Are there any Calvinists on this forum?

[migurl]

The answer in v23 is not my opinion, it is what God has revealed.

The word beforehand does not appear in the scriptures. It doesn’t say that God created Pharoah evil so that he could make known the glory of Heaven, just that he used pharoahs choices to show the people how he deals with those that sin against Him. Like I asked before, would you raise one of your children to be rude, obscene and a complete sinner in order to make your other child(ren) look better or glorify yourself as a good parent? And if God is revealing it thru Paul, then it is Truth, but your version of it is illogical.
And here is a very honest question, what are you doing in a catholic answer forum anyways? I mean, if you are here to have questions answered about the catholic faith, fine, but if you are here to convert people or just to argue, I think you should find a different place to do that, cuz I know I am not converting and I doubt anyone here will either.

 

[migurl]

Calvinists blaspheme God when they assert the all holy God is not only the source of all good, but also the source of all evil.

Very true, we are responsible for “evil”. Humans comited original sin. Also, evil is really the absence of good, so it only exists because some people (and some angels) decided to turn away from God right?

 

[Lazerlike42]

We’re getting a little testy in here let’s not be throwing around harsh language at one another

 

[Catholic_Dude]

sandusky:

I don’t agree with your analogy. Let me give you one you an analogy that I think a Calvinist will agree with.

Since you are using a ball and field analogy, I’ll do the same.

Here is my analogy of Biblical salvation:

A baseball field, a rainy day; the pitcher, The Father, with rain-soaked and muddy baseballs at His feet, is on the mound. The Son is behind the plate; the Holy Spirit, is in the air.

The Father selects a ball (Rom 8:29-30; Eph 1:4-5). He gathers the dirty ball into His mitt, winds up, and throws. The ball begins it travels on an erratic path; at the predetermined time, the Holy Spirit enters the ball, cleans it off (Titus 3:5), and through His will keeps the ball’s trajectory true, guiding it into The Son’s mitt (Phil 1:6).

Along the way, the ball encounters various obstacles, such as an off-center headwind, particles of dirt and dust, and other such things. Regardless of the obstacles, the ball reaches its predestined destination, because it is under the protective and guiding influence of the three players

The Father elects, (Rom 8:29-30)
The Son effects, (1 Pet 3:18)
The Spirit applies, (Titus 3:50
The sinner believes with the faith God gave him (Eph 2:8ff)

Ask the Calvinist if that is accurate.

I dont really like this example beacause it doesnt relate to reality. I dont understand this “erratic path”, “off center headwinds”, “particles of dirt”, etc, those dont really work because you cant picture them as having any effect on the ball. Is sin sin or not? When David sinned was it just a particle of dirt? I dont get it, lets say David was the ball, was David’s sin part of God’s plan to get him home? How does one do those sins when they are guided by the Holy Spirit as you say above?

(Also Im still interested on what you have to say on Acts3:38 and 22:16.)

 

[Matt16_18]

Sandusky:

Your presumption is that the bushman is innocent, and so, God should do what is right, and not condemn him; but is the bushman innocent?

The Calvinist believes he is guilty.

In other words, the bushman is condemned to hell for not being a Christian - his parents are guilty and condemned to hell for not being Christians, his grandparents are guilty and condemned to hell for not being Christians … even though none of these people ever heard the Gospel preached to them. The Calvinists know that whole nation of bushman are trash that God created for the burn pile because they weren’t Christians before the Gospel was preached to them!

This is truly a hideous thing to say about a whole nation of people, and I thank God that none of this brutally racist claptrap is true.It is known to us and to you that those who are in invincible ignorance of our most holy religion, but who observe carefully the natural law, and the precepts graven by God upon the hearts of all men, and who being disposed to obey God lead an honest and upright life, may, aided by the light of divine grace, attain to eternal life; for God who sees clearly, searches and knows the heart, the disposition, the thoughts and intentions of each, in His supreme mercy and goodness by no means permits that anyone suffer eternal punishment, who has not of his own free will fallen into sin.

Pope Pius IX, Quanto conficiamur moerore, August 10, 1863

 

[migurl]

Seriously sandusky, why are you here?

