5 Points of Calvinism

[Reformed]

What I see, Reformed, is a lack of understanding of the whole redeeming work of Christ…
You asked,
But you see, Christ came to redeem the entire world…and He did. That is what Calvary is all about. We are all of us, every person on this earth (present, past, future) redeemed
But whether or not we will be saved, is a question that only eternity will answer.
Two different concepts: confuse them, and chaos ensues…and from chaos, emerges the dark spectre of Calvinism.

Please help me understand your view on redemption. I see the meaning of redemption, renconcilation, and saved to be the same thing. They are all biblical words too.

 

[Reformed]

The sufficient/efficient distinction does NOT fit the Calvinist Limited Atonement model. In Limited Atonement Christ did NOT die sufficiently for all, He COULD HAVE, but He didn’t. In LA Christ’s merits were sufficient only for the elect. Further, and just as significant, we do not agree on what the Atonement was about (eg Christ did not endure divine chastisement).

I think the person and work of Christ is more than sufficient to save the entire world. The blood of Christ and His redeeming work is powerful enough to even save the fallen angles and Satan. However, the work of Christ was not intended to save Satan, and the fallen Angels. Do you see the difference? Consider the Scriptures of whom Christ died for with all of Scripture.

 

[sandusky]

MarcoPolo:

As to Titus 2:11, I was directly exegeting it in light of the Calvinist position that grace only appears to the elect. They therefore MUST interpret the “all” in Titus 2:11 as “few”.

You’re projecting what you are doing onto others—I’ll support that in a few moments.

(I’m aware that everyone brings their theological presuppositions to the table with them; therefore, care needs to be exercised when interpreting scripture; I always have the distinct impression that Catholics believe that they are free of all theological presuppositions.)

MarcoPolo:

That cannot stand. All either means “all” or "with minor exceptions" in every instance I can think of in Scripture.

Support that you’re projecting #1—the Dogma of Mary’s Immaculate Conception necessitates the Catholic understanding of the word “all” as ”with minor exceptions.”

MarcoPolo:

And you simply dismissed passages that say the same thing. God’s free gift of grace is offered to all.

You’ve yet to prove that.

And I haven’t dismissed the passages at all; what I’ve dismissed is your interpretation of the passage because you’ve offered little if any support for your interpretation. I’m perfectly willing to be persuaded by your interpretation, however, you must persuade.

MarcoPolo:

The Catholic Church teaches that all are given sufficient grace to accept by either a Thomistic or Molinistic view.

Support that you’re projecting #2—the Church’s position is “this;” the Church is the only true Church; therefore, “this” is true.

MarcoPolo:

Calvinism, as I have learned in this thread, teaches that God withholds salvific grace to the “many.” I provided a Molistic interpretation of Romans 9. And one could interpret the above passage about the twins the same way.

Let me make sure I’m understanding you correctly.

You’re saying the statement of Rom 9:11; namely, that God’s election was not based on anything the twins had done, either good or bad, because they hadn’t been born when God chose them, can, without problem, be interpreted to say that God looking into time future, saw how the twins would respond, and predestined each accordingly?

Is that what you’re saying? If it is, my only response is—wow…

MarcoPolo:

You said I conflicted with Catholic teaching. I did not conflict with Catholic teaching on initial justification or otherwise.

Forgive me my accusation; however, it sure seemed like it to me.

MarcoPolo:

Interpreting that passage such that God does not choose based on what one does is in conflict with every “do this” or “do that” command in Scripture to attain salvation.

That’s an interesting statement; I’ll give it more thought.

God’s gift of grace is free, of course, but He gives it to all, so that they might accept it. I think you misjudge how I would interpret the twins story.

You’ve not proven that.

MarcoPolo:

What we have not seen in this thread, is any evidence that God withholds the grace to be saved to anyone, much less “the many” we know will be damned.

**Romans 9:16-18

16 So then it** [God’s election] **does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, BUT on God who has mercy.

17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I raised you up, to demonstrate My power in you, and that My name might be proclaimed throughout the whole earth.”

18 So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires.**I submit that Pharoah meets the criterion of “anyone,” and that God accomplished the hardening of Pharaoh’s already sinful heart by withholding grace.

