Are there any Calvinists on this forum?

[sandusky]

Lazerlike42, you ask:

You want to clarify that?

Lazerlike42:

What I told you about 1 Corinthians, applies to Peter also. Perhaps that is why God was delaying, not so all men would repent, because they won’t, but so that those who were His, then and in the future, who had not yet repented, many of whom had not been born, would be brought in.

Sure.

In 1 Corinthians and 2 Peter, both address their audience as believers. IOW, they think of their audience as believers. I am certain, however, that both men were also aware that within their audience there were those who were not believers. With Paul and his letters to the Corinthians, in spite of their wrong behavior, Paul never addresses that church as a bunch of badly behaving unbelievers, but as believers, who, he points out as he develops his letter, are behaving badly; He assumes the best, not the worst, because he knows that the believer will always contend with his flesh. He reminds them of what they are in Christ, based upon their past profession of faith, and in so doing, calls them back to what they are in Christ. Each of the writers of the epistles do that same thing. Paul simply does not know who is elect, and who is not. But he does know that there is an elect because he articulated election.

In the case of 2 Peter, Peter’s topic was not salvation, but the coming of the Lord. Peter was reassuring those to whom he was writing that the Lord was tarrying for the sake of those who not yet come to repentance. I believe that is the elect, you believe it is all mankind. We are now almost 2,000 beyond the death of Christ, I am certain Peter was aware that it was possible that the Lord would not return for a long time, though the expectation of all believers is that He will return soon, hopefully today. Peter was telling them that the Lord had not come, not because He had forgotten about them, but for the sake of His who not yet repented.

In using my “logic,” as you call it, you exaggerated what I did. You placed an emphasis on how each individual must be elect because Paul addressed them that way. No pastor, not even your own, addresses his congregation with a greeting of “good day believers and unbelievers.” They address the church congregation as “beloved,” “Christians,” “those with a like faith as we received,” or any number of titles designating them as believers, just as the epistle writers addressed their congregations.

Does that help?

 

[sandusky]

Catholic Dude:

sandusky-

(also just I reminder I did get a chance to respond to your last post in my post 115)

Forgive me CD, I have not forgotten about you.

 

[sandusky]

Catholic Dude:

You missed what I was getting at, the human AUTHOR of Proverbs.

You just said “God has made everything for His own purpose, even the wicked.”, I said the term “wicked” is relative, Solomon built hundreds of Idols, is that wicked or good? I cited the Bible passage (post89), reread it and tell me how you would define a wicked act.

I didn’t miss that you were calling my attention to the author.

You say the term “wicked” is a relative term. I don’t think that it is. Today, everything is relative, including the language, but in the Scripture it is not relative. In the Scripture, for the most part, things are “either, or.”

The reference in Pro 16:4 is to “the wicked.” The wicked are a definite group, not a relative term denoting an action, or actions. The same distinctions are seen throughout Scripture: the just, and the unjust; the righteous, and the unrighteous; the perishing, and the believing; the righteous, and the wicked; the opposite of the “wicked” is the “righteous.” You ask, “did Solomon do wicked things?” Yes, he did.

David had many wives, that was a violation of the law; David had an adulterous affair, and impregnated Bathsheba, those were a violation of the law; because of that, David murdered Uriah, that was a violation of the law. Those actions were also wicked, and yet, David is called a “righteous man,” and “a man after God’s own heart.” When Peter denied the Lord, that was wicked, but Peter was not wicked, but righteous. When Judas betrayed the Lord, that was wicked, and Judas was wicked. The righteous sin; they do wicked things; but, they are still “the righteous,” as opposed to “the wicked.”
Catholic Dude:

Give me 3 passages that Calvinist consider nonCalvinists as “difficult to understand, and that non Calvinists twist to their own destruction”

I’ll tell you where we are in agreement. The Trinity, the deity of Christ, the crucifixion, death, burial, resurrection, ascension of Christ, not the effect of His sacrifice, but just those things that I have listed. If you believe there may be more, tell me, and I will respond to you.
Catholic Dude:

Well I guess I should have known better. Thats the problem with protestantism, at its heart every man is ultimately his own start from scratch infallible interpreter.

