5 Points of Calvinism

[Catholic_Dude]

Then who unleashed it upon Jesus?

The only suffering Jesus underwent was emotional and physical caused by the hands of wicked men with evil intentions. Christ underwent no divine chastisement.

I would suggest reading Isaiah 53 on this point.

Amen. And when you see how the NEW TESTAMENT interprets Is 53 you will have to agree with me. The NT shows how the OT unfolds.

The penalty for violating the law is death.
That penalty was placed on Christ rather than on us.

It depends on what you mean here. If you mean God had an innocent man executed, that is blasphemous. If you mean Christ underwent a spiritual death in our place, that is heretical.

Further, if the penalty is physical death, and Christ took that punishment, then why do Christians still have to die?
Only the Catholic side can answer that, and it is rooted in the Catholic understanding of Nature & Grace versus the Protestant understanding.

I would also suggest reading shoeleg.yak.net/49 by St. Anselm. Hopefully you wouldn’t consider him a blasphemer or heretic.

St Anselm and all Catholic saints taught what is known as “satisfaction,” which in no way means “Penal Substitution”. See ch 2 of the link in my sig for more info.

As for Calvinism versus Lutheranism? The difference is Calvinism is essentially a logically consistent Lutheranism, while Lutheranism sacrifices consistency for orthodoxy (eg recognizing the Bible clearly teaches salvation can be lost).

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Which Christological error are you referring to?

The biggest one is with their understanding of the Atonement, Protestants are guilty of a form of Nestorianism.

 

[TriuneUnity]

The biggest one is with their understanding of the Atonement, Protestants are guilty of a form of Nestorianism.

I agree vis a vie Calvinism when it comes to things like the Supper. I am not sure where you’re going with the atonement, though.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

I agree vis a vie Calvinism when it comes to things like the Supper. I am not sure where you’re going with the atonement, though.

To believe that Jesus underwent a Divine Chastisement by His Father obliterates the Trinity at its very core, further the only way the human soul of Christ could have undergone Divine Chastisement is if Christ’s Divine Nature separated from it, thus Nestorianism.*

*I need to make it clear the great majority of Protestants don’t deliberately intend this, but that is in fact what they are teaching. The problem has its root in the hertical doctrine of Sola Fide.

 

[TriuneUnity]

The only suffering Jesus underwent was emotional and physical caused by the hands of wicked men with evil intentions. Christ underwent no divine chastisement.

My God, my God, why has thou forsaken me.

Amen. And when you see how the NEW TESTAMENT interprets Is 53 you will have to agree with me. The NT shows how the OT unfolds.

Isaiah places all of the action as God chastising the Messiah figure for our transgressions.

It depends on what you mean here. If you mean God had an innocent man executed, that is blasphemous. If you mean Christ underwent a spiritual death in our place, that is heretical.

He underwent physical death. Not eternal death (hell). Christ was innocent, of course…but our sins were imputed to Him so that God’s justice in the form of the Law was placed on Christ…ultimately, death.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

My God, my God, why has thou forsaken me.

This is Jesus quoting Ps 22. Protestants interpret this in a gravely heretical manner, equivalent to the way a JW interprets “The Father is greater than I.”

This all comes back to Christology and the Ecumencial Councils, which Protestantism threw away (unintentionally) in order to make room for Sola Fide. No Christian with orthodox Christology would interpret Ps 22 in the sense of Divine Chastisement.

Jesus was not just quoting verse 1, but infact was applying all of Ps 22 to himself. In that Psalm it is very clear these are physical pains at the hands of wicked men. So where does this “abandon me” come from? The Church Cathers like St Augustine rightly taught that this means God did not rescue Jesus from the attackers. Here is a good passage to hightlight that point:
Mat 26 53Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels? But how then would the Scriptures [eg Ps 22] be fulfilled that say it must happen in this way?
Jesus was “forsaken/abandoned” only in the sense God did not shield Him from danger. THAT is orthodox Christology.

Isaiah places all of the action as God chastising the Messiah figure for our transgressions.

Watch how it unfolds in the NT, especially the expclit quotes of Is 53 in the Gospel’s and Epistles. You are reading a false interpretation into the text.

He underwent physical death.

Good, but there goes any chance of having God’s wrath unleashed upon him. The death was caused by humans, who cannot inflict divine wrath.

Not eternal death (hell).

This is the logical punishment, though historically Protestants like Luther opted for a divine chastisement equivalent to an eternity in hell (if there is such a thing). Further, this is how you interpreted “my God my God” above, God abandoning Jesus in the same way a damned soul in hell is abandoned by God.