 

[Matt16_18]

The white Calvinists in South Africa believed they were the chosen people of God and that the native bushmen were the living damned predestined for Hell. This belief was the foundation stone upon which apartheid was built.Demise of the Songhai Empire

… the Bushmen were less interested in acquiring European goods. Traditionally they were more communal and more interested in sharing rather than acquiring wealth. They continued to resist Dutch expansion …

The Dutch colony at Cape Town continued to expand. Settlers were leaving Cape Town in ox drawn wagons and moving into nearby fertile valleys. They were called Boers (Dutch for farmer), or Afrikaners. The Dutch East India Company allowed them to claim farms of 2500 hectares (about 1000 acres) or more.

The Boers were Calvinists, and those who could read had only one book: the Bible. They saw themselves as the chosen people of the Old Testament, and drawing from the Old Testament they concluded that slaves and other blacks were damned by God. It was this same kind of thinking that led the Calvinists from England to invade Ireland and to attempt to commit genocide on the Irish. Ian Paisley and his thugs in North Ireland are the remnants of these homicidal racists.

 

[sandusky]

Catholic Dude:

I dont really like this example beacause it doesnt relate to reality.

Really. I think you don’t like the example because it doesn’t fit your model of Calvinism. Basically, what you are saying is I don’t understand what I believe, but I do.
Catholic Dude:

Also Im still interested on what you have to say on Acts3:38 and 22:16.

I think you mean Acts 2:38.

Acts 2:38
38 Peter said to them, “Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

This verse has been the center of controversy for a long time. One will interpret the verse according to one’s theological bent. I believe that the forgiveness of sins is found in Christ’s work on the cross; therefore, I dismiss this verse as teaching that the forgiveness of sins is found in baptism.

What do you believe? Do you believe that sins are forgiven through the sacrifice of Christ? Or, do you believe that sins are forgiven through being baptized? Or, do you believe that it is a combination of the two?

The Greek says, “Repent [change your mind],” in the plural, the Greek is urgent—repent right now!—and “let each you (sing.)—a change of thought which the English does not preserve—In other words, all of you repent and the one who makes this radical change now, be baptized “in the name…”

The sequence is in keeping with the great commission of Mt 28. Go, Make disciples, baptize them.

Go down three verses, and that is supported:

41 So then, those who had received his word were baptized; and that day there were added about three thousand souls.

Who was baptized? Those who received Peter’s words (repented/believed) were baptized.
When did they receive the word? They received it before they were baptized.

Acts 22:16
16 ‘Now why do you delay? Get up and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on His name.’

This is an account of Paul’s conversion as told in Chapter 9. In 22:13 Ananias says, Brother Saul, receive your sight, get up and be baptized, wash away in sins, calling on His name.

Look at the Chapter 9 account:

Acts 9:17-18
17 So Ananias departed and entered the house, and after laying his hands on him said, “Brother Saul, the Lord Jesus, who appeared to you on the road by which you were coming, has sent me so that you may regain your sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit.”
18 And immediately there fell from his eyes something like scales, and he regained his sight, and he got up and was baptized;

Ananias enters the house where Paul is, lays his hands on him says, “Brother Saul, the Lord…has sent me so that you may regain your sight and be filled with the H.S.” He regained his sight, got up and was baptized.

Again, what do you believe? Do you believe that sins are forgiven through the sacrifice of Christ? Or, do you believe that sins are forgiven through being baptized? Or, do you believe that it is a combination of the two?

Look at these verses from Acts:

Acts 8:12-13; 8:35-38; 9:17-18; 10:44-48; 16:14-15; 16:30-34; 18:8; 19:1-5.

The sequence is repentance/belief then baptism.

 

[sandusky]

migurl:

The word beforehand does not appear in the scriptures.

The Greek, proetoimadzo, which means “to prepare before,” is used in Rom 9:23, and Eph 2:10, and is always translated in that sense, ie., prepared before, afore prepared, prepared beforehand.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

sandusky-

Really. I think you don’t like the example because it doesn’t fit your model of Calvinism. Basically, what you are saying is I don’t understand what I believe, but I do.