I know that you do not believe the individual can properly interpret/understand the Scripture. You know that I don’t agree with you. Scripture holds me accountable for what I choose. It also holds teachers accountable for what they teach. Ultimately, however, I will not be able to plead “they told me this was true.” I take seriously that I will stand before the Lord one day, and that nothing will be hidden. I have some dread about that. My life, prior to salvation, was quite sinful, and led me to the brink of self-extinction. I don’t like thinking about it to myself, let alone its being exposed before the Lord, and everyone else. He has entrusted His word to me, and says that in it, and in myself, I have His mind. I don’t reject Calvin, I don’t reject the ECFs, I turn to them, but ultimately, I am not accountable to them, but the Lord.
Catholic Dude:

Free Will has everything to do with the issue of Calvinism, in that very case or Romans 9:21 with that potter talk Calvinist MISINTERPRET passages like that (eg forgetting to look to Jer18:1-10.

Perhaps you are right. Perhaps I have misinterpreted Rom 9. Time will tell. Jeremiah 18 states that God has the right to do with Israel, as He will. Paul restates that, and, I believe, takes it a step further. Jeremiah deals with the prosperity of Israel as a nation, and their turning from God in that prosperity, and God taking prosperity away. Paul takes the analogy to another level, that of the individual, and not the nation, and he says that it is God who mercies the individual, and God who hardens the individual. Paul’s statements are very direct, and very clear.
Catholic Dude:

Issues like purgatory have a lot to do with Calvinism. The problem is when what Augustine really belived as a whole is mentioned the misinterpreters like Calvin dont want to be “bound” to it…Baptism forgiving sins as well as a sanctifying act in other ways.

I don’t believe in purgatory. I believe that Christ, on the cross, as a substitute, paid the penalty for all of the sins of those who believe. It follows then, that I do not believe that baptism forgives sins. I too, do not know much about the Donatist/anti-Donatist rift.

 

[sandusky]

Matt16_18:

John is right and YOU are wrong.

Yes, John is right.

 

[migurl]

Anyone want to respond to post 151?

 

[sandusky]

Lazerlike42:

Philippians is my favorite disproof of OSAS. If you read 3:10-17, you will see that Paul himself is not sure that he will attain eternal life, even though he has already “been taken hold of by Christ Jesus.”

Being taken hold of by Christ Jesus would seem to me to be a decent way to speak of those who are elect. Nevertheless, though Paul be taken hold of, he is not sure he will make it.

Yes, with your understanding I see how you believe that Paul is not sure of his own salvation. He is sure of the rest of the elect, but not of his own.

You would do well to re-read the passage, and pay particular attention to what being laid of hold by Christ Jesus entails.

Consider also, in Jn 10:29, that no one is able to snatch the elect out of the Father’s hand. It would seem that the Father has also laid hold of the believer.

 

[migurl]

migurl:

not the answer for 134. BUT someone had said something about there not being any mention of Man’s free will in the Bible. explain this then please.

“Say not “it was God’s doing that I fell away”, for what He hates He does not do. Say not “It was He who set me astray”; for He has no need of wicked man. Abominable wickedness the Lord hates, He does not let it befall those who fear Him. When God, in the beginning, created man, He made him subject to his own free choice. If yuo choose, you can keep the commandments. It is loyalty to do His will. There are set before you fire and water; whichever you choose, stretch forth your hand. Before man are life and death, whichever he chooses shall be given him. The eyes of God see all He has made; He understands man’s every deed. No man does he command to sin, to non does he give strength for lies.” Sirach chapter 15 starting with verse 11.

 

[migurl]

John10:29 doesn’t say anything about the elect. But what he says is true, no one can “snatch” a believer from His hands, but the believer can choose to walk away from Him. In that case their is no “snatching.”

 

[Lazerlike42]

If John 10:29 means that nobody can snatch away from salvation anyone whom God has hold of, and Paul has been takne hold of by Christ, then why is he worried that he not disqualify himself or that he make sure he does not fall where he once stood?

Of course nobody can snatch someone out of Jesus hand or the Father’s hand. But can they jump out of His hand? Can the Father or Jesus cast them out Himself, as is spoken of in Revelation? Snatch means to “take against the will.” We all agree that nobody can take us out of God’s hand against our or His will. But this says absolutely nothing about a voluntary act of our leaving of of God casting us out. It says nothing about losing one’s salvation.

This is probably the verse I least of all understand how anyone can point to for OSAS because it so plainly says nothing about it!

 

[Matt16_18]

sandusky:

Yes, John is right.

Absolutely. John is right.

And you are wrong.

 

[sandusky]

migurl:

John10:29 doesn’t say anything about the elect. But what he says is true, no one can “snatch” a believer from His hands, but the believer can choose to walk away from Him. In that case their is no “snatching.”

Lazerlike42:

Of course nobody can snatch someone out of Jesus hand or the Father’s hand. But can they jump out of His hand? Can the Father or Jesus cast them out Himself, as is spoken of in Revelation? Snatch means to “take against the will.” We all agree that nobody can take us out of God’s hand against our or His will. But this says absolutely nothing about a voluntary act of our leaving of of God casting us out. It says nothing about losing one’s salvation.