 

[Reformed]

YPharoah meets the criterion of “anyone,” and that God accomplished the hardening of Pharaoh’s already sinful heart by withholding grace.

That’s an excellent point. God hardens through active and passive hardening. Witholding grace is a passive hardening, correct (Rom 1)?

God’s Wrath on Unrighteousness
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. 19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.

24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, 25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.

26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

28 And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. 29 They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31 foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32 Though they know God’s decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them. - Rom 1

 

[raumzeitmc2]

Here are some tough questions related to the issues:

1. Why do you believe in Christ and most do not?

Who can say? This much however, is certain: The Church is Christ! It is his mystical body, the very “fullness of him” (Eph. 1:23). And “We are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones” (Eph 5:30).

Thus it is that through the Church salvation if brought to all who are still in darkness. And because of the intimate union of Christ with his Church, we too become participants (in a subordinate sense) in Christ’s work of salvation, for he himself said:

“We must work the works of him that sent me.” John 9:4.

And Revelation says:

“They will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with Him for a thousand years.” Rev. 20:6.

Note: Christians will reign “with,” not under Christ!

Augustine goes so far to say (and quite correctly), “We too are himself”

– Augustine, Sermon 263A:2:2, On the Ascension of the Lord, Works, pt, 3, vol. 7, p. 223. ISBN 1565480597

Consider now these passages on the unity / reciprocity of Christ and his Church:

Christ: A High Priest, who offers continual sacrifice to the Father.

“You are a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek.” Hebrews 5:6

The Church: A kingdom of priests, who offer continual sacrifice to the Father:

“I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service.” Rom. 12:1

Christians are to offer their bodies as a “living sacrifice.” This must mean that:
a. sacrifice does not always imply the death of the victim.
b. Christ too must be in some sense be offering himself to the Father even now as a “living sacrifice,” because it is inconceivable that his *lesser priests *(Christians) should offer sacrifice while their High Priest does not! For by definition, a priest is one who offers sacrifice. There simply is no such thing as a non-sacrificing priest!

Christ: “God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son…” John 3:16

The Church: “This is how we know what love is: Jesus Christ laid down his life for us. And we ought to lay down our lives for our brothers.” 1 John 3:16

Christ: “I am the light of the world.” John 8:12

The Church: “You are the light of the world.” Matt. 5:14

Christ: “taken up in glory.” 1 Tim. 3:16

The Church (individually and collectively): “will [be taken] into glory.” Psalm 76:24

Christ: appears in “glory.”

The Church: “you also will appear with him in glory.” Col. 3:4

Christ: “… I always do what is pleasing to him” John 8:29

The Church: “…we keep his commandments, and do those things that are pleasing in his sight. 1 John 3: 22

Christ: “Great are the works of the LORD.” Ps. 111:2

The Church: “For we are his handiwork…” Ephesians 2:10

A few more passages:

“We pray this so that the name of our Lord Jesus may be glorified in you, and you in him…” 2 Thess. 1:12

When you sin against your brothers … you sin against Christ. 1 Cor. 8:12

“Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven.” Matt 10:32. cf. Rev 3:5

“Because as he is, so are we in this world.” 1 John 4:17

And there are many more such parallels, but space is limited!

1. If you do not believe in sovereign grace (special grace to the elect), then do you really have something to boast about before God and man?

We are commanded to do good works, to put away sin, to unite ourselves more and more with Him and his one Church, to shun with all our might those teachers who tear at Christ’s sacred body through heresy and schism. And this we do without boasting, but, on the contrary, in “fear and trembling,” hoping for salvation. We do not boast as though we were already saved and had no worries for, as the great champion and lover of Unity St. Augustine tells us:

There are debts; that’s a general statement, and we never stop getting into debt. We admit that we need to be forgiven every day; but we ought not, for that reason, to relax comfortably in shameful behavior, in misdeeds and crimes, as though we had nothing to worry about.