Thats not what I said at all, I said I couldnt relate it to reality so it didnt work well as an example for me. I dont understand factors like “erratic path” “offcenter headwinds” and “particles of dust” .

I think you mean Acts 2:38.

Acts 2:38
38 Peter said to them, “Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Yes.

This verse has been the center of controversy for a long time.

What do you mean by “long time”? Do you have any examples from Early Church Fathers or something? Im interested if you do.

One will interpret the verse according to one’s theological bent.

So based on what you said is private interpretation a good idea?

I believe that the forgiveness of sins is found in Christ’s work on the cross; therefore, I dismiss this verse as teaching that the forgiveness of sins is found in baptism.

You seem to misunderstand the relationship, and at the same time admit to disregard what the passage says. We agree Christ died on the cross, but what does that have to do with Baptism directly?..How can we who died to sin still live in it? 3 Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4 We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.(Rm6)
Also remeber how not just blood was shed on the Cross, but water came out as well. In 1Jn5 he explains this more:5 Who is it that overcomes the world but he who believes that Jesus is the Son of God? 6 This is he who came by water and blood, Jesus Christ, not with the water only but with the water and the blood. 7 And the Spirit is the witness, because the Spirit is the truth. 8 There are three witnesses,** the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three are one**.
Baptism is inseprable from and united with the blood and Sprit and work together in a supernatural way.

What do you believe? Do you believe that sins are forgiven through the sacrifice of Christ? Or, do you believe that sins are forgiven through being baptized? Or, do you believe that it is a combination of the two?

They are forgiven through the sacrifice of Christ and this is communicated to us through Baptism. There is no conflict here, Christ instituted Baptism for a reason.

The Greek says, “Repent [change your mind],” in the plural, the Greek is urgent—repent right now!—and “let each you (sing.)—a change of thought which the English does not preserve—In other words, all of you repent and the one who makes this radical change now, be baptized “in the name…”

I dont agree with this, I think your making things too complex.

The sequence is in keeping with the great commission of Mt 28. Go, Make disciples, baptize them.

In otherwords if your not Baptized your not a disciple, if your not a disciple your not changing your ways.

Go down three verses, and that is supported:

41 So then, those who had received his word were baptized; and that day there were added about three thousand souls.

Who was baptized? Those who received Peter’s words (repented/believed) were baptized.
When did they receive the word? They received it before they were baptized.

Your trying to separate something that isnt there. Here is what it says one verse back:
40 And he testified with many other words and exhorted them, saying, “Save yourselves from this crooked generation.” 41 So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls.
The “word” was basically the Gospel preached to them.
Those who accepted BOTH repented and were Baptized…the two go together, it says:Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins.

In Mk16:16 it says “He who believes and is baptized will be saved”
(cont)

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Acts 22:16
16 ‘Now why do you delay? Get up and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on His name.’

This is an account of Paul’s conversion as told in Chapter 9. In 22:13 Ananias says, Brother Saul, receive your sight, get up and be baptized, wash away in sins, calling on His name.

Look at the Chapter 9 account:

Acts 9:17-18
17 So Ananias departed and entered the house, and after laying his hands on him said, “Brother Saul, the Lord Jesus, who appeared to you on the road by which you were coming, has sent me so that you may regain your sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit.”
18 And immediately there fell from his eyes something like scales, and he regained his sight, and he got up and was baptized;

Ananias enters the house where Paul is, lays his hands on him says, “Brother Saul, the Lord…has sent me so that you may regain your sight and be filled with the H.S.” He regained his sight, got up and was baptized.

So where is the problem here? I know that Paul tells his story about 3 or 4 times, but its clear the FIRST thing he did was get Baptized.

Again, what do you believe? Do you believe that sins are forgiven through the sacrifice of Christ? Or, do you believe that sins are forgiven through being baptized? Or, do you believe that it is a combination of the two?

I believe what the Bible says about Baptism in general, and Acts22:16 is clear.
There is no “combination of the two” they are inseprable, they dont compete with nor diminsh eachother. As Paul says in Eph4:5 “one Lord, one faith, one baptism”

Look at