Are there any Calvinists on this forum?

[Michael_Paul]

sandusky:

Matt16_18, you have taken the teaching of Scripture, and you have inverted it.

God does not condemn one to hell for what he is not; rather, God condemns him to hell for what he is.

And what is he?

Paul says…:

Ephesians 2:1-3
1 And you were dead in your trespasses and sins,
2 in which you formerly walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience.
3 Among them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest.

…the bushman is dead in his trespasses and sins, and that he walks according to the course of this world (worships non-existent, false gods for certain ), that he is under the sway of Satan, who is working in him, that he lives in the lusts of his flesh, indulging the desires of his flesh and mind, and is by nature a child, or object of God’s wrath.

God does not condemn one for what he is not, but for what he is.

Sandusky,
I have not had too much time to post lately but I take time every now and then to read especially this topic. Thank you for putting Calvinism in relief and thank you Matt16:18 for shining the light. How beautiful is the God of the Catholic Church. Sandusky, our God does condemn a person for being who he is only if that person knowingly refuses to accept truth. If a bushman tries to please God as he understands Him, that bushman can be saved. Calvinist’s god is the author of sin, since he supposedly created the person in question just to sin. The Calvinist’s god is so unappealing that he cannot save a man with freewill but must program that man to to “love” Him. The Catholic God is so appealing that many men chose Him willingly.
What do you think of a father who choses to arbitrarily love one son and not the other. Treating one son lovingly. Giving that son every little thing that his heart desires. But the other son, he binds and throws him into a hole with lions to tear him to shreds?

MP

 

[Lazerlike42]

Calvinist’s god is the author of sin, since he supposedly created the person in question just to sin.

Isn’t there a passage that says God is not hte author of sin or something?

 

[dennisknapp]

sandusky:

And he has good reason to think that.

God says in Is 42:8, and 48:11, that He will not give His glory to anyone. So your idea that God gives the believer a share in His glory is wrong.

The question is not whether God has the ability to share His glory, it is, rather, does He share it? He says He will not give it to anyone, not even a share.

You cannot demonstrate that from Scripture.

Rom 9:23 says with respect to God’s glory and salvation, that He makes known the riches of His Glory upon the vessels prepared for mercy, it does not say that He gives a share of it to them.

God says, “My glory I will not give to another.

Those He calls, He also justifies, those He justifies, He also glorifies. (Romans 8:29-30)

Peace

 

[Lazerlike42]

St. Peter:

by which have been given to us exceedingly great and precious promises, that through these you may be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.

 

[sandusky]

dennisknapp:

Those He calls, He also justifies, those He justifies, He also glorifies. (Romans 8:29-30)

Peace

How do you get that God’s glorifying the believer means that the believer shares God’s glory. He says that He does not give His glory to anyone. Is not the believer “anyone?”

 

[sandusky]

Fiat:

At the same time, we are called to be partakers of the divine nature. Do you somehow think that God’s glory is outside or separate and distinct from His divinity? If God’s glory is revealed in His Son, then how do you “receive Christ” without receiving Christ’s glory?

I have no difficulty with being a partaker in the divine nature, which God says I am, and not sharing in His glory, which He says He gives to no one.

Fiat:

Your logic suggests the same misunderstanding that non-Catholics use to argue against intercessory prayer, suggesting that Christ is the only mediator and therefore no other intercession can be acceptable. But, a mediator can choose to mediate as He wishes, and if that involves using His creation to partake in the mediation, that does not necessitate a weakening of the One True Mediator.

Only once did the apostles ask Jesus how they should pray. He gave them an example: Pray to God.

I have no problem with intercessory prayer. Believers should pray for one another. I do not believe that believers pray to one another, nor should they pray to dead people.

 

[sandusky]

Fiat:

True, there is no prohibition on “private interpretation,” but it is clear that it is possible to twist scriptures to our own destruction.

It is said that some twist the scripture to their own destruction, God’s people, however, do not.

Fiat:

Do we have a choice in interpreting scriptures privately or not?

You agree that there is no prohibition, so yes, we do have a choice to interpret Scripture. You also tout a free-will, so not only do we have a choice, we also have the will to make that choice.

 

[Lazerlike42]

Isaiah (48):

1 "Listen to this, O house of Jacob,
you who are called by the name of Israel
and come from the line of Judah,
you who take oaths in the name of the LORD
and invoke the God of Israel—
but not in truth or righteousness-
2 you who call yourselves citizens of the holy city
and rely on the God of Israel—
the LORD Almighty is his name:

3 I foretold the former things long ago, 
   my mouth announced them and I made them known; 
   then suddenly I acted, and they came to pass. 