– Augustine, Sermon 229E:3

The Works of Saint Augustine: A Translation for the 21st Century, (1993), Sermons on the Liturgical Seasons (184-229Z), trans. and notes by Edmund Vol. 6, pt.3, p. 297, ISBN 1565480503

But it isn’t just a matter of faith, but of faith and works. Each is necessary. For the demons also believe –you heard the apostle- and tremble (Jas 2:19); but their believing doesn’t do them any good. Faith alone is not enough, unless works too are joined to it: Faith working through love (Gal 5:6), says the apostle.

Sermon16A:11:2, Works, Sermons 1-19, p, 357, ISBN 0911782753

…Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved (Mk 16:16), we don’t, of course, understand someone believing in the same way as demons believe and tremble … So when he said Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, he didn’t mean all who believe and are baptized, but only had some of them in mind, those namely who are established in the faith which according to the apostles distinction works through love.” (Gal 5:6)

Sermon 71:16, Works, Sermons 51-94, p. 255. ISBN 0911782850

Strive to be brought forth in health, not fatally aborted. Look, mother Church is in labor, see, she is groaning in travail to give birth to you, to bring you forth into the light of faith. Do not agitate her maternal womb with your impatience, and thus constrict the passage to your delivery.

Sermon 216:7:2

 

[Crusador]

Whoops! Sorry about that mistake- you are absolutely correct- “men” is in that verse!

I should have double checked that one before I tried to reply according to memory!

Sorry-

I guess I was thinking about Hebrews 2:9, which says that Jesus Christ tasted death for every. Or more literally- “tasted death for all.” But this “all” is defined according to the context, and this group is identified for us. So we know who Christ died for:

-Sons (v10)
-Them that are sanctified (v11)
-Brethren (v11)
-My brethren (v12)
-The Church (v12)
-The children which God hath given me (v13)

So yeah- sorry about that last post!

But as far as Acts 17:30- The text says that God commands repentance. It nowhere says anything about fallen man’s ability to repent. This is reading ability into responsibility. God has commanded that men keep His law perfectly- but can we? Let’s not assume that for every command God gives- men have the ability to perform it. “God commandest what thou wilt, but give what thou commandest.” (Augustine)

Repentance is not an inherent ability of fallen and depraved man- he has it not within himself. It is a gift of God- (Acts 5:31, 11:18; 2 Tim 2:25)

As far as 1 Tim. 2:3, 4- The text certainly says “all men.” But are we to assume that it is God’s will that all me without a single exception be saved? Or is it God’s will that all men without racial, social, and gender distinction be saved?

When we understand that it is God who saves- we will understand these texts in a more clear way.

Whatsoever God wills- that He accomplishes. A god who wills that which will not happen is no God at all- and a god who wants to do that which he ultimately fails to do is worthless.

This is not the God of the Bible- and of our Lord Jesus Christ!

Here is our God:

“Our God is in the heavens: he hath done whatsoever he hath pleased.” (Psalm 115:3)

“He is in one mind, and who can turn him? and what his soul desireth, even that he doeth.” (Job 23:13)

“The LORD of hosts hath sworn, saying, Surely as I have thought, so shall it come to pass; and as I have purposed, so shall it stand.” (Isaiah 14:24)

“He doeth according to his will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth: and none can stay his hand, or say unto him, What doest thou?” (Daniel 4:35)

“I know that thou canst do all things, And that no purpose of thine can be restrained.” (Job 42:2)

Not only this- but God knows the end from the beginning! It would be foolish even for a man to watch a movie all the way through to the end, rewind the tape, watch it again and “hope” or “wish” or “desire” for the ending to somehow be different. “Hope” implies possibility. And therefore if God “wills” in a “desiring” and a “hoping” fashion, He is simply “hoping” against His own knowledge!

And if you think that this is foolish- just remember that God is no mere spectator of this “film” of our lives- rather He is the director and the screen-writer! To will for the end to be different than you know it will be is one level of foolishness- but to will for the end to be different than you have eternally and infallibly purposed it to be is another level altogether!

As far as Romans 11:32- Here Paul is not speaking of God having mercy upon all men without exception- but God having mercy upon all men without racial distinction; that is- Gentiles as well as the Jews.

For if it were the former- then I ask you: Did God have mercy upon Pharaoh and upon the Egyptian army? Did He have mercy upon Ethiopia, and Seba – Isaiah 43:3! Did He have mercy upon all the nations which He commanded Joshua to utterly destroy – and not show mercy?