Christ was innocent, of course…but our sins were imputed to Him so that God’s justice in the form of the Law was placed on Christ…ultimately, death.

The Bible says nothing about sins being imputed to Jesus, that is pure Protestant invention.

 

[sandusky]

God most certainly would be unjust for pouring his Wrath on Christ…

Why is that?

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Why is that?

Jesus was His Beloved Son and, more importantly, He was innocent. There is nothing just about punishing an innocent man, in fact it undermines justice at its very core.

It is just as crazy as the pro-abortion argument that says a woman who is raped should be able to abort the child…so because the woman was offended she can justly turn around and murder an innocent bystander?

Further, that notion undermines forgiveness at its very core because if the “price is paid” then the concept of forgiveness doesn’t exist. The Bank doesn’t “forgive you” if someone comes and pays your debts.

 

[sandusky]

Catholic Dude:

Jesus was His Beloved Son and, more importantly, He was innocent. There is nothing just about punishing an innocent man, in fact it undermines justice at its very core.

Even though bulls are bulls, and not Christ, and even though goats are goats, and not Christ, and even though the blood of either was incapable of saving anyone (Heb 10:4), weren’t they innocent, and wasn’t their innocent blood given for atonement (Lev 17:11; cf Gen 3:21), and didn’t they point forward to the innocent one whose blood would be shed for the guilty ones?
Catholic Dude:

It is just as crazy as the pro-abortion argument that says a woman who is raped should be able to abort the child…so because the woman was offended she can justly turn around and murder an innocent bystander?

An appeal to emotion.
Catholic Dude:

Further, that notion undermines forgiveness at its very core because if the “price is paid” then the concept of forgiveness doesn’t exist. The Bank doesn’t “forgive you” if someone comes and pays your debts.

Not so. Were I to arrange to pay off another’s indebtedness to a bank, the bank would most assuredly accept my payment, and “forgive the debt,” of that one whose indebtedness I paid.

I’ll offer again the explanation I previously offered to you on this very same issue: "There is the condemned criminal, the guilty sinner. But beside him there is only One, who is Judge, Wronged Party, King (or Law), and Substitute. God was not administering someone else’s law, but His own, and the sin was not committed against someone else, but against Him; and above all He did not take someone else and accept him as substitute for the condemned sinner, but He came Himself, took upon Himself the nature of the guilty ones, and bore the penalty of His own law. The Substitute who died on Calvary expressly declared Himself to be the Judge of the world. Instead, therefore, of a judge punishing an innocent third party in place of the criminal, we have a Triune judge, One of whose Persons identified Himself with the nature of the criminal in all except his sin, then takes the sin itself upon Himself, and suffers the penalty of His own Law, which indeed has no existence independent of Him. Moreover, not only is there this identity between the Substitute and the Judge, but also in a mysterious sense between the Substitute and the criminal, when the latter, becomes willing to accept the identification. Can this be termed immoral?"

H.E. Guillebaud, Why the Cross? (London: InterVarsity Fellowship, 1954), 147f.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Even though bulls are bulls, and not Christ, and even though goats are goats, and not Christ, and even though the blood of either was incapable of saving anyone (Heb 10:4), weren’t they innocent, and wasn’t their innocent blood given for atonement (Lev 17:11; cf Gen 3:21), and didn’t they point forward to the innocent one whose blood would be shed for the guilty ones?

The animals were not punished, nor was punishment transferred, that is a mistake. The value is in the life, in giving it up to God He is pleased and His wrath is turned away.Prov 16: 6 Through love and faithfulness sin is atoned for
Offering up to God something pleasing to Him atones for sin, not punishing something in your place. This is also why there were grain offerings and such (which obviously cannot be punished), rather they were offering up to God things of value which gains His favor.

In the Bible Jesus is explicitly called the Passover Lamb. The Passover Lamb was not punished!
See Appendix 2:
catholicdefense.googlepages.com/PenSub.htm#Appendix2a

An appeal to emotion.

LOL. There was nothing “emotion” about my claim. Someone receiving an injustice does not mean they can turn around and punish an innocent person.

Not so. Were I to arrange to pay off another’s indebtedness to a bank, the bank would most assuredly accept my payment, and “forgive the debt,” of that one whose indebtedness I paid.

There is nothing to forgive, forgiveness has no place here.

If you bounce a check you might get a small fine, the bank FORGIVES that fine if it drops the charges, but it does not forgive if it still requires payment.

