Are there any Calvinists on this forum?

[sandusky]

Cont from post #100

StCsDavid:

Heb.1
[1] In many and various ways God spoke of old to our fathers by the prophets;
[2] but in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world.

Hhhhhhhow do you make the leap there that God would not make private revelations to individuals based on those two lines?

The language speaks to a final and full revelation. With the death of Christ and the Apostles, God is done talking. Christ is the pinnacle, and the end of revelation. When the apostles had finished writing down their accounts and were taken home, God’s revelation was complete. I do not deny that many have seen apparitions; I do deny that they are from God. God now speaks only through His written word.

StCsDavid:

Heb. 4
[12] For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and spirit, of joints and marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart.

Do you posit that this was a reference to the Bible as a whole which had not been assembled at the time this was written?

The argument that there was no Bible until the church compiled it is humorous. To say that the churches of the day did not have access to what the apostles had written is false; to say that there was no Scripture until it was canonized is false. God superintended the writers of the Scripture; God superintended the canonizing of its finished form. The writings of the N.T. didn’t suddenly appear for canonization; they were alive and well, and circulating among the early churches. Today we have in excess of 20,000 extant manuscripts. The early churches certainly had access to the writings, and understood their authenticity. The bottom line is that God ensures that His have the truth.

In the Gospels, long before they bore the imprimatur of the church, Jesus held the Jews accountable for knowing the written word of God. “Have you not heard?” he asked, “have you not read?” he inquired.

God’s people know His words without anyone’s official pronouncement (Jn 10:27).

In his book, Dogmatic Theology for the Laity, (Rockford, IL: Tan Books, 1967), p. 29, Matthias Premm says, “…the teaching office of the Church is more important than the Bible…In other words: The immediate and highest rule of faith is the living office of the Church.” (Ital. mine).

That is inverse to the declaration of God’s Word.

 

[sandusky]

Lazerlike42:

The Bible clearly says that God wills for all men to be saved.

I asked the question “where is said that Christ came to save all men?” To which Philthy as rightly replied, “it isn’t said.”

You say that the Bible clearly says that God wills for all men to be saved; where is that said?

Lazerlike42:

Calvanists claim that God simply picks people for salvation. I see a really, really big problem here. If God wants all men to be saved, and the only thing that makes a person saved or not saved is God’s choice of them, then why isn’t everyone saved?

Here now you have changed your position. First you said that “God wills for all men to be saved”, now you say, “God wants all men to be saved.” Willing, and wanting are not the same thing, they are different things.

Lazerlike42:

This implies and demands that one of two things are true. Either A) God is not powerful enough to do what he wants and save all men, or B) God is schizophrenic and doesn’t want what He wants.

Whether or not God wills, or merely wants all men to be saved, your conclusion A is correct. Your conclusion B, however, is fatally flawed.

You conclusion B should be: God does not will/want to save all men, but only some.

Upon reflection, I am certain you will see that you have no inclination toward positing that God is schizophrenic.

Since we know that conclusion A is not true, because God clearly reveals Himself as being omnipotent, the answer must found in conclusion B. Scripture validates conclusion B.

 

[Matt16_18]

Sandusky:

No matter how wicked Israel was, as a nation, they were then, are now, and always will be God’s chosen people. It is so because He promised that.

God made a covenant with all the members of Israel, but God also knew that many of the Israelites would break the covenant. God foreknew that there would be unfaithful Israelites that would fall away and NOT persevere to the end. God also forknew that there would be a faithful remnant that would keep the covenant. Obviously not every Israelite with whom God made his covenant would be part of that remnant.

God is faithful to his part of the covenant, but he warns the Israelites of the curses that would be upon those who break the covenant. “But if you will not hearken to me, and will not do all these commandments, if you spurn my statutes, and if your soul abhors my ordinances, so that you will not do all my commandments, but break my covenant, I will do this to you: … I will destroy your high places, and cut down your incense altars, and cast your dead bodies upon the dead bodies of your idols; and my soul will abhor you …
Lev 26:13-14 & 30This is where you err in your understanding of covenant. You believe that you have a covenant with God, and this covenant is like a legal contract that gives you a guaranteed assurance that you will preserve unto the end. The New Covenant is not a legal contract between you and God that gives you a lock on heaven, and you have absolutely no way of knowing if you will persevere unto the end.

