Are there any Calvinists on this forum?

[migurl]

Here is my question for any calvinist to answer: Why woud a loving God create souls for the purpose of suffering eternal fire and torment? And if your idea of predestination were true, why would God even bother allowing earth to exist? I mean, Catholics believe that God knows all, and He knows who will choose Him and who won’t, but not because He has already decided but because He exists outside of time and space. But I guess I deviated from my original question. I’d appreciate an informed response.

 

[Matt16_18]

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.

This is NOT faith. God didn’t give to man a set of scriptures that are full of contradictions. The reason that you insist that scriptures are full of contradictions is because you are interpreting scriptures in a false manner.

The central belief of your religion is the heresy of “Calvinist” OSAS. If you must twist and distort scripture to maintain this heresy, then so be it. If you must assert a brutal and inhumane view of man as a mere meat robot with out free will, then so be it. If it means creating an “antinomy” that God’s perfect love entails sending a person to hell for being obedient to God’s will, then so be it. If it means maintaining an utterly blasphemous view that God is the author of all evil, then so be it. Nothing is too brutal, irrational or blasphemous for you to accept if that is what is required to maintain the heresy of OSAS.

How can a meat robot be said to commit sin? Sin requires a free choice for disobedience, but meat robots can only follow the scripts that the Great Architect has written for them. Meat robots cannot possibly be “sinning” in any real sense of the word. A meat robot would be perfectly obedient to the will of the Great Architect no matter what the meat robot does. If one meat robot is raping another meat robot, the rape is not an offense against the Great Architect - the rape is exactly what the Great Architect programmed the meat robot to execute, and the meat robot simply executed the program that was written for it. The meat robot no more commits a sin when it rapes than a CNC machine tool commits a sin when it moves an end mill along its tool path.

There really is no such thing a sin in your “theology”. Jesus dying on the cross for the “sins” of meat robots that can’t sin - that isn’t an antinomy, that is an absurdity.

All men know in their guts that they are not meat robots. All men know that they can freely choose to commit sin. When a man stands before God, he will never be able to say that he is not guilty of being disobedient to God because he is merely a meat robot that only did God’s will in his life.

Honestly, how can one really have a rational discussion with someone that insists on holding the insanely irrational belief that men have absolutely no free will? All of scriptures is made meaningless by asserting such an irrational belief.

God has a redemptive love toward the elect alone …

Scripture explicitly contradicts this assertion.For God sent the Son into the world, not to condemn the world, but that the world might be saved through him.
John 3:17

God our Savior … desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.
1Tim 2: 3-4

The Lord is … not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance.
2 Peter 3:9

For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all …
1Tim 2:5-6

Jesus Christ the righteous … is the expiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.
1John 2:1-2

Also, God is not love only … It is important to remember, that God is all of His attributes …

God IS love. This is a profound statement by John. Love is not an “attribute” of God - love is what God IS – love is the essence of God.

What YOU need to meditate upon is the fact that it is utterly irrational to insist that men are nothing but meat robots without free will. You will never convince a sane person to believe that he has absolutely no free will. It can’t be done, because that would require a man to believe that he is a meat machine that is not responsible for his choices in life. Nor can you fool yourself into believing that you are incapable of committing unrepentant mortal sin.Pride goes before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall.
Proverbs 16:18

 

[migurl]

Matt16_18:

This is NOT faith. God didn’t give to man a set of scriptures that are full of contradictions. The reason that you insist that scriptures are full of contradictions is because you are interpreting scriptures in a false manner.

The central belief of your religion is the heresy of “Calvinist” OSAS. If you must twist and distort scripture to maintain this heresy, then so be it. If you must assert a brutal and inhumane view of man as a mere meat robot with out free will, then so be it. If it means creating an “antinomy” that God’s perfect love entails sending a person to hell for being obedient to God’s will, then so be it. If it means maintaining an utterly blasphemous view that God is the author of all evil, then so be it. Nothing is too brutal, irrational or blasphemous for you to accept if that is what is required to maintain the heresy of OSAS.