4 For I knew how stubborn you were; 
   the sinews of your neck were iron, 
   your forehead was bronze. 

5 Therefore I told you these things long ago; 
   before they happened I announced them to you 
   so that you could not say, 
   'My idols did them; 
   my wooden image and metal god ordained them.' 

6 You have heard these things; look at them all. 
   Will you not admit them? 
   "From now on I will tell you of new things, 
   of hidden things unknown to you. 

7 They are created now, and not long ago; 
   you have not heard of them before today. 
   So you cannot say, 
   'Yes, I knew of them.' 

8 You have neither heard nor understood; 
   from of old your ear has not been open. 
   Well do I know how treacherous you are; 
   you were called a rebel from birth. 

9 For my own name's sake I delay my wrath; 
   for the sake of my praise I hold it back from you, 
   so as not to cut you off. 

10 See, I have refined you, though not as silver; 
   I have tested you in the furnace of affliction. 

11 For my own sake, for my own sake, I do this. 
   How can I let myself be defamed? 
   I will not yield my glory to another.

"Here is my servant, whom I uphold,
my chosen one in whom I delight;
I will put my Spirit on him
and he will bring justice to the nations.
2 He will not shout or cry out,
or raise his voice in the streets.

3 A bruised reed he will not break, 
   and a smoldering wick he will not snuff out. 
   In faithfulness he will bring forth justice; 

4 he will not falter or be discouraged 
   till he establishes justice on earth. 
   In his law the islands will put their hope." 

5 This is what God the LORD says— 
   he who created the heavens and stretched them out, 
   who spread out the earth and all that comes out of it, 
   who gives breath to its people, 
   and life to those who walk on it: 

6 "I, the LORD, have called you in righteousness; 
   I will take hold of your hand. 
   I will keep you and will make you 
   to be a covenant for the people 
   and a light for the Gentiles, 

7 to open eyes that are blind, 
   to free captives from prison 
   and to release from the dungeon those who sit in darkness. 

8 "I am the LORD; that is my name! 
   I will not give my glory to another 
   or my praise to idols. 

9 See, the former things have taken place, 
   and new things I declare; 
   before they spring into being 
   I announce them to you."

In each case God states He will not share His glory with idols, or other gods. It is meant within a very specific context.

 

[Fiat]

sandusky:

It is said that some twist the scripture to their own destruction, God’s people, however, do not.

You agree that there is no prohibition, so yes, we do have a choice to interpret Scripture. You also tout a free-will, so not only do we have a choice, we also have the will to make that choice.

So…if we have a choice to interpret scriptures privately and that choice sometimes results in our own destruction, do you agree that destruction is freely chosen?

Also, perhaps you need to re-think your understanding about God sharing His glory in light of what the Bible says.

Fiat

 

[sandusky]

Michael Paul:

Sandusky, our God does condemn a person for being who he is only if that person knowingly refuses to accept truth.

Read Rom 1:18-25. In v18, Paul says God’s wrath is revealed against those who suppress the truth of God. Who are those? Everyone who has ever been born. In v19, Paul says that God has given everyone a knowledge of Himself. Paul says in v20, that since the creation of the world the each creature knows God’s power, and divine nature, so well, that they are without excuse for not worshipping Him as God.
Michael Paul:

If a bushman tries to please God as he understands Him, that bushman can be saved.

Peter, who Catholic Dude, on this very thread quoted as the first Pope, says in Acts 4:12, that there is no other name given under heaven by which we must be saved. No other name. It does not matter if Peter was not speaking ex cathedra at that time, because he was speaking under the inspiration of the H.S.

No other name.
Michael Paul:

The Calvinist’s god is so unappealing that he cannot save a man with freewill but must program that man to to “love” Him. The Catholic God is so appealing that many men chose Him willingly.

That is nothing but emotionalism. Scripture is quite clear, in order for a man to willingly choose God, he must be reborn, not through his will, but God’s (Jn 1:12-13).

Those left to themselves perish.
Michael Paul:

What do you think of a father who choses to arbitrarily love one son and not the other. Treating one son lovingly. Giving that son every little thing that his heart desires. But the other son, he binds and throws him into a hole with lions to tear him to shreds?

What I think about what God does is not the issue.

Romans 9:10-14
*10 And not only this, but there was Rebekah also, when she had conceived twins by one man, our father Isaac;

11 for though the twins were not yet born and had not done anything good or bad, so that God’s purpose according to His choice would stand, not because of works but because of Him who calls,

12 it was said to her, “The older will serve the younger.”

**13 Just as it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.” **

14 What shall we say then? There is no injustice with God, is there? May it never be!*

There is absolutely no injustice with God.