The New Testament is full of warnings to Christians not to backslide into their old ways. Christians are in a covenant with God, that is true, and Jesus promises that there will be a faithful remnant that will keep the covenant and endure to the end. But Jesus also teaches that many Christians will not endure to the end, and that many Christians will fall away.

Your Calvinist OSAS beliefs have absolutely no support in scriptures. In fact, your Calvinst OSAS beliefs contradict what is written in scriptures.

Do you see that God elected Israel while excluding all of the surrounding nations.

You forget that God made a covenant with Noah, and Noah was neither a Jew nor an Israelite. Then God said to Noah and to his sons with him, "Behold, I establish my covenant with you and your descendants after you …Since Noah and his sons were the ONLY humans that survived the flood, God made a covenant with the people of all nations.

That is what people don’t like: that I speak with assurance about my salvation.

What Catholics won’t accept is your mistaken belief that because a person is a Christian that he is guaranteed a place in heaven, and that he can’t possibly ever become an unrepentant backslider. This is why it strikes Catholics as delusional arrogance when someone claims that they can never fall from grace.

Calvinist OSAS is heresy just as much as antinomian OSAS is heresy.he who endures to the end will be saved
Matt. 10:22

 

[sandusky]

Matt16_18:

God made a covenant with all the members of Israel, but God also knew that many of the Israelites would break the covenant. God foreknew that there would be unfaithful Israelites that would fall away and NOT persevere to the end. God also forknew that there would be a faithful remnant that would keep the covenant. Obviously not every Israelite with whom God made his covenant would be part of that remnant.

God is faithful to his part of the covenant, but he warns the Israelites of the curses that would be upon those who break the covenant.
“But if you will not hearken to me, and will not do all these commandments, if you spurn my statutes, and if your soul abhors my ordinances, so that you will not do all my commandments, but break my covenant, I will do this to you: … I will destroy your high places, and cut down your incense altars, and cast your dead bodies upon the dead bodies of your idols; and my soul will abhor you …

Yes, that is all true. However, in the post from which you quote me, I was not referring to the covenant at Sinai, but the Abrahamic covenant and the promise of land stated in Gen 12 & 15. The Abrahamic covenant is the basis for all of God’s dealings with Israel.

Matt16_18:

This is where you err in your understanding of covenant. You believe that you have a covenant with God, and this covenant is like a legal contract that gives you a guaranteed assurance that you will preserve unto the end… and you have absolutely no way of knowing if you will persevere unto the end.

John wrote his Gospel so the believing one could know that he had eternal life (Jn 20:31); John wrote his first epistle so the believing one could know that he had eternal life. Who is right, you, or John?

Matt16_18:

The New Covenant is not a legal contract between you and God that gives you a lock on heaven…

The formalization of contract in the time of Christ was done by placing a seal upon the document. A seal was also placed upon a document showing that the one possessing the sealed document owned the contents set forth in the document. Paul speaks of the believer being sealed with/by the Holy Spirit, as an earnest, a down payment, a guarantee (Rom 8:16;
2 Cor 1:22; 5:5; Eph 1:14). Who is right, you, or Paul?

Matt16_18:

The New Testament is full of warnings to Christians not to backslide into their old ways. Christians are in a covenant with God, that is true, and Jesus promises that there will be a faithful remnant that will keep the covenant and endure to the end. But Jesus also teaches that many Christians will not endure to the end, and that many Christians will fall away.

A true Christian can be defined as one who is called, justified, glorified. A true Christian is in Christ (a part of His body), crucified, buried, resurrected with Christ. A true believer is sealed with the Holy Spirit as a guarantee, one who Christ will raise up, one who has an inheritance that is incorruptible reserved for him in heaven, and on, and on, and on. That being said, Jesus does not teach about true Christians not enduring, He teaches about false Christians not enduring—those He never knew; A true Christian is one He foreknew. A true believer will persevere to the end. Not because he is able, but because God is able.