I’ll offer again the explanation I previously offered to you on this very same issue: “There is the condemned criminal, the guilty sinner. But beside him there is only One, who is Judge, Wronged Party, King (or Law), and Substitute. God was not administering someone else’s law, but His own, and the sin was not committed against someone else, but against Him; and above all He did not take someone else and accept him as substitute for the condemned sinner, but He came Himself, took upon Himself the nature of the guilty ones, and bore the penalty of His own law. The Substitute who died on Calvary expressly declared Himself to be the Judge of the world. Instead, therefore, of a judge punishing an innocent third party in place of the criminal, we have a Triune judge, One of whose Persons identified Himself with the nature of the criminal in all except his sin, then takes the sin itself upon Himself, and suffers the penalty of His own Law, which indeed has no existence independent of Him. Moreover, not only is there this identity between the Substitute and the Judge, but also in a mysterious sense between the Substitute and the criminal, when the latter, becomes willing to accept the identification. Can this be termed immoral?”

H.E. Guillebaud, Why the Cross? (London: InterVarsity Fellowship, 1954), 147f.

In the context of Penal Substitution, the idea of bearing the penalty Himself is Divine Schizophrenia, turning the executioners gun to His own head and calling it justice. That is unbiblical and blasphemous, and it does not meet the definition of forgiveness but rather revenge and bloodthirst.

 

[MarcoPolo]

Following Sproul’s language with respect to the elect to reprobation, God’s mode of activity is negative. IOW, God does not have to do anything in order for the reprobate to be damned, because left in their natural state, unaided-by-grace, they will not obey the Gospel, and thus will bring damnation upon themselves.

That is known as preterition, which says that God withholds his grace from those not predestined to eternal life.

Well, articulated. Really. I generally understood it in this way as well. However, I must resist approving any claim that God withholds His grace from anyone. I believe all people have the opportunity to be saved. Even if God does provide irresistible grace to some, I understand the rest receive enough grace to take them to heaven, if they so utilize it. For instance:Titus 2:11 For the grace of God our Saviour hath appeared to all men***1 Timothy 2:3-4** This is good and pleasing to God our savior, who wills everyone to be saved…

Romans 11:32 For God delivered all to disobedience, that he might have mercy upon all.*Perhaps somewhere in there Sproul references grace given to everyone such that everyone could be saved. What I cannot reconcile is the position that those whom God, negatively, “passes over,” are not given grace and therefore end up in hell (not because of God’s active motion, but rather His lack of one). I know Sproul is not an idiot, so perhaps there are more nuances than this…I find the whole thing confusing. :hypno:

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Perseverance is stated in the NT, by authoritative and inspired writings; the writings of post-apostolic writers are not inspired Scripture.

Concerning soteriology, the five points of Calvinism all hang together, and thus truly state only One Point: It is God alone who saves sinners, as you and the Scripture say.

You point to scriptures alot and call them authoritative, can you please point out where that teaching is/comes from?

 

[sandusky]

Catholic Dude:

The animals were not punished, nor was punishment transferred, that is a mistake.

That is easy to say.
Catholic Dude:

The value is in the life, in giving it up to God He is pleased and His wrath is turned away.

So you have no difficulty assigning to OT sacrifices the “turning away” of God’s wrath, but reject the turning away of God’s wrath with respect to the sacrifice of Christ? Isn’t that inconsistent?
Catholic Dude:

Prov 16: 6 Through love and faithfulness sin is atoned for

Thanks for that, however, you’ve neglected to explain how it applies to your argument.
Catholic Dude:

Offering up to God something pleasing to Him atones for sin, not punishing something in your place.

It’s not just the offering of “something,” that atones for sin, but specifically, ***the offering of the “blood,” of a “living thing sacrificed” that atones for the sins of the one who offers the sacrifice—***furthermore, God states that it is He who has given them the blood on the altar for atonement. And, Isaiah says, “but the LORD was pleased to crush Him, putting Him to grief, if He would render Himself as a guilt offering…”
Catholic Dude:

This is also why there were grain offerings and such (which obviously cannot be punished), rather they were offering up to God things of value which gains His favor.

I think Christ can be seen in each of the OT offerings.
Catholic Dude:

In the Bible Jesus is explicitly called the Passover Lamb. The Passover Lamb was not punished!

Actually, He is referred to by Paul as our Passover [Lamb]; it’s more personal.
Catholic Dude:

LOL. There was nothing “emotion” about my claim. Someone receiving an injustice does not mean they can turn around and punish an innocent person.