How can a meat robot be said to commit sin? Sin requires a free choice for disobedience, but meat robots can only follow the scripts that the Great Architect has written for them. Meat robots cannot possibly be “sinning” in any real sense of the word. A meat robot would be perfectly obedient to the will of the Great Architect no matter what the meat robot does. If one meat robot is raping another meat robot, the rape is not an offense against the Great Architect - the rape is exactly what the Great Architect programmed the meat robot to execute, and the meat robot simply executed the program that was written for it. The meat robot no more commits a sin when it rapes than a CNC machine tool commits a sin when it moves an end mill along its tool path.

There really is no such thing a sin in your “theology”. Jesus dying on the cross for the “sins” of meat robots that can’t sin - that isn’t an antinomy, that is an absurdity.

All men know in their guts that they are not meat robots. All men know that they can freely choose to commit sin. When a man stands before God, he will never be able to say that he is not guilty of being disobedient to God because he is merely a meat robot that only did God’s will in his life.

Honestly, how can one really have a rational discussion with someone that insists on holding the insanely irrational belief that men have absolutely no free will? All of scriptures is made meaningless by asserting such an irrational belief.

Scripture explicitly contradicts this assertion.For God sent the Son into the world, not to condemn the world, but that the world might be saved through him.

John 3:17

God our Savior … desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.
1Tim 2: 3-4

The Lord is … not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance.
2 Peter 3:9

For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all …
1Tim 2:5-6

Jesus Christ the righteous … is the expiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.
1John 2:1-2
God IS love. This is a profound statement by John. Love is not an “attribute” of God - love is what God IS – love is the essence of God.

What YOU need to meditate upon is the fact that it is utterly irrational to insist that men are nothing but meat robots without free will. You will never convince a sane person to believe that he has absolutely no free will. It can’t be done, because that would require a man to believe that he is a meat machine that is not responsible for his choices in life. Nor can you fool yourself into believing that you are incapable of committing unrepentant mortal sin.Pride goes before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall.

Proverbs 16:18

A commend you on your skill with words! I don’t think I could have explained it better. I mean, honestly, Calvinism seems more like a way for people not to accept resonsibilty for their actions, for if God meant them to sin, they had no choice but to sin etc. Thank you for wording this well.

 

[Philthy]

Hi Philthy. Hope your head has stopped spinning.

Hi Sandusky! Thanks - I am better. This topic though…

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.

Yes they are both true, but they can’t be both true according to your interpretations. They can both be true according to Catholic theology. It’s one of several reasons why I resist your interpretation…

There is no statement that only the elect will be saved.

Thank you, it is not said. Where have we heard that before?

However, we can truthfully say that with careful study.

It is a possible conclusion. It is not a conclusion of necessity.

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.

Weve been through this once or twice already. There is no reason to be forced into accepting that the only people who go to heaven are the ones who are predestined to.

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.

There is no reason to be forced into accepting theat the only people who are drawn to the Father are those in the above verse.

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.”

Yes, He saved us, not because of anything we have done, but because of His mercy. Im not boasting, neither are you. Ahhhh, we agree!

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.”

Orthodoxy - you and I are one here!

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.

We remain one!

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

Bummer - we part ways! I don’t see how you have arrived at “Only” that group being saved.

 

[Matt16_18]

Antinomy: A contradiction between principles or conclusions that seem equally necessary and reasonable; a paradox.

migurl:

Here is my question for any calvinist to answer: Why woud a loving God create souls for the purpose of suffering eternal fire and torment?

Some Calvinists can answer that question (the relatively reasonable Calvinists that believe man has at least a limited free will) .

But hyper-Calvinists such as sandusky that believe man has absolutely no free will cannot give a rational answer to your question. That is why sandusky has said it is an “antinomy” that the finite mind cannot comprehend that God both loves the damned, and that God has positively predestined the damned for eternity in the fires of hell. All sandusky is really saying is that he has no way of answering this question. His whole understanding of salvation can be summed up in one sentence - either you were created for hell or you weren’t - and their is absolutely nothing that you can do about it if you were created for hell.

It is a brutal and blasphemous theology, but hey, take comfort in the fact that God loves you even though you are most likely predestined for eternity in hell.