Matt16_18:

Your Calvinist OSAS beliefs have absolutely no support in scriptures. In fact, your Calvinst OSAS beliefs contradict what is written in scriptures.

Indeed.

Matt16_18:

You forget that God made a covenant with Noah, and Noah was neither a Jew nor an Israelite. Then God said to Noah and to his sons with him, "Behold, I establish my covenant with you and your descendants after you …Since Noah and his sons were the ONLY humans that survived the flood, God made a covenant with the people of all nations.

God did make a covenant with Noah. Again, you are not tracking my argument. In the quote upon which you base your statement, I was talking about the Abrahamic covenant, the land.

 

[Matt16_18]

sandusky:

John wrote his Gospel so the believing one could know that he had eternal life (Jn 20:31); John wrote his first epistle so the believing one could know that he had eternal life. Who is right, you, or John?

The believing Christian does have eternal life abiding within. But a Christian can become an apostate (i.e. a person that no longer believes). An apostate has no eternal life abiding within. Even Calvin believed that a Christian that lost his faith would be damned.

There is NOTHING in scriptures that supports the OSAS heresy.

 

[Contarini]

Matt16_18:

Even Calvin believed that a Christian that lost his faith would be damned.

No, that would be Luther. Calvin did not believe that true faith could be lost. This is reasonable if a doctrine of unconditional election plays a central role in your soteriology. The problem with OSAS as believed by many today is that they’ve kept the “nice” part of Calvinism and gotten rid of the tough parts.

There is NOTHING in scriptures that supports the OSAS heresy.

As someone who grew up in East Tennessee having fierce arguments with Baptists on a regular basis, I have to disagree. As with most plausible misinterpretations of Scripture, there are a number of passages that can be read to support OSAS–if you read them with pro-OSAS presuppositions and use them to interpret texts of a contrary bent rather than the other way round.

Edwin

 

[sandusky]

Matt16_18:

The believing Christian does have eternal life abiding within. But a Christian can become an apostate (i.e. a person that no longer believes). An apostate has no eternal life abiding within. Even Calvin believed that a Christian that lost his faith would be damned.

There is NOTHING in scriptures that supports the OSAS heresy.

By definition, the elect believer is always believing. As I have said, he does so not of his own ability, but on the ability of God to persevere, and sustain Him.

Philippians 1:6
6 For I am confident of this very thing, that He who began a good work in you will perfect it until the day of Christ Jesus.

Is Paul mistaken in his statement?

When God begins the work of salvation in a person, He finishes and perfects His work.

Philippians 2:13
13 for it is God who is at work in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure.

Notice that God works the human will. The believer is responsible to work, but the work originates with God. The elect cannot fail.

See also 1 Cor 12:6; 15:10; Heb 13:21.

 

[Lazerlike42]

God does not will/want to save all men, but only some.

2Pe 3:9 “The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.”

Willing:
G1014
βούλομαι
boulomai

verb:

1. to will deliberately, have a purpose, be minded
2. of willing as an affection, to desire

So we have two ways of looking at it. We can go with definition 2, which would have the passage read that God doesn’t desire (synonym: want) anybody to perish. To me, the context very clearly indicates this. If we use definition 2, then the sentence is talking about some inward feeling of God’s: He has a personal desire that none perish and that all repent.

Definition 1 would make things more complicated. Some may read it to make the sentence refer to an outward act of God: he literally willed that none should perish in the same way He literally willed the world into existence. This can’t be so, because if He literally willed that none should perish, then none would because when God wills something in an active sense, it happens. He willed the universe into existence. He willed my soul into existence when I was conceived.

What most would read definition 1 to mean is that God had the purpose or intent that none should perish and that all should come to repentence. This definition would also be very problematic, because it would indicate that God had the purpose that all come to repentance, yet not all came to repentence: God failed. We can all agree that if God has the purpose or intent to do something, He will not fail at it.

Therefore, we must conclude that God wanted that none shall perish and all shall come to repentance.