 

[sandusky]

Lazerlike42:

In each case God states He will not share His glory with idols, or other gods. It is meant within a very specific context.

PRECISELY!

And what are you doing if you take any credit for your salvation?

God will not share His glory with idols, who cannot save men; nor will He share His glory with men, who cannot save men.

Only God can save men, and He will not give His glory to ANYONE who claims to have had any part in what only He can do.

Understand?

 

[Lazerlike42]

Read Rom 1:18-25. In v18, Paul says God’s wrath is revealed against those who suppress the truth of God. Who are those? Everyone who has ever been born. In v19, Paul says that God has given everyone a knowledge of Himself. Paul says in v20, that since the creation of the world the each creature knows God’s power, and divine nature, so well, that they are without excuse for not worshipping Him as God

Surpressing by definition means that a person knows and understands what they are surpressing. If I surpress the fact that an election was fraudulant, I am well aware that it was. If I don’t know that it was, I cannot surpress anything. Paul indicates that God’s wrath is revealed against those who surpress the truth of God. If someone doesn’t know the truth, he can’t surpress it.

Peter, who Catholic Dude, on this very thread quoted as the first Pope, says in Acts 4:12, that there is no other name given under heaven by which we must be saved. No other name. It does not matter if Peter was not speaking ex cathedra at that time, because he was speaking under the inspiration of the H.S.

Which is exactly what the Church teaches. If someone makes it to Heaven, it is Jesus Christ that has saved the person. The person doesn’t need to know it was Christ that saved them to be saved by Him. I could say, “There is no other name besides Bruce Wayne by which Gotham City may be saved.” Nobody there knows Bruce Wayne is doing a thing, but it is only by him that they are saved.

That is nothing but emotionalism. Scripture is quite clear, in order for a man to willingly choose God, he must be reborn, not through his will, but God’s (Jn 1:12-13).

This is correct. In fact, the truth is that the Church teaches that it is only through a Grace of God that a man can come to follow Him. The Council of Trent stated, “without the predisposing inspiration of the Holy Ghost and without his help, man can believe, hope, love, or be repentant as he ought, so that the grace of justification may be bestowed upon him.”

What I think about what God does is not the issue.

Romans 9:10-14
10 And not only this, but there was Rebekah also, when she had conceived twins by one man, our father Isaac;

11 for though the twins were not yet born and had not done anything good or bad, so that God’s purpose according to His choice would stand, not because of works but because of Him who calls,

12 it was said to her, “The older will serve the younger.”

13 Just as it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”

14 What shall we say then? There is no injustice with God, is there? May it never be!

There is absolutely no injustice with God.

Let’s be careful. When God says, “Esau I hated” it does not mean that God hated Esau, nor does it mean that God loved Jacob more. It is a Hebraism. The only way for the writer of Genesis to convey the idea he was trying to get across was this phrase, due to the limitationso the the Hebrew language. All this passage really gets at is that God chose Jacob over Esau insofar as is concerend the path of the blessing through which would come Christ.

If you wish to believe that God chose Jacob to eternal life but passed over Esau for this, that is an entirely different topic. I would disagree, but you would be within the bounds of Church teaching to hold this position.

 

[Lazerlike42]

sandusky:

PRECISELY!

And what are you doing if you take any credit for your salvation?

God will not share His glory with idols, who cannot save men; nor will He share His glory with men, who cannot save men.

Only God can save men, and He will not give His glory to ANYONE who claims to have had any part in what only He can do.

Understand?

It is entirely true that a man can do nothing to save himself. In fact, every good deed we do is nothing less than God working a good deed through us.

That being said, it is not necessarily correct to extend this to say that we will not share in His glory. The fact is that Scripture clearly teaches that we will be:
St. Paul:

12Therefore, brothers, we have an obligation—but it is not to the sinful nature, to live according to it. 13For if you live according to the sinful nature, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live, 14because those who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God. 15For you did not receive a spirit that makes you a slave again to fear, but you received the Spirit of sonship.[g] And by him we cry, “Abba,[h] Father.” 16The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God’s children. 17Now if we are children, then we are heirs—heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ, if indeed we share in his sufferings in order that we may also share in his glory.

God shall not share His glory with idols because by their very nature they are nonexistant. An idol is nothing more than a hunk of stone or a piece of carved wood or of wrought metal. God shall not share His glory with such things. He shall not share His glory as God the Divine with idols and with false gods not made in His image, and made by human hands.

However, as St. Peter and St. Paul clearly tells us, He will share His Glory and His Divine Nature with us who are made in His image and are made by His most Holy “hands.” This seems to be the key difference.