OK, your argument was not meant to be an emotional appeal.
Catholic Dude:

There is nothing to forgive, forgiveness has no place here.

C’mon; the debt’s forgiven, and that is what Christ’s death did for me—forgave the debt I owed for always breaking God’s law.
Catholic Dude:

If you bounce a check you might get a small fine, the bank FORGIVES that fine if it drops the charges, but it does not forgive if it still requires payment.

That’s a completely different argument from the one to which I responded.
Catholic Dude:

In the context of Penal Substitution, the idea of bearing the penalty Himself is Divine Schizophrenia, turning the executioners gun to His own head and calling it justice. That is unbiblical and blasphemous, and it does not meet the definition of forgiveness but rather revenge and bloodthirst.

An appeal to emotion.

 

[Reformed]

Your use of the word “propitiation” is not adequate here. The Latin and English words “propitiation” stress an appeasement of wrath. The biblical word stress a completeness of payment. “Expiation” would have been a better choice here than propitiation…

The atonement is both expiation and propitiation. Christ bore the wrath of God on our behalf (exhaust, appease, satisfy). God actually poured out His wrath for sin on Christ.

Isaiah 53
The Suffering Servant

    Who has believed our message?
     And to whom has the arm of the LORD been revealed? 
    For He grew up before Him like a tender shoot,
     And like a root out of parched ground;
     He has no stately form or majesty
     That we should look upon Him,
     Nor appearance that we should be attracted to Him. 
    He was despised and forsaken of men,
     A man of sorrows and acquainted with grief;
     And like one from whom men hide their face
     He was despised, and we did not esteem Him. 
    Surely our griefs He Himself bore,
     And our sorrows He carried;
     Yet we ourselves esteemed Him stricken,
     Smitten of God, and afflicted. 
   But He was pierced through for our transgressions,
     He was crushed for our iniquities;
     The chastening for our well-being fell upon Him,
     And by His scourging we are healed.

All of us like sheep have gone astray,
Each of us has turned to his own way;
But the LORD has caused the iniquity of us all
To fall on Him.
He was oppressed and He was afflicted,
Yet He did not open His mouth;
Like a lamb that is led to slaughter,
And like a sheep that is silent before its shearers,
So He did not open His mouth.
By oppression and judgment He was taken away;
And as for His generation, who considered
That He was cut off out of the land of the living
For the transgression of my people, to whom the stroke was due?
His grave was assigned with wicked men,
Yet He was with a rich man in His death,
Because He had done no violence,
Nor was there any deceit in His mouth.
But the LORD was pleased
To crush Him, putting Him to grief;

If He would render Himself as a guilt offering,
He will see His offspring,
He will prolong His days,
And the good pleasure of the LORD will prosper in His hand.
As a result of the anguish of His soul,
He will see it and be satisfied;
By His knowledge the Righteous One,
My Servant, will justify the many,
As He will bear their iniquities.
Therefore, I will allot Him a portion with the great,
And He will divide the booty with the strong;
Because He poured out Himself to death,
And was numbered with the transgressors;
Yet He Himself bore the sin of many,
And interceded for the transgressors.

 

[Reformed]

The problem is in your assumption that Christ is “paying” the Father for our sins. Scripture never speaks of our being ransomed from the Father–this is a blasphemous and incoherent concept. We are ransomed back from the powers of death and hell, to whom God justly delivered us because we chose to obey them rather than God. Christ propitiates God’s wrath by ransoming us from Satan. This is the Biblical and traditional way of speaking. Scripture never says that God “poured out His wrath” on Christ.

Having been ransomed from the power of Satan, we can choose to remain under that power. There’s no “double payment” involved.

Edwin

I thought the teaching of being ransomed from Satan has been condemned as false teaching. Does anybody know the history of that position? Do you adhere to the 39 Articles of Faith as being Episcopal?

Article XXXI: Of the one Oblation of Christ finished upon the Cross
The Offering of Christ once made is that perfect redemption, propitiation, and satisfaction, for all the sins of the whole world, both original and actual; and there is none other satisfaction for sin, but that alone. Wherefore the sacrifices of Masses, in the which it was commonly said, that the Priest did offer Christ for the quick and the dead, to have remission of pain or guilt, were blasphemous fables, and dangerous deceits.

Romans 5

Peace with God Through Faith

5:1 Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we [1] have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. 2 Through him we have also obtained access by faith [2] into this grace in which we stand, and we [3] rejoice [4] in hope of the glory of God. 3 More than that, we rejoice in our sufferings, knowing that suffering produces endurance, 4 and endurance produces character, and character produces hope, 5 and hope does not put us to shame, because God’s love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit who has been given to us.