So again I say: if the only factor that makes a man saved is that God chooses that person, and God wants all to be saved, why aren’t all saved?

 

[sandusky]

2Pe 3:9 “The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.”

Lazerlike42:

Willing:
G1014
βούλομαι
boulomai

verb:

1. to will deliberately, have a purpose, be minded
2. of willing as an affection, to desire

So we have two ways of looking at it. We can go with definition 2, which would have the passage read that God doesn’t desire (synonym: want) anybody to perish. To me, the context very clearly indicates this. If we use definition 2, then the sentence is talking about some inward feeling of God’s: He has a personal desire that none perish and that all repent.

I agree. A basis for that can be found in Eze 33:11, in which God states that He takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked. God has a love for the lost. That said, He still does not save all men.

Lazerlike42:

Definition 1 would make things more complicated. Some may read it to make the sentence refer to an outward act of God: he literally willed that none should perish in the same way He literally willed the world into existence. This can’t be so, because if He literally willed that none should perish, then none would because when God wills something in an active sense, it happens. He willed the universe into existence. He willed my soul into existence when I was conceived.

I agree.

Lazerlike42:

What most would read definition 1 to mean is that God had the purpose or intent that none should perish and that all should come to repentence. This definition would also be very problematic, because it would indicate that God had the purpose that all come to repentance, yet not all came to repentence: God failed. We can all agree that if God has the purpose or intent to do something, He will not fail at it.

Absolutely.

Lazerlike42:

Therefore, we must conclude that God wanted that none shall perish and all shall come to repentance.

As the verse states.

Lazerlike42:

So again I say: if the only factor that makes a man saved is that God chooses that person, and God wants all to be saved, why aren’t all saved?

I see two possibilities:

1. His desire, want, cannot be His intent, purpose, or it would come to pass.
2. “All” does not mean each and every man, woman, and child. That is consistent with Christ’s teaching that the wicked will be cast into hell. Also, the Gk word translated “all” is context driven. It can mean all without exception, or all without distinction, or all within a specific group.

In looking at the passage, we see that the phrase “coming to repentance” is made in passing. If we back up in the passage, to its immediate context, we find the theme is that of the coming of Christ (v4); it is not salvation, as many assume. In the last days, mockers will question whether or not His promise to return is true. Peter is telling them why the coming of the Lord has been delayed: the Lord is not slack in His promise, but will come in His own time.

When speaking of the mockers, Peter refers to them as “them.” His audience he refers to as “beloved” and “you,” telling them to behave in holy conduct and godliness. In fact, if you go to the opening of the epistle, he refers to his audience as, “those who have received a faith as the same kind as ours.” That is a specific group, not all of mankind, and if you read through the epistle, you will see that his audience never changes. In v13, after his statement in v9, he includes himself in the audience, saying, “we are looking for a new heavens and a new earth.” That is important to note, because in v9, when Peter says the Lord is “patient toward you” that “you” does not refer to every human being, but to those he is writing to, his audience. Further, when he says, “not wishing for any to perish,” but “all to come to repentance,” he is still addressing the same audience. He is addressing the “beloved” or “you” and not the “scoffers” or “them,” and not all of mankind.

That is consistent with the grammar.

 

[Matt16_18]

Sandusky:

God has a love for the lost.

How do you reconcile that with your beliefs? You claim that neither angels nor men have any free will whatsoever. According to you, if a man is damned, it is because God has created him for damnation, and there is absolutely nothing that the damned man can do about it.

The “lost” are damned to the fires of hell because that is how God shows his love for them. Sheesh!

 

[Lazerlike42]

sandusky:

When speaking of…

…not all of mankind.

I think this is reading an awful lot into the text, but just for a moment I will agree that you are correct.