“"When the LORD your God brings you into the land which you go to possess, and has cast out many nations before you, the Hittites and the Girgashites and the Amorites and the Canaanites and the Perizzites and the Hivites and the Jebusites, seven nations greater and mightier than you, and when the LORD your God delivers them over to you, you shall conquer them and utterly destroy them. You shall make no covenant with them nor show mercy to them.” (Det. 7:1, 2)

Well I think it would be safer to understand this “all” to refer to “both Jews and Gentiles” but not necessarily “every single Jew and every single Gentile.” It is both biblical and logical to understand this passage in this way. This understanding was common among the earliest Christians- even Luke, who was Paul’s companion. See how even Luke used the term “all.”

“And this continued for two years, so that ALL who dwelt in Asia heard the word of the Lord Jesus, BOTH Jews and Greeks.” (Acts 19:10)

For Luke- “All who dwelt in Asaia” simply meant “Not Just Jews who lived in Asaia, but Greeks as well.” Do you understand him to mean that every single person in Asia- man, woman, and child, heard the word of the Lord Jesus Christ? Of course not.

Certianly we will do much harm to the Scriptures if we:

1. Assume that it is God’s intentions for all men without exception to be saved (for men cannot save themselves, only God can save them) while millions perish under His wrath.
2. Assume that God has shown mercy to all men without exception, when millions have and continue to perish under His wrath.

Mercy is a synonym for salvation; that is, when God bestows mercy on a sinner- it simply means that God grants that sinner salvation. Mercy and Salvation are synonymous: (2 Sam 22:51; Psalm 13:5, 69:13, 85:7, 98:3 etc)

Hope this helps- God bless you!

 

[MarcoPolo]

I’m perfectly willing to be persuaded by your interpretation, however, you must persuade.

Look, I’ve exhausted my exegesis. I took care of Titus 2 already and Romans 9 already, and I get specious counter-replies. I expect nothing different if I do the same with more Scripture. So you can move on with confidence if you feel you have demonstrated God withholding grace from some people. You don’t need my approval to hold to that belief. Take care, friend…for another day.

 

[Contarini]

The sufficient/efficient distinction does NOT fit the Calvinist Limited Atonement model.

The actual Calvinist on this thread seems less sure of this than you are. I’m inclined to trust him as a source for what he believes, just as I trust Catholics as a source for what they believe!

Edwin

 

[Reformed]

The actual Calvinist on this thread seems less sure of this than you are. I’m inclined to trust him as a source for what he believes, just as I trust Catholics as a source for what they believe!

Edwin

There are a handful of Calvinsts on this thread. Actually, the other Calviinists are very solid. They write much better than me. I also like that Lutheran guy too; he’s a closet calvinist in the making. Here is the book that I referenced in regards to Calvin’s view on the Atonement. It’s actually an easy read:

Calvin and the atonement - What the rernowned pastor and teacher said about the cross of Christ.

By Robert A. Peterson Sr. ISBN 185792377

Don’t get too caught up with limited or particular atonement. The work of Christ applies ultimately to those who believe. I don’t think Catholics are universalists. Even it we all know in part in the actual work of Christ, the subject of the atonement should grows us closer in affection for God in Christ. Keep your eyes focused on Jesus the author and perfecter of our faith!

Hebrews 12

Jesus, Founder and Perfecter of Our Faith

Therefore, since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses, let us also lay aside every weight, and sin which clings so closely, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us, looking to Jesus, the founder and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is seated at the right hand of the throne of God.

 

[MarcoPolo]

The actual Calvinist on this thread seems less sure of this than you are.

The actual Calvinist in this thread is not articulating his position at all, even when directly asked.

 

[Reformed]

The actual Calvinist in this thread is not articulating his position at all, even when directly asked.

Which actual Calvinist are you speaking of? There are quite a few on this thread.

 

[MarcoPolo]

Which actual Calvinist are you speaking of? There are quite a few on this thread.

I was satirically speaking of you, who tend to past long segments of Scripture and want us to see them as you do. I meant no offense, sorry.