 

[migurl]

Thanks for answering my question. It really baffles me why anyone would want to be calvinist. I mean, like i’ve said before, it feels like its a faith in which people don’t have to be held accountable for their actions because GOd made them to do something.

 

[Lazerlike42]

lol

I remember that old line, “The Devil made me do it!”

But it seems John Calvin would be more apt to say, “God made me do it!”

 

[sandusky]

migurl:

Here is my question for any calvinist to answer: Why woud a loving God create souls for the purpose of suffering eternal fire and torment?

Here is Paul’s answer to that:

Romans 9:17-18
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.

See also Ex 9:16ff

migurl:

And if your idea of predestination were true, why would God even bother allowing earth to exist?

Again, to demonstrate His power, and to proclaim His name.

You are probably thinking that there must be more, but that is what the Scripture says.

In the Catholic view you have the same the dilemma. God has the power to save all men, but doesn’t. There is not much difference.

 

[sandusky]

Matt16_18:

How can a meat robot be said to commit sin? Sin requires a free choice for disobedience, but meat robots can only follow the scripts that the Great Architect has written for them. Meat robots cannot possibly be “sinning” in any real sense of the word. A meat robot would be perfectly obedient to the will of the Great Architect no matter what the meat robot does. If one meat robot is raping another meat robot, the rape is not an offense against the Great Architect - the rape is exactly what the Great Architect programmed the meat robot to execute, and the meat robot simply executed the program that was written for it. The meat robot no more commits a sin when it rapes than a CNC machine tool commits a sin when it moves an end mill along its tool path.

Romans 9:17-18
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.

Deuteronomy 2:30
30 “But Sihon king of Heshbon was not willing for us to pass through his land; for the Lord your God hardened his spirit and made his heart obstinate, in order to deliver him into your hand, as he is today.

1 Samuel 16:14
14 Now the Spirit of the Lord departed from Saul, and an evil spirit from the Lord terrorized him.

I do believe in secondary causes, but not to the exclusion of the primary cause and a denial of God’s sovereignty, as you do.

Matt16_18:

Honestly, how can one really have a rational discussion with someone that insists on holding the insanely irrational belief that men have absolutely no free will?

Where have I said that man has absolutely no free will? I haven’t. But I will say that man’s will is not absolutely free.

Show me one verse, any verse, that speaks to man being given a will that is absolutely free. You cannot, because there is no such verse, but there are verses that do describe man’s will, and they all speak of it in terms of being captive, ensnared, a enslaved, etc.

Such as:
Romans 6:6
6 knowing this, that our old self was crucified with Him, in order that our body of sin might be done away with, so that we would no longer be slaves to sin;

Romans 6:17
*17 But thanks be to God that though you were slaves of sin, you became obedient from the heart to that form of teaching to which you were committed, *

Romans 6:20
20 For when you were slaves of sin, you were free in regard to righteousness.

2 Peter 2:19
19 promising them freedom while they themselves are slaves of corruption; for by what a man is overcome, by this he is enslaved.

2 Corinthians 4:4
4 in whose case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving so that they might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.

2 Timothy 2:26
26 and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, having been held captive by him to do his will.

Even after He is regenerated and received the guarantee of eternal life, He is still a slave:

1 Corinthians 6:19-20
19 Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and that you are not your own?
20 For you have been bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body.

Maybe Peter and Paul are wrong. Do you think that Peter and Paul are wrong? I have asked you that question before, and you never answer me. Why is that?

Matt16_18:

But hyper-Calvinists such as sandusky that believe man has absolutely no free will cannot give a rational answer to your question.

You are a pip. You start out slow, and nice, and then crescendo to a scream and yell. A clanging cymbal. You have lied about what I said, assume that I am something that I am not, ignore questions asked. All of your arguments are opinions and assertions. Nothing to support what you say.

Man, you are annoying, see ya!

 

[sandusky]

Philthy:

Hi Philthy. Hope your head has stopped spinning.

Hi Sandusky! Thanks - I am better. This topic though…

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.