However, let’s take a look at 1 Corinthians. St. Paul starts off, just like St. Peter, by identifying his audience:
St. Paul:

1Co 1:1 Paul, called as an apostle of Christ Jesus by God’s will, and our brother Sosthenes:
1Co 1:2 To God’s church at Corinth, to those who are sanctified in Christ Jesus and called as saints, with all those in every place who call on the name of Jesus Christ our Lord–theirs and ours.
1Co 1:3 Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
1Co 1:4 I always thank my God for you because of God’s grace given to you in Christ Jesus,
1Co 1:5 that by Him you were made rich in everything–in all speaking and all knowledge–
1Co 1:6 as the testimony about Christ was confirmed among you,
1Co 1:7 so that you do not lack any spiritual gift as you eagerly wait for the revelation of our Lord Jesus Christ.
1Co 1:8 He will also confirm you to the end, blameless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ.
1Co 1:9 God is faithful; by Him you were called into fellowship with His Son, Jesus Christ our Lord.
1Co 1:10 Now I urge you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all say the same thing, that there be no divisions among you, and that you be united with the same understanding and the same conviction.
1Co 1:11 For it has been reported to me about you, my brothers, by members of Chloe’s household, that there are quarrels among you.

If election occurs as Calvanism claims, then these folks sure as heck are elect! St. Paul identifies these people as those who “are sanctified in Christ Jesus and are called as saints.” That’s about all the evidence we need, but he also speaks of how God gave them Grace, how they are rich in everything through Christ, how they lack no spiritual gift, and how Christ will confrim them to the last day. If these folks aren’t elect, I don’t know who are.

But in 1 Corinthians 6, the apostle says something odd:
St. Paul:

Do you not know that the unjust will not inherit God’s kingdom? Do not be deceived: no sexually immoral people, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, homosexuals,
1Co 6:10 thieves, greedy people, drunkards, revilers, or swindlers will inherit God’s kingdom.
1Co 6:11 Some of you were like this; but you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

First, let’s make sure that we know he is writing to the same people he mentioned in the introduction. He never changed his audience. We know this for several reasons. One is that in the very introduction where he spoke of these people, he mentioned how they were sinning against each other (1:11). Then in 6:1-8, he continues to discuss “brothers” sinning against one another. He is clearly talking to the faithful.

Then he proceeds to warn the people that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God. He lists a bunch of things that will keep people out of the kingdom of God. He is saying this in the context of admonishing the faithful not to sin against one another. He says this as part of his effort to get them to stop by warning them that they won’t inherit the kingdom of God if they do these things. Now, it seemed like the apostle was referring to the elect, but if the elect by definition are predestined to Heaven, then his warnings are meaningless. There’s no need to warn the predestined. Surely St. Paul would know this.

Some Calvanists would point to verse 11 and say that St. Paul is only warning those who are not part of the “some” that turned around. He speaks of how some were commiting those sins, but they were sanctified in Christ Jesus. So in other words, they claim, the apostle is addressing this warning to the rest who weren’t sanctified. Even if this is true, why is he doing this? What is the purpose of warning people who can’t make their own choice? What is the point of warning those who are either already predestined to Hell or to come to repentance later on in life?

continued!

 

[Lazerlike42]

continued!

The vast majority of Calvanists I have ever dealt with (and all other OSAS believers) say that St. Paul here is not writing to believers, but that he is talking about other non believers who won’t inherit the kingdom. There’s a major problem with that though in that he issues the warning as part of a warning to the faithdul not to harm one another. So, if in 2 Peter we are forced to content that St. Peter is writing specifically and only about his audience, stating that God willed only his audience to repentance, then why are we changing the rules in 1 Corinthians?

There is another great example of this in Ephesians 5.
St. Paul:

Eph 5:1 Therefore, be imitators of God, as dearly loved children.
Eph 5:2 And walk in love, as the Messiah also loved us and gave Himself for us, a sacrificial and fragrant offering to God.
Eph 5:3 But sexual immorality and any impurity or greed should not even be heard of among you, as is proper for saints.
Eph 5:4 And coarse and foolish talking or crude joking are not suitable, but rather giving thanks.
Eph 5:5 For know and recognize this: no sexually immoral or impure or greedy person, who is an idolater, has an inheritance in the kingdom of the Messiah and of God.
Eph 5:6 Let no one deceive you with empty arguments, for because of these things God’s wrath is coming on the disobedient.
Eph 5:7 Therefore, do not become their partners.