 

[Crusador]

God’s foreknowledge is recognizing in advance from the beginning of time, who would cooperate with His grace and who wouldn’t. Those whom He “foreknew” would cooperate therefore were His “predestined.” (e.g. 1 chapter earlier, Rm 8:29).

Hey there! I forgot to respond to one more thing!

I can certainly appreciate the view you hold when it comes to Predestination, but I respectfully disagree. I used to hold your view - (the fore-knowledge view) and so maybe I can help you see why this view is in error. I will do my best to keep it simple- and hopefully you will come to appreciate the truth of our position. If not- then oh well- May God bless you anyways!

Well first then, I think it is important to properly define foreknowledge- not according to the philosophical concept of God’s attributes- but according to the context in which it is used. (You quoted Romans 8:29) “For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son.”

There are a few key facts about this text that leads me away from your interpretation:

1. In this passage- it is not cooperation that is foreknown, but it is persons who are foreknown.

The text says, “For WHOM He did foreknow” and says nothing about “WHAT He did foreknow these people WOULD DO.” In order for you to extract that from this text, you would first have to implant it into this text. This is not exegesis but eisegesis- a reading into the text something that is not there.

1. In this passage- the definition of “foreknow” clearly takes on a stronger, more active definition than to merely take in information passively- by looking into the future.

To assert that God’s Predestination is based upon what He already foreknows will happen, is to make the eternal purpose of God subject to that which will eventually take place in time. This is to put the carriage before the horse, and assumes that God derives his purposes from His own creation- rather than having an eternal purpose for His own creation, that will be realized in time.

Clearly, God knowing the future is not the cause of His Predestination.

You cannot support this interpretation with other passages of Scripture, and therefore it must be rejected. However, I will not leave you empty handed- but will provide you with much to consider.

To Fore- know someone is to Fore- love them. (To love them in advance). When using this term with respect to God’s love toward certain persons- this love is clearly an eternal and covenantal love. Please consider the following:

God speaking to Israel, His chosen people, He says, “You only have I known of all the nations of the earth.” (Amos 3:2) Was God ignorant of the other nations of the earth? Of course not. But with no other nation did God enter into a loving covenant with, as He did with Israel.

Jesus speaking about the false professors said, “And then I will declare to them, "I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!” (Matthew 7:23) Was Jesus ignorant of these people? Of course not, Jesus knows everyone! So then why will he say that he never knew them? Simply because this word- to know –carries with it more than mere mental cognition, but often denotes a peculiar love, and covenantal bond.

The Bible said that “Adam knew his wife”- (Genesis 4:1, 4:25) and “Cain knew his wife” (Genesis 4:17). This knowing is far more than a mental and cognitive perception- but clearly means to love; to enter into covenant, to become one with; simply put- it denotes union.

Please get a concordance and search the Scriptures. You will begin to see the truth of what I am saying. Remember this passage: “Then Mary said to the angel, “How can this be, since I do not know a man?” (Luke 1:34) Hopefully this is becoming clear to you- To know someone is to love that person in a covenantal way, and it denotes union.

So when God says that “Those whom He fore-knew, He predestined” He is basically explaining that He has predestined them that He loved from all eternity; those that He chose in Christ from before the foundation of the world; those that He entered into covenantal union with when He elected them in Christ- unto eternal salvation.

It makes a lot more sense from the Scriptures to see it this way- for then the order of salvation is set right- and it all begins with God’s love. This is exactly what the Scripture teach: “In love, having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved.” (Ephesians 1:5, 6)

This is the meaning of Jeremiah 31:3, which reads, “The LORD hath appeared of old unto me, saying, Yea, I have loved thee with an everlasting love: therefore in loving-kindness have I drawn thee.”

Well- I honestly hope this helps you, and may God bless this precious truth to your heart!

 

[sandusky]

Reformed:

That’s an excellent point. God hardens through active and passive hardening. Witholding grace is a passive hardening, correct (Rom 1)?

Most Certainly, as the passage you cite demonstrates:Rom 1

God’s Wrath on Unrighteousness

**18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth.**The Greek word translated “wrath” carries much more force than anger.

God is not simply angry with those who suppress the truth, He’s FURIOUS with them.

One cannot suppress a thing unless one possesses the thing—they know the truth, but prefer unrighteousness.