This is probably the verse I least of all understand how anyone can point to for OSAS because it so plainly says nothing about it!

Let’s suppose, for the sake of argument, the believer can choose to walk away from his salvation.

The question then is, why would he? If an unregenerate man, who was materially impoverished, and with no spiritual inclinations whatsoever, was suddenly given great material wealth by God (unbeknown by him that God had given it of course), do you think he would ever walk away from it? I don’t.

Likewise, if an unregenerate man, spiritually dead, was given eternal life by God, do you think that he would ever walk away from it? I don’t.

In Rom 8:39, Paul says that no created thing can separate the believer from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus.

Would you consider the believer’s walking away from his salvation a separating of himself from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus?

Also, is the believer a created thing? And, what about his free will, is it a created thing?

If you do believe that the believer is a created thing, and that his free will is a created thing, and that his walking away from his salvation separates him from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus, how is that you also hold the position that a believer can lose his salvation?

They are contradictory positions.

Look at Jn 10:28:

John 10:28
28 and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand.

In the first clause, Jesus states, “I give eternal life to them.” “Give” is a present tense verb in the Greek. It is then, not a one-time giving, but continuous giving of eternal life.

Besides, eternal life, means just that, eternal life, unless, of course, you believe in “temporary” eternal life. Jesus says, “I give them eternal life.”

Be that as it may, the idea that the believer can never lose his eternal life, which is synonymous with his salvation, is further strengthened by the next clause, in which Jesus says, “and they will never perish.” I understand that to mean that they will never lose the eternal life/salvation that Jesus has given them.

Migurl, do you understand that clause in that way?
What about you, Lazerlike42, do you understand that clause in that way?

Further, in Jn 6:38, Jesus says that He has come from heaven to do the will of the Father, and in v39, He tells us the will of the Father:

John 6:38-39
38 “For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me.
39 “This is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day.

In v39, Jesus tells us that the will of the Father is that of all those the Father has given Him to save, Jesus, is to lose none, but raise them up on the last day. In verse 37, Jesus says He will not cast out those given Him by the Father.

Migurl, does Jesus have the ability to lose nothing of what the Father gives Him?
What do you think Lazerlike42, is Jesus able to do the will of the Father?

In John chapter 17, shortly before being arrested, Jesus prays to the Father concerning the apostles and all who believe in Him.

Look at v24:

John 17:24
24 “Father, I desire that they also, whom You have given Me, be with Me where I am, so that they may see My glory which You have given Me, for You loved Me before the foundation of the world.

In that verse, Jesus expresses his desire to the Father that all of those the Father has given Him, will also be with Him in heaven.

The Gospels never speak of the Father denying any of the Son’s requests.

With that in mind, Migurl, is it reasonable to assume that the Father has granted Jesus his request in v24?

What about you Lazerlike42, do you think that the Father has granted His Son’s request?

In Php 3:12, Pauls says, “I was laid hold of by Christ Jesus.” That is a beautiful picture of the believer’s eternal security.

It is not a picture of a believer’s tenuous hold on God’s hand, but of the Almighty’s omnipotent, and eternal hold on the believer’s hand. Lazerlike42, you have not properly understood the passage.

(Migurl, a reminder about post #134).

 

[Philthy]

sandusky:

I liked the BULL beginning better.

You caught me! I thought it could be interpreted as being rude when I saw it a few minutes later after posting…so I changed it. Im naturally argumentative so I have to be careful no to be too emotional…

sandusky:

The dilemma is the same. God has the power to save all. The reason for His not doing so is not the issue. Regardless of the system, God has the power to save all, and he doesn’t. It is the same dilemma.

On what basis are you making the claim that God has the power to save all? That is the starting point for your dilemma. If you are of the opinion that it is because of his omnipotence, I think you are mistaken. Before I enter into a lengthy discussion I would like to know why you believe he has the power to save all.

Phil

 

[Philthy]

Matthew16_18:

You have been assiduously avoiding the question of why a Calvinist would even bother sharing the Gospel.

To which you replied…

sandusky:

See post #85.

And I quote…

sandusky:

You misunderstand. Election/predestination are separate from salvation. Election/predestination is the selection of those whom the Father will save; the means that God uses to bring the elect to salvation is the preaching of the Gospel. Apprehension of, and faith in the Gospel is essential to the salvation of the elect.