Here again we know for a fact that St. Paul is writing to those who are already in faith, and here again he issues warnings not to commit these sins. I think this is the best passage in the Bible for antinomianists, because St. Paul clearly issues a stern warning that these arguements are “empty” and not to be deceived by such things. He then says that “God’s wrath” is coming on those who disobey.

Then he says, “therefore.” In other words, ‘because of this fact [that God’s wrath is coming on the disobedient], don’t join these people.’ Once more St. Paul warns the faithful STRONGLY not to sin or so these things. He is writing nevertheless to the faithful, not to the unfaithful.

So whether or not you want to sat that the epistles can be applied to all people or only to those who are being addressed, there is still a conflict with the idea of election as Calvanists propose it. Either St. Peter’s writings are going to disagree or St. Paul’s are.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

From Genesis 6, I wonder how a Calvinist interprets this:
5 The LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. 6 And the LORD was sorry that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart. 7 So the LORD said, “I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the ground, man and beast and creeping things and birds of the air, for I am sorry that I have made them.” 8 But Noah found favor in the eyes of the LORD.
Did God predestine the whole world to hell? But the thing I dont get is that in v6 it makes it sound as if God made a boo boo, but why was he sad if He predestined the world to hell?

 

[Lazerlike42]

Catholic Dude:

From Genesis 6, I wonder how a Calvinist interprets this:
5 The LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. 6 And the LORD was sorry that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart. 7 So the LORD said, “I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the ground, man and beast and creeping things and birds of the air, for I am sorry that I have made them.” 8 But Noah found favor in the eyes of the LORD.
Did God predestine the whole world to hell? But the thing I dont get is that in v6 it makes it sound as if God made a boo boo, but why was he sad if He predestined the world to hell?

Furthermore, how did Noah “find favor” in the eyes of God if he were without free will? Obviously Noah did not on his own merits find favor in God’s eyes; that would be impossible. However, if Goad predestined Noah to do what he would do, well this doesn’t make sense either. The passage is written in this sense:

1. God makes man
2. God becomes upset with man
3. God plans to destroy man
4. BUT Noah comes along

Let’s look at it from a Catholic perspective. In this perspective, this passage makes sense. God is unhappy with the way the world is. Now, the only way these people could possibly please God anyways is through God’s grace. If we say that man has free will, then we can say that it seems as though none of the other folks on the earth chose to accept God’s grace and thus allow the Lord to work through them. Thus, God was upset with the world and intended to destroy it all. However, then Noah comes along and Noah does choose to respond to the grace and does choose God. Thus the world continues.

It gets complicated because obviously Noah didn’t surprise God. God knew what was coming, even though the passage reads as though God changed His mind. It’s tough for us to understand this because we don’t know what it’s like to be outside of time and omniscient. Nevertheless, the Bible is written to express God in terms of our understanding, and the author seems to be telling us that in some way that we can’t quite comprehend God’s plan to destroy all life was “altered” because of Noah. The best way we can understand it is to talk about God’s forknowledge. He forknew all the wicked whom would not respond to his grace, “then” he forknew Noah and that Noah would respond.

From a Calvanist perspective, things get a bit cloudy. The author of Genesis is in some way telling us that first God was going to destroy the world, but then Noah came along so He didn’t. This chronology is certainly not meaningless. Even if we completely take time and chronology out of the picture, at a basic level the passage is indicating that if not for Noah God would have destroyed the world. Now a Calvanist would say that God is unhappy with the way the world is going even though He made it happen exactly that way. Then He is going to destroy the world. Now the Bible reads “BUT Noah found favor in the eyes of God.” This does not read well in light of Calvanism. The sentence indicates that Noah is the active party here. He found favor (not by his actions of course but by his choice to accept God’s grace) in God’s eyes. For a Calvanist, it would make immensely more sense if it read that “But God chose Noah to please Him” or “But God made Noah please Him.”

Let’s just sum it up really succinctly here. The Bible reads that God planned to destroy the world but was pleased with Noah and therefore spared life. The Calvanist must assert that God forced Noah to please Him, a position that is awkward if not impossible. How is God pleased by something He forced to happen?

