis mine)~~~~ I know he gives us the repentance.
don
‘You dodged the question however, for if the “all” means~ “all Christians” then it must follow that~ “all (Christians only) were dead”. What a mess.’
If you look at some of the surrounding context to this verse you will see that Paul is talking about how Christians should not boast in Paul or in themselves, and should have a new outlook on themselves and eachother. Therefore he is talking about what Christ has done for THEM. If the all is referring to all Christians, then I do not understand how when it said all died it must mean no one else ever has died. Anyways the phrase “Christ died for all, therefore all died”, seems to be talking more about the death of the sinful nature that Christians experience when they are united to Christ as Paul illustrates in Romans 6. In that case Christians are the only ones who experience that, and I don’t think any Calvinist or Arminian would deny that.
I have just began to crack open the Institutes in the last couple of weeks… John Calvin did not convince me of ‘calvinism’, rather reading the Bible clearly, in context, and divorcing myself from evangelical traditions (God SOOOOO Loved the WORLD!) led me to that conclusion. I don’t think that John Calvin is contradicting Calvinism there anyways.
“All, whosoever, any, are powerful words.”
I really don’t understand this “whosoever” business… whosoever is just an old proper english term for whoever. I always here people quote it as if it has some sort of inherent arminian meanning, but I think what’s really going on is an attachment to tradition. Just like the phrase, “God SOOOO loved the world”, the verse, “Whosoever believes!” has been quoted so much with emotion and underlying arminian assumptions people stop listening to what the verse is really saying in context, and just accept the cliches. Every Calvinist agrees that WHOEVER believes will be saved but as several verses later say… “But he who practices the truth comes to the Light, so that his deeds may be manifested as HAVING BEEN WROUGHT in God.” John 3:21 God regenerates the elect sinner, brings them out of spiritual death giving them a new heart (Eph. 2:1 Ezk. 36:25-27), and with their new nature they FREELY Choose him!
ColinSamu
Read the text as you choose. As for me, I will accept what it says. Again, often I find it a less arduous task to determine what a verse is not saying (based upon scripture comparison) than what it is saying. Obviously you have it figured out, but unfortunately, I cannot make that claim for myself.
Fruitless, but non-the-less, good practice. Thanks for the volley.
1 John 2:2
And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.
don