Yes they are both true, but they can’t be both true according to your interpretations. They can both be true according to Catholic theology. It’s one of several reasons why I resist your interpretation…

There is no statement that only the elect will be saved.

Thank you, it is not said. Where have we heard that before?

However, we can truthfully say that with careful study.

It is a possible conclusion. It is not a conclusion of necessity.

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.

Weve been through this once or twice already. There is no reason to be forced into accepting that the only people who go to heaven are the ones who are predestined to.

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.

There is no reason to be forced into accepting theat the only people who are drawn to the Father are those in the above verse.

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.”

Yes, He saved us, not because of anything we have done, but because of His mercy. Im not boasting, neither are you. Ahhhh, we agree!

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.”

Orthodoxy - you and I are one here!

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.

We remain one!

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

Bummer - we part ways! I don’t see how you have arrived at “Only” that group being saved.

Fair enough, you are all right.

 

[sandusky]

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.

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.

I got worn out reading this over and over again. Your wording is tedious, and your argument is for an antinomian, which I am not. You also assume that antinomianism is the only form of eternal security, which it is not. So I’m not going to unravel all of your questions. You are also assuming that everyone Paul is addressing is a true believer; I am certain that some unbelievers are among the Corinthian church. Remember, there are tares among the wheat. You also ask why Paul would admonish someone of the elect, who cannot make a choice. I don’t know if you are being facetious with that question or if you really do believe that the elect don’t do anything. Have you read by anything by Calvin, Whitefield, Edwards, Spurgeon, anyone who has written on this subject? My guess is not many, unless you have read some and are just being facetious. I don’t which it is.

 

[migurl]

sandusky:

Here is Paul’s answer to that:

Romans 9:17-18
*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.

See also Ex 9:16ff

Again, to demonstrate His power, and to proclaim His name.

You are probably thinking that there must be more, but that is what the Scripture says.

In the Catholic view you have the same the dilemma. God has the power to save all men, but doesn’t. There is not much difference.

First of all, the reason God doesn’t just save everyone is because we have free will. I have the choice to love Him or not, I have the choice to sin whenever I want or to resist.God made us with the natural desire to know Him, but he does not force this because true love and admiration cannot be forced. I am not forced to like anyone in my fiance’s family, I choose to be respectful and kind to those I don’t really like, but I am not forced to make them my best buddy. God doesn’t want mindless followers, He rejoices that people choose Him of their own free will. DO you know what the 3 powers of your soul are? Memory, understanding and WILL. Anyways, I looked up the Romans passage, and you miss the point. It isn’t to say he created Pharoah to be evil, He knew the path Pharoah would take and used the examples of his choices and the choice of Moses to teach people of God and His power. In the Bible in the footnotes, it says that God raised Moses up as an example of mercy and Pharoah todisplay his severity in punishing those who obstinatly oppose Him. How do you teach children? Say for example, you have 2 kids about the same age. chld #1 lies habitually to his friends about thinfs he has done. Child #2 is very honest about his experiences while child #3 isn’t sure what to do. HOw would you explain the consequences for either choice? You point to your other children as examples. YOu might say, child #1 got caught in a lie and now his friends don’t trust him while child #2 does not have to worry about that because he doesn’t lie. Now child #3 understands that lying leads to trouble and honesty is better. Because you used the examples of your 2 older children, does that mean you raised one as a liar and one as an honest person? No, it means that they made choice nd you observed the outcome and pointed them out to your third child that they may learn what is right and what is wrong.

 

[norwester]

“If you took offense of some of the questions and comments let me be the first to bury the hatchet.” Aquinas XVI

I was not offended. Though I do have a few !!! moments when I read some of the interpretations of Calvinism. I hear all the time on the radio how Protestants say this and that about Catholics and how anti-Catholic they are but it does seem the deal goes both ways!
Emotionally loaded words such as “meat-puppets” doesn’t do much good for rational debate.

" Iwas thinking where does the virtues of Hope and Mercy fit in Calvin’s ideas? Since before we were born we’re already headed one way and not the other"

That’s true no matter what your view of predestination is, isn’t it?