Think of it this way. Are you pleased by your wife’s choice to love you? Would you be equally pleased if she only loved you because you paid her to, or in some other way forced her to show these emotions?

 

[Catholic_Dude]

sandusky-

Please, that is overly simplistic. Prov 16:4 needs no explanation. God has made everything for His own purpose, even the wicked.

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

Again, what is your point?

First of all I was interpreting that as I would see a Calvinist interpreting it, thats not how a Catholic would interpret that. (I might have confused you there) 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.

An admonition that you also would do well to heed.

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

Neither, as I said above to Aquinas.

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. If you put no faith in neither Calvin or Church history then what is left?

You throw out a statement by Chrysostom on man’s will, a subject which I was not discussing. I was talking about God’s will, and His right to do as He chooses. You are not tracking with what I have said.

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), in that case they conclude:
-double predestination
-insignificant levels of free will if any
-somehow conclude that they (the Calvinist) are the “good” pots

What part of “My faith is not in Calvin, or the ECFs” are you not understanding?

What are you doing then, inventing another gospel?

I am not bound to believe what Augustine, or Calvin believed. I reject the notion of purgatory based upon my own study. Purgatory is another thread, and there happens to be one active right now. I am not interested in discussing purgatory, that is why I am not posting on the thread regarding it. I know all of your arguments.

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. I was talking to another Calvinist and he told me Calvin rejected Augustine’s anti-Donatist writings, Im not totally sure what the specifics are with Calvin, but I do know with the anti-D letters from the amount I have read they contain a lot of talk about Baptism forgiving sins as well as a sanctifying act in other ways.

Is that an argument that the wolves’ attack was stopped?

Thats the Biblical account of who is in charge of doing the protecting. The appointed leaders.

 

[sandusky]

Matt16_18:

How do you reconcile that with your beliefs? You claim that neither angels nor men have any free will whatsoever. According to you, if a man is damned, it is because God has created him for damnation, and there is absolutely nothing that the damned man can do about it.

The “lost” are damned to the fires of hell because that is how God shows his love for them.

Reconciling the Scriptures with a finite mind is not possible. God nowhere commands one to reconcile every antinomy found within Scripture, and there are many. Rather, He commands us to believe what He has said, even if we cannot resolve the conflict. That is faith.

It is true that many go to hell, and that God could prevent that, and that He doesn’t. It is also true that God loves His creation:

Psalm 145:9
9 The Lord is good to all, And His mercies are over all His works.

Luke 6:35
35 “But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return; and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High; for He Himself is kind to ungrateful and evil men.

Acts 14:17
*17 and yet He did not leave Himself without witness, in that He did good and gave you rains from heaven and fruitful seasons, satisfying your hearts with food and gladness.”

Here are some others you can lookup for yourself: Dt 10:17ff; Eze 18:23, 32; 33:11; Hos 11:8; Mt 5:44-45; Lk 23:34.

You will never be satisfied if you continually try reconcile each paradox. God has a redemptive love toward the elect alone, and a love a compassion expressed toward all of His creation.

Also, God is not love only. He is also omnipotent, holy, immutable, righteous, eternal, sovereign, truthful, faithful, omniscient, omnipresent, omnisapient, wrathful, jealous, and so forth. It is important to remember, that God is all of His attributes, in all of their fullness, all of the time. To bring one, love for example, to the front and make that the focus of your concept of God is to have a distorted concept of God. That is prevalent today, and it is always dangerous.

I’ll offer an antidote: Memorize Rom 8:33-36, and whenever you encounter an unresolved paradox, recite that verse and meditate on it. Pay particular attention to how unsearchable are His judgments and unfathomable His ways.*

 

[sandusky]

Hi Philthy. Hope your head has stopped spinning.

Philthy:

Acts 10:34 …God does not show favoritism but accepts (predestines?) men from every nation who fear him and do what is right." Truly an odd thing to say to people who are predestined to either follow his will or not independent of their own free will.