The passages in Isaiah do refer in context to sharing His Glory with idols. Given only the Hebrew Scriptures, I would say that it would be exegetically correct to extend this to a decalration that He will not share His Glory with any. However, given the letters of St. Peter and St. Paul, which clearly say we shall share in His Glory, we must exegete Isaiah in a manner accordingly. Me must begin with the most specific and work backwards to the most vague.

Rememeber that the New Testament is hidden in the Old, and that the Old is made clear in the New.

 

[sandusky]

Lazerlike42:

Surpressing by definition means that a person knows and understands what they are surpressing.

YES! The picture in the Greek is one of a huge spring, which is the truth that is known, and it is continually exerting a force against the sinner who is continually exerting an opposite force against the truth he knows.

Lazerlike42:

If I surpress the fact that an election was fraudulant, I am well aware that it was. If I don’t know that it was, I cannot surpress anything. Paul indicates that God’s wrath is revealed against those who surpress the truth of God. If someone doesn’t know the truth, he can’t surpress it.

Carefully re-read the passage. Paul says all know, and all suppress; only when one believes does he stop suppressing (see also Jn 1:9).

Lazerlike42:

Which is exactly what the Church teaches. If someone makes it to Heaven, it is Jesus Christ that has saved the person. The person doesn’t need to know it was Christ that saved them to be saved by Him. I could say, “There is no other name besides Bruce Wayne by which Gotham City MAY BE SAVED.” Nobody there knows Bruce Wayne is doing a thing, but it is only by him that they are saved.

Acts 4:12 says, “MUST BE SAVED.” A further requirement is also necessary, FAITH.

If one is not saved by faith, one is disobedient. It is not as simple as “the name” of Christ, but the faith that is in it. All men, O.T. and N.T. are saved by faith (Rom 1:17).

Is God able to direct men to bring the Gospel to those He wants to hear the Gospel?

If He is, what does that say to you about the one who has not heard the Gospel?

Lazerlike42:

The Council of Trent stated, “without the predisposing inspiration of the Holy Ghost and without his help, man can[NOT, or is this sic.?] believe, hope, love, or be repentant as he ought, so that the grace of justification may be bestowed upon him.”

Is what you typed a mistake, or is my correction unjustified?

Lazerlike42:

Let’s be careful. When God says, “Esau I hated” it does not mean that God hated Esau, nor does it mean that God loved Jacob more. It is a Hebraism.

True. “Jacob I loved, Esau, I loved less.” It does answer the question posed by Michael Paul.

Lazerlike42:

If you wish to believe that God chose Jacob to eternal life but passed over Esau for this, that is an entirely different topic. I would disagree, but you would be within the bounds of Church teaching to hold this position.

I don’t believe I said that, but, Paul is using that Scripture here as an analogy in an exposition of God’s choice/purpose in election—working from national to individual; read the rest of the chapter.

 

[Lazerlike42]

It wasn’t a mistype, I simply didn’t quote enough of the passage. It said (Paraphrase), “If any man should say that without grace man can love repent and come to God, let him be anethema.”

 

[Lazerlike42]

Note that the term translated in Acts 4:12 is not by necessity rendered as an imperitive. This is a tradition that has developed, however the term actually is a word which can mean,

to be necessary for, to be fit for, or with respect to necessity, duty, or convienence

So it does not have to be translated as an imperitive. It can be used in a weaker sense. That’s all trivial, however and I put it up only to say that we can’t infer too much from the use of the word “must” in some translations.

What matters is a point that you made quite well: all men, OT and NT are saved by faith. The idea is faith in God as one understands Him. Moses had faith in God. He did not understand that God was a Trinity. He did not know the name Jesus nor did he have faith in Jesus. He had faith in God as he understood God at the time. Similarly, the bushman has faith in God as he understands Him. Now, you may say that He does not have faith in Christ. Neither did Moses. In fact, you can say that the bushman does not have faith in God as God really truly is, because he thinks God is, say, a bird or something, and God is not, but that he has faith only in what he thinks God is. However, Moses did not have faith in God as what He really is, but rather as what He thought he is. God is really a Trinity of three persons in one Godhead. Moses thought God was a single person with no Godhead. He was, in a very real sense, completely wrong! However, God looked kindly on Moses’ deep faith, having a faith deeply in God as he thougt he was. So too does the bushman.

 

[Lazerlike42]

sandusky:

I don’t believe I said that, but, Paul is using that Scripture here as an analogy in an exposition of God’s choice/purpose in election—working from national to individual; read the rest of the chapter.

I didn’t mean to imply that you had said this. My only point is that either way, I can’t tell you you are wrong.