Continuing:**19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.**The evidence of God through general revelation—creation and the knowledge of God through it—is not enough to save, but it is enough to condemn everyone who will not believe.

Continuing:**24 Therefore God gave them up…to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves,

26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions.**I submit that the penalty of the specific sin mentioned above, is an increased love of, and an increased appetite for the sin by the sinner.

Continuing:**28 And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done.**In the Greek, the meaning of the “debased mind,” is that it is not functioning properly—it’s haywire; it’s corrupt; it’s kaput (cf Gen 6:5; 8:21; Rom 3:10ff).

I submit that is the condition of every unregenerate person (varying in intensity and degree according to grace of the Spirit of God, and by that specific grace, I do not mean “efficacious” or saving grace.)

 

[MarcoPolo]

To assert that God’s Predestination is based upon what He already foreknows will happen, is to make the eternal purpose of God subject to that which will eventually take place in time.

It is perfectly acceptable to hold the Thomistic position that God indeed imputes some form of “irresistible grace” to some of mankind. What is untenable is to claim from Scripture that God withholds grace from all who wind up in hell.

 

[Crusador]

The evidence of God through general revelation—creation and the knowledge of God through it—is not enough to save, but it is enough to condemn everyone who will not believe.

Amen!

Men know the truth- but supress it in unrighteousness. Their conscience testifies to their wickedness- but they defile their consciences and sear them as with a hot iron. They are at enmity with God- (Rom 8:7, 8) And so were we.

And it is only when a person is regenerated- that God writes his law- NOT upon their conscience- but upon their heart- Jer. 31:33!!

After this- we “delight in the Law of God after the inward man” (Romans 7:22) What a work of Grace!

Oh, praise the Lord for the salvation of my soul! :extrahappy:

 

[Crusador]

It is perfectly acceptable to hold the Thomistic position that God indeed imputes some form of “irresistible grace” to some of mankind. What is untenable is to claim from Scripture that God withholds grace from all who wind up in hell.

???

Thank you for your reply- and excuse my confusion; but why did you not respond to my post? Why would you pick out that little sentence and change the whole subject of my post?

I respectfully, and yet directly challenged you on your use of Romans 8:29, with respect to God’s foreknowledge.

I believe that we are all curious as to how you will respond to my post. With all due respect- what do you have to say about God’s foreknowledge in defense of your understanding of Romans 8:29?

 

[Reformed]

I was satirically speaking of you, who tend to past long segments of Scripture and want us to see them as you do. I meant no offense, sorry.

Again, don’t make it a personal issue. Please discuss with those other Christian Calvinists. There are practical implications about Calvinism in regards to loving God in a greater capacity.

 

[TriuneUnity]

It is perfectly acceptable to hold the Thomistic position that God indeed imputes some form of “irresistible grace” to some of mankind. What is untenable is to claim from Scripture that God withholds grace from all who wind up in hell.

I agree with your position on grace here, Marco. But we have to ask, do they deserve God’s grace? Would God be unjust to withhold it from them?

 

[Crusador]

I agree with your position on grace here, Marco. But we have to ask, do they deserve God’s grace? Would God be unjust to withhold it from them?

You agree that it is untenable to believe that God has with-held grace from those who perish?

I don’t understand that position- do you believe in a type of ineffectual, non-saving grace, that has no purpose or power?

Can you give me a passage of Scripture that- (and I dont need an explicit statement) - teaches or demonstrates, or even displays a man perishing after having receieved the grace of God?

We are speaking here of Redemption. Does God give grace with the intent and in the direction of redeeming a man- and yet that man ultimately perishes?

Where can you demonstrate this from the Word of God?

Is it not more biblically consistent to simply say- that those who perish do so because of their own sin and rebellion against God- but that God owed them nothing- and so God decided not to intervene and save them; He simply with-held His grace from them?

To say that He gave them grace turns this grace into meaningless grace. It means that God’s grace is not what actually saves a man. It means that God’s grace is good for nothing if it is not joined with human effort. Isn’t it God’s grace that produces the positive response in man, and induces him to put forth this human effort? So if God gave His grace, then why no result? Why no salvation?