Actually, Calvinism gave me a much greater hope. I used to pray for members of my family, but I felt like there was no hope because they seemed to have NO desire for God at all. But when I realized their salvation was in God’s hands it gave me a much greater hope for them because I knew if it is up to Him, He can do it!
How do you know for sure that your friends didn’t respond to healing grace? Can you read their hearts? God gives grace to us on his terms and in his time. Perhaps your friends weren’t given healing grace the same time as you, and that is why they haven’t drawn close to God."

True enough. But it has been 15 years and they are still doing the party thing with a lot of drugs and stuff. But where there is life there is still hope.

“I mean, like i’ve said before, it feels like its a faith in which people don’t have to be held accountable for their actions because GOd made them to do something.”

This is the position of hyper-calvinism, but not Calvinism. God cannot be the author of evil. Man cannot blame His sins on God.

Now, here is something I would like to know. We all agree that God created Adam and Eve, that He created the tree of good and evil, KNOWING what Adam and Eve would do. Now, Adam did have complete free will (Or what ever term you want to use) and he freely sinned which plunged all of mankind into a state where we are born in trespasses and sins. Right? So now, knowing that Adam had free will and STILL failed, why is it merciful of God to leave the desicion up to us dead sinners? Now I know someone is going to use the “free loving marriage” type analogy. But my children were born into my family, I did not choose them, but I love them. So I do not accept the idea that love HAS to involve a choice. If you want your view, than so be it. Have at it! But I would like to know why Calvinists are so blasted MEAN because they want God to decide?

We can proof-text to the teeth, and frankly, I’m not fond of the proof-texting thing. I can prove anything with proof-texts. It chops the scriptures like so much chop suey.

But I would like to also know what makes you all think hell will be more crowded than heaven.

 

[sandusky]

migurl:

Anyways, I looked up the Romans passage, and you miss the point. It isn’t to say he created Pharoah to be evil, He knew the path Pharoah would take and used the examples of his choices and the choice of Moses to teach people of God and His power

Romans 9:16-18
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.

Perhaps I have missed the point.

So you think that God foreknew what Pharaoh would do? If that is the case why does God say, “For this very purpose I raised you up,” instead of “For this very purpose I knew what you do?”

So what you are saying is that God, by looking into the future, saw what Pharaoh would do. Is that a correct understanding of what you are saying? If it is, read the verses below?

Isaiah 40:13
13 Who has directed the Spirit of the Lord, Or as His counselor has informed Him?

Malachi 3:6
6 “For I, the Lord, do not change; therefore you, O sons of Jacob, are not consumed.

Isaiah’s question is, who has informed God of anything? The answer Isaiah expects is no one. If God knew what Pharaoh would do, how did He know it? Did He look into the future? If that is how God knew, a number of difficulties are apparent, let me note two of them:

1. If God looks into the future, He has taken counsel other than His own will. That is in contradiction to Is. 40:13, as well as Eph 1:11.
2. God says that He is immutable, and omniscient, or all-knowing. Seeing into the future teaches God something He did know. If God learns something that He didn’t know, how is it that He makes the claim that He is all-knowing, and unchanging. As soon as God learns something, He changes.

How can that be?

 

[Matt16_18]

sandusky:

Where have I said that man has absolutely no free will? I haven’t. But I will say that man’s will is not absolutely free.

Are you admitting that you believe that men and angels have free will? Did Lucifer choose to be disobedient to God’s will? Did Adam and Eve choose to be disobedient to God’s will? Can a Christian choose to be disobedient to God’s will?

Show me one verse, any verse, that speaks to man being given a will that is absolutely free.

Does a Christian (or any man on earth) have the absolute freedom to choose not to obey the law of gravity? Of course not.

In regard to our our salvation, freedom of the will has to do with the MORAL choices that we make. Does a Christian have the freedom to make moral choices? Yes, he does. A Christian can freely choose obedience to God - he can choose to obey God’s commandments. He has that freedom because the grace of God gives him that freedom.