 

[sandusky]

Lazerlike42:

The passages in Isaiah do refer in context to sharing His Glory with idols. Given only the Hebrew Scriptures, I would say that it would be exegetically correct to extend this to a decalration that He will not share His Glory with any. However, given the letters of St. Peter and St. Paul, which clearly say we shall share in His Glory, we must exegete Isaiah in a manner accordingly. Me must begin with the most specific and work backwards to the most vague.

Rememeber that the New Testament is hidden in the Old, and that the Old is made clear in the New.

You straying from what dennisknapp said, and in so doing, you are introducing another idea that has nothing to do with what dennisknapp said.

dennisknapp:

The Calvinist thinks if man has any part in the salvation process (ie. freewill), God’s glory is lessened. It as if God’s glory is this finite thing.

God’s glory, like all God’s attributes, is infinite. No one can take away or lessen it. God’s glory is so great He can share it with us and lose none of it. This is what he does in the process of salvation. He makes apart of it knowing that by doing so His role can never be lessed.

Clearly, dennisknapp is saying that dennisknapp had a role in dennisknapp’s salvation, and that dennisknapp shares the glory of God in dennisknapp’s salvation because of that. In Isaiah, all of Scripture,God says He will not share His glory with ANYONE regardless of what ANYONE does, whether an idol, or a man. TO GOD BE THE GLORY, remember?dennisknapp is taking credit for something dennisknapp didn’t do.

As far as your exegetical restriction, God’s word never changes, and God is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow. If He wouldn’t give His glory yesterday, He ain’t gonna give it today.

Understand?

Clearly the Scripture teaches that the redeemed share IN CHRIST"S glory. The believer is an heir of the promise, but Christ does not GIVE HIS GLORY for the work to the believer.

Understand?

 

[Lazerlike42]

Romans 8 clearly says that if we suffer with Christ, we will share in Christ’s Glory. Christ is God. If you are saying we will share in Christ’s Glory but not in God’s you are at best professing a belief in nestorianism (Christ’s humanity was seperate from His Divinity) and at worst polytheism. 1 Peter tells us that we will share in God’s Divine nature! This is proabably more shocking than the idea of sharing in His Glory. These two passages clearly teach this.

I also am not changing what dennisknap was trying to say or get off topic. I was only addressing your statement that we don’t share in God’s Glory. I actually don’t see how you can say from that quote that dennis is claiminga role in his own salvation. Nevertheless, we can turn to St. Paul for this, too, in which he says that by his suffering he is “making up for what was lacking in Christ’s sacrifice.”

In fact, the very idea of preaching the word and of baptising people allows us to share in God’s salvific work. We are actually preaching the word to bring others to the Truth, and baptising them that they may eneter God’s kingdom.

But what the Church teaches about this is that each and every one of these works is nothing less than God Himself acting through us. In all truth, we don’t do a single good work; they are all God’s.

We do do one thing: we say yes. That is the role we play. Just as Christ played a role by saying, 'yes I will be crucified," we too play a role by saying, “yes God I will cooperate with You and give this dollar to the man onj the street.” It is God’s work. So is preaching and baptising. But very importantly, we can say “no.” We can be disobedient to God.

 

[sandusky]

Lazerlike42:

Romans 8 clearly says that if we suffer with Christ, we will share in Christ’s Glory. Christ is God. If you are saying we will share in Christ’s Glory but not in God’s you are at best professing a belief in nestorianism (Christ’s humanity was seperate from His Divinity) and at worst polytheism. 1 Peter tells us that we will share in God’s Divine nature! This is proabably more shocking than the idea of sharing in His Glory. These two passages clearly teach this.

I also am not changing what dennisknap was trying to say or get off topic. I was only addressing your statement that we don’t share in God’s Glory. I actually don’t see how you can say from that quote that dennis is claiminga role in his own salvation. Nevertheless, we can turn to St. Paul for this, too, in which he says that by his suffering he is “making up for what was lacking in Christ’s sacrifice.”

In fact, the very idea of preaching the word and of baptising people allows us to share in God’s salvific work. We are actually preaching the word to bring others to the Truth, and baptising them that they may eneter God’s kingdom.

But what the Church teaches about this is that each and every one of these works is nothing less than God Himself acting through us. In all truth, we don’t do a single good work; they are all God’s.

We do do one thing: we say yes. That is the role we play. Just as Christ played a role by saying, 'yes I will be crucified," we too play a role by saying, “yes God I will cooperate with You and give this dollar to the man onj the street.” It is God’s work. So is preaching and baptising. But very importantly, we can say “no.” We can be disobedient to God.

You win