6 For while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. 7 For one will scarcely die for a righteous person—though perhaps for a good person one would dare even to die— 8 but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. 9 Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God. 10 For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life. 11 More than that, we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation. Romans 5

 

[Reformed]

But the the issue is how can prevention of condemnation be the purpose of chastisement when justification in and of itself is sufficient to prevent condemnation? If there is nothing the Christian can do to undo his justification, then there is no need for any chastisement to prevent such an event from happening. So if Paul held the Calvinist view, then that passage makes absolutely no sense. That passage only fits in a Catholic, Lutheran, or classic Arminian context, since all of them believe that one can lose one’s justification and hence there is actually something to prevent.

I have to go. I may be online tomorrow.

God bless,
Michael

You lost me in your post. Please consider Romans chapter 8 in regards to your posting:

Romans 8

Life in the Spirit

8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. [1] 2 For the law of the Spirit of life has set you [2] free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death. 3 For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, [3] he condemned sin in the flesh, 4 in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. 5 For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit. 6 For to set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace. 7 For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God’s law; indeed, it cannot. 8 Those who are in the flesh cannot please God.

9 You, however, are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you. Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him. 10 But if Christ is in you, although the body is dead because of sin, the Spirit is life because of righteousness. 11 If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit who dwells in you.

Heirs with Christ

12 So then, brothers, [4] we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh. 13 For if you live according to the flesh you will die, but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live. 14 For all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons [5] of God. 15 For you did not receive the spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you have received the Spirit of adoption as sons, by whom we cry, “Abba! Father!” 16 The Spirit himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God, 17 and if children, then heirs—heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, provided we suffer with him in order that we may also be glorified with him.

Future Glory

18 For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed to us. 19 For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God. 20 For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope 21 that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. 22 For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now. 23 And not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies. 24 For in this hope we were saved. Now hope that is seen is not hope. For who hopes for what he sees? 25 But if we hope for what we do not see, we wait for it with patience.

26 Likewise the Spirit helps us in our weakness. For we do not know what to pray for as we ought, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words. 27 And he who searches hearts knows what is the mind of the Spirit, because [6] the Spirit intercedes for the saints according to the will of God. 28 And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, [7] for those who are called according to his purpose. 29 For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. 30 And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.

God’s Everlasting Love

31 What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who can be [8] against us? 32 He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, how will he not also with him graciously give us all things? 33 Who shall bring any charge against God’s elect? It is God who justifies. 34 Who is to condemn? Christ Jesus is the one who died—more than that, who was raised—who is at the right hand of God, who indeed is interceding for us. [9] 35 Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or danger, or sword? 36 As it is written,

“For your sake we are being killed all the day long;
we are regarded as sheep to be slaughtered.”

37 No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. 38 For I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, 39 nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord.

 

[Reformed]

I understand Sproul to advance a flowery way of saying God doesn’t send people to hell…but in effect what he describes God doing is effectively sending people to hell. So unless there are idiosyncrasies I don’t get at this point, I cannot see this being an act of God. Do you have further light on this teaching?

Have you wrestled with Romans chapter 9?

Romans 9

God’s Sovereign Choice

9:1 I am speaking the truth in Christ—I am not lying; my conscience bears me witness in the Holy Spirit— 2 that I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. 3 For I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, [1] my kinsmen according to the flesh. 4 They are Israelites, and to them belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises. 5 To them belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen.

6 But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, 7 and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but “Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.” 8 This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring. 9 For this is what the promise said: “About this time next year I will return, and Sarah shall have a son.” 10 And not only so, but also when Rebekah had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, 11 though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls— 12 she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” 13 As it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”

14 What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God’s part? By no means! 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.” 16 So then it depends not on human will or exertion, [2] but on God, who has mercy. 17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” 18 So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.

19 You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” 20 But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” 21 Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? 22 What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23 in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory— 24 even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles? 25 As indeed he says in Hosea,

“Those who were not my people I will call ‘my people,’
and her who was not beloved I will call ‘beloved.’”
26 “And in the very place where it was said to them, ‘You are not my people,’
there they will be called ‘sons of the living God.’”