The problem with this explanation is that you have determined in your theology that a member of the elect CAN’T NOT hear the gospel message at some point during their life - this has been willed by God. From the standpoint of your interpretation of predestination there is no need for YOU PERSONALLY to deliver the message because it CANT NO’T happen eventually. Therefore whether you preach it or not it will happen, rest assured. This brings us back to Matt16_18’s original question: Why do you preach ?
You would be much wiser to argue that you CAN’T NOT preach the gospel - you are compelled to do so - that would at least be consistent with your theology.

Phil

 

[sandusky]

Philthy:

On what basis are you making the claim that God has the power to save all? That is the starting point for your dilemma. If you are of the opinion that it is because of his omnipotence, I think you are mistaken. Before I enter into a lengthy discussion I would like to know why you believe he has the power to save all.

Because He’s God.

Philthy:

The problem with this explanation is that you have determined in your theology that a member of the elect CAN’T NOT hear the gospel message at some point during their life - this has been willed by God.

Actually, God’s will determines my theology. As you have said, the need for the elect to hear the Gospel has been willed by God.

Philthy:

From the standpoint of your interpretation of predestination there is no need for YOU PERSONALLY to deliver the message…

Sure there is, God has also commanded the elect to preach the Gospel.

Philthy:

Therefore whether you preach it or not it will happen, rest assured.

But if each one of the elect took that attitude, no one would preach the Gospel, and so, no one would be saved.

Philthy:

You would be much wiser to argue that you CAN’T NOT preach the gospel - you are compelled to do so - that would at least be consistent with your theology.

Yes, I’ll consider that.

 

[norwester]

God isn’t dependant on anyone to preach the gospel. He wants His children to have the joy of seeing His own brought into His fold. Do Catholics think God is actually depending on them?

 

[El_Catolico]

Do Catholics think God is actually depending on them?

No more than Paul taught that the Gospel was “entrusted to his care.” We hold that we are the successors of the apostolic church and that we are the church that God uses to preserve the fullness of his Gospel. God isnt depending on us, but he chose the church to be an instrument of his operations.

 

[norwester]

So you say.

 

[sandusky]

Matt16_18:

But you disagree with this statement:
A Christian can choose to sin because God has given him the freedom to choose life or death.

Yes, I should have said more.

A Christian can sin, indeed will sin, not because God has given him the freedom to choose life or death, but because he is still in the flesh; I am sure you have read Rom 7:14ff.

A Christian does not have to choose between life and death, because he already has life; I am sure you have already read Jn 5:24, Jn 10:28.

In John 5:24, Jesus says that the true believer has eternal life; He adds no caveat to that statement.

In John 10:28, Jesus says of the believer, “I give him life;” He adds no caveat to that statement.

You said in an earlier post on this thread, that the Catholic believes what the Bible says. Jesus made the two statements above, do you believe Jesus’ statements?

Matt16_18:

An apostate is a Christian that once believed, and then at some later time has chosen not to believe. In the case of an apostate, it is certainly true that a man is damned because he will not believe. It is also why OSAS is heresy – OSAS makes the implicit claim that the sin of apostasy impossible for a Christian to commit – something that is clearly contradicted by scriptures.

Apostasy in the Greek is used only twice in the N.T., once in Acts 21:21, in which the Judaizers were falsely spreading rumors that Paul is teaching Jewish believers to abandon their heritage, and once in 2 Thess 2:3, in which Paul is clearly talking about an event that precedes the coming of the man of perdition.

I have had this discussion with you before, have you forgotten?

A true believer will not walk away from his salvation. A false believer will. I direct you again to the parable of the sower. Three types believe and leave; that is false faith. One type believes and does not leave; that is true faith. That is the point of the parable: that there are false believers and true believers, and it would seem that the false believers outnumber the true believers. We are told the same thing about false believers in the parable of the wheat and the tares; the false believers blend in with the true believers, and they are indistinguishable from them, until they leave; I am certain you have read 1 Jn chapter 2, specifically v19.

Matt16_18:

Baptized infants don’t choose anything. But baptized infants are regenerated by the waters of Baptism. And, yes, they do have eternal life abiding within because of the regeneration. But a baptized infant can also grow up to be an apostate that suffers eternal damnation.

That is a great argument, if baptismal regeneration were true.

Show me in Scripture where we are told to baptize infants, or even where we see infants being baptized, and I will reconsider my position.

As you say, a baptized infant can grow up and be an apostate; therefore, I must conclude, that the infant was never truly regenerate.

 

[migurl]

post 151 remains unaswered to. Big surprise.

 

[norwester]

I’ve had lots of questions unanswered. There are 2 Calvinists among you Catholics, but you wanna pout about your quesations?