Read my post above to Matt16_18. Scripture says that God has elected and predestined some to salvation; Scripture also says that there is no partiality with God. Both are true.

Philthy:

When you say “presents” you mean Scripture doesn’t actually say it? Show me the verse that says “only those predestined will be saved”

There is no statement that only the elect will be saved. However, we can truthfully say that with careful study.

Romans 8 tells us that there are those that God has foreknown, called, justified, glorified. Eph 1 tells that there are those that God has chosen in Christ and predestined them to be conformed to the image of His Son. I believe those in Rom 8, and those in Eph 1 are the same group.

Jn 6:44 says, “no one can come to Me, unless the Father who sent Me draws him.” I believe that those that the Father draws to Christ, are those described in Rom 8, and Eph 1. At the beginning of that verse, Christ says “no one can come…” That excludes everyone, but those drawn by the Father. The offer of the Gospel is made to everyone, but “no one can come…unless the Father…draws him.” Let’s restate that using another word for “can.” No one is able, or No one has the ability to come. Man does not have the ability to come to Christ on His own. In order for man to come to Christ, He must be drawn, literally, in the Gk, he must be “dragged.”

That is total depravity, or better, total inability. Man is spiritually dead, and morally corrupt. The reason that man won’t come to God is not one that has to do with his nature, it is a moral inability as Edwards said. Man has a duty to obey God, and God is right for punishing him for disobeying.

Only that group specified in Rom 8 and Eph 1 will be saved.

 

[dennisknapp]

sandusky:

Reconciling the Scriptures with a finite mind is not possible. God nowhere commands one to reconcile every antinomy found within Scripture, and there are many. Rather, He commands us to believe what He has said, even if we cannot resolve the conflict. That is faith.

No, this is a presupposition based on an assertion.

sandusky:

It is true that many go to hell, and that God could prevent that, and that He doesn’t. It is also true that God loves His creation:

Psalm 145:9
9 The Lord is good to all, And His mercies are over all His works.

Luke 6:35
35 “But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return; and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High; for He Himself is kind to ungrateful and evil men.

Acts 14:17
17 and yet He did not leave Himself without witness, in that He did good and gave you rains from heaven and fruitful seasons, satisfying your hearts with food and gladness.”

Here are some others you can lookup for yourself: Dt 10:17ff; Eze 18:23, 32; 33:11; Hos 11:8; Mt 5:44-45; Lk 23:34.

You will never be satisfied if you continually try reconcile each paradox. God has a redemptive love toward the elect alone, and a love a compassion expressed toward all of His creation.

Paradox or contradiction? Jesus said, “come unto me all…”

sandusky:

Also, God is not love only. He is also omnipotent, holy, immutable, righteous, eternal, sovereign, truthful, faithful, omniscient, omnipresent, omnisapient, wrathful, jealous, and so forth. It is important to remember, that God is all of His attributes, in all of their fullness, all of the time. To bring one, love for example, to the front and make that the focus of your concept of God is to have a distorted concept of God. That is prevalent today, and it is always dangerous.

I’ll offer an antidote: Memorize Rom 8:33-36, and whenever you encounter an unresolved paradox, recite that verse and meditate on it. Pay particular attention to how unsearchable are His judgments and unfathomable His ways.

Your are appealing to mystery and complexity. This is no way to settle an argument.

Peace

 

[sandusky]

dennisknapp:

No, this is a presupposition based on an assertion.

I think you mean an assertion based on a presupposition.

dennisknapp:

Paradox or contradiction? Jesus said, “come unto me all…”

Not following you.

dennisknapp:

Your are appealing to mystery and complexity. This is no way to settle an argument.

Not following you, explain.

 

[dennisknapp]

sandusky:

I think you mean an assertion based on a presupposition.

Yes, that is what I meant, sorry.

sandusky:

Not following you…

Your approach totally contradicts what Jesus taught in the Gospels.

sandusky:

Not following you, explain.

You appeal to mystery and conplexity as the solution to the problem of Freewill and the will of God. This is no way to handle an argument. I could say the same thing and we would get nowhere.

Peace