27 And Isaiah cries out concerning Israel: “Though the number of the sons of Israel [3] be as the sand of the sea, only a remnant of them will be saved, 28 for the Lord will carry out his sentence upon the earth fully and without delay.” 29 And as Isaiah predicted,

“If the Lord of hosts had not left us offspring,
we would have been like Sodom
and become like Gomorrah.”

Israel’s Unbelief

30 What shall we say, then? That Gentiles who did not pursue righteousness have attained it, that is, a righteousness that is by faith; 31 but that Israel who pursued a law that would lead to righteousness [4] did not succeed in reaching that law. 32 Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as if it were based on works. They have stumbled over the stumbling stone, 33 as it is written,

“Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense;
and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame.”

 

[sandusky]

MarcoPolo:

Well, articulated. Really. I generally understood it in this way as well. ]u\However, I must resist approving any claim that God withholds His grace from anyone. I believe all people have the opportunity to be saved. Even if God does provide irresistible grace to some, I understand the rest receive enough grace to take them to heaven, if they so utilize it

. For instance:

Titus 2:11 For the grace of God our Saviour hath appeared to all men

1 Timothy 2:3-4 This is good and pleasing to God our savior, who wills everyone to be saved…

Romans 11:32 For God delivered all to disobedience, that he might have mercy upon all.I understand your position, and disagree with you:**Colossians 3:12

12 So, So, as those who have been chosen of God, holy and beloved, put on a heart of compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience;

1 Thessalonians 5:9

9 For God has not destined us for wrath, but for obtaining salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ,

1 Peter 2:8-9

8 and, “A stone of stumbling and a rock of offense”; for they stumble because they are disobedient to the word, and to this doom they were also appointed.

9 But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for God’s own possession, so that you may proclaim the excellencies of Him who has called you out of darkness into His marvelous light…**

MarcoPolo:

Perhaps somewhere in there Sproul references grace given to everyone such that everyone could be saved.

No, Sproul believes in limited atonement.

MarcoPolo:

What I cannot reconcile is the position that those whom God, negatively, “passes over,” are not given grace and therefore end up in hell (not because of God’s active motion, but rather His lack of one).

I don’t understand why.

Catholic predestination teaches that God gives only to some the grace of perseverance, and that He withholds the grace of perseverance from others.

Essentially, then, ISTM, you’re rejecting not only what I believe, but also what you must believe de fide.

Ott states that the CC “accepts predestination of the elect to heaven, but also affirms the freedom of the human will, thus staking out a position distinct from Calvinism. Predestination to hell, in Catholicism, always involves man’s free will, and foreseen sins, so that man is ultimately responsible for his own damnation, not God.”

Calvinism asserts the same thing: Predestination to hell always involves man’s free will, understanding that man apart from grace can do nothing but sin, man is ultimately responsible for his own damnation, not God.

MarcoPolo:

I know Sproul is not an idiot, so perhaps there are more nuances than this…I find the whole thing confusing.

I understand.

 

[Reformed]

Far be it for me to defend Calvinism lol…but regardless, every side would have to maintain that God sends people to Hell. Granted, it is due to their actions which are condemnable, but Calvinism would say the same thing.

Does everyone agree that God would be completely just for sending everyone to Hell for their rebellion and sin against Him? What are we saved from? What is the 2nd coming of Christ about for those who are not united to Christ?

The Judgment at Christ’s Coming

5 This is evidence of the righteous judgment of God, that you may be considered worthy of the kingdom of God, for which you are also suffering— 6 since indeed God considers it just to repay with affliction those who afflict you, 7 and to grant relief to you who are afflicted as well as to us, when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with his mighty angels 8 in flaming fire, inflicting vengeance on those who do not know God and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. 9 They will suffer the punishment of eternal destruction, away from [2] the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might, 10 when he comes on that day to be glorified in his saints, and to be marveled at among all who have believed, because our testimony to you was believed. 11 To this end we always pray for you, that our God may make you worthy of his calling and may fulfill every resolve for good and every work of faith by his power, 12 so that the name of our Lord Jesus may be glorified in you, and you in him, according to the grace of our God and the Lord Jesus Christ. 2 Thes 1

 

[TriuneUnity]

Calvinism asserts the same thing: Predestination to hell always involves man’s free will, understanding that man apart from grace can do nothing but sin, man is ultimately responsible for his own damnation, not God.

I understand.

To be fair to Calvinism, this point must be understood otherwise it’s a charactiture of the system. The reason the reprobate are damned is not because God has passed them over, but because of their sin and unbelief. The person is the only responsible party. God doesn’t owe salvation to anyone at all. If He saved one person throughout all human history, He would be more than merciful.