Can a Christian choose disobedience to God’s will and choose to disobey his commandments? Yes he can. God’s grace did not turn the Christian into a holy meat robot that can ONLY be obedient to God. A Christian can choose to sin because God has given him the freedom to choose life or death.I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse; therefore choose life …
Deut. 30:19

In the Catholic view you have the same the dilemma. God has the power to save all men, but doesn’t. There is not much difference.

There is a huge difference between your hyper-Calvinism and Catholicism. Catholics believe exactly what is written in scripture - that God desires all men to come to repentance. That God desires all men to be saved. That the atoning sacrifice of Jesus was offered not just for the sins of the Christians, but for the sins of the whole world. That is why Catholic go out and preach the Good News to all nations. It is preached so that all men might be saved. Do all men respond to grace? Not all, but if men are damned, it isn’t because God withheld a fictitious “irresistible” grace from them. A man is damned by his own free choice, not by what God withholds from him.

You have been assiduously avoiding the question of why a Calvinist would even bother sharing the Gospel. If Calvinists believe that most men are predestined for damnation, then what is the point of bringing the Gospel to such men? The damned were created for Hell by God, and even if they wanted to be saved by the precious blood of Jesus, God would send them to Hell anyway.

 

[migurl]

In order to exist in this world do I have to Love God? No. I may not be happy, but I still exist. How would you like to be surrounded by people who are forced to care for you and do what you ask? Wouldn’t you prefer to be with people who choose out of love and compassion to do things for you because it brings you happiness and pleasure?

 

[Lazerlike42]

sandusky:

You are also assuming that everyone Paul is addressing is a true believer; I am certain that some unbelievers are among the Corinthian church.

My point was not to make absolute statements. My point was to agree to follow your logic and to see where it took me.

sandusky:

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.

It is your point to say that the author of the epistle is only referring to or about his audience. I carried that logic out on 1 Corinthians. If you have a problem with my logic in 1 Corinthians, then you also have a problem with your own logic in 2 Peter. Paul doesn’t just write to the church at Corinth, but specifically to “those who are sanctified in Christ Jesus and called as saints.” Would it be likely to conclude that not everyone who read or heard the letter had been sanctified in Christ esus and called as saints? I would say so. I would also say it’s likely to conclude that not everyone who read Peter’s epistle or heard it had “obtained a faith of equal privilege with ours through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ,” and that not everyone who read or heard it were “dear friends.” Nevertheless, it is your logic to insist that they are.

 

[Lazerlike42]

migurl:

In order to exist in this world do I have to Love God? No. I may not be happy, but I still exist. How would you like to be surrounded by people who are forced to care for you and do what you ask? Wouldn’t you prefer to be with people who choose out of love and compassion to do things for you because it brings you happiness and pleasure?

Exactly.

Go get a girl and drug her up until she loves you.

Do you take comfort and joy in her love?

In fact, I’d say that the idea of a lack of free will amounts to some sort of divine ruffies.

 

[Philthy]

sandusky:

In the Catholic view you have the same the dilemma. God has the power to save all men, but doesn’t. There is not much difference.

Hi Sandusky! I have to strongly disagree with your conclusion here. God’s offer in Catholic Theology is for all to be saved and he makes that offer to all people - it is simply a question of accepting the gift…We don’t deserve to be offered the gift and we could not attain salvation without Gods initiative, but God so loved the world that he gave his only son so that WHOEVER believes in him may have eternal life. There is no dilemma.

Phil

 

[sandusky]

Lazerlike42:

It is your point to say that the author of the epistle is only referring to or about his audience. I carried that logic out on 1 Corinthians. If you have a problem with my logic in 1 Corinthians, then you also have a problem with your own logic in 2 Peter. Paul doesn’t just write to the church at Corinth, but specifically to “those who are sanctified in Christ Jesus and called as saints.” Would it be likely to conclude that not everyone who read or heard the letter had been sanctified in Christ esus and called as saints? I would say so. I would also say it’s likely to conclude that not everyone who read Peter’s epistle or heard it had “obtained a faith of equal privilege with ours through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ,” and that not everyone who read or heard it were “dear friends.” Nevertheless, it is your logic to insist that they are.

I am aware of what you were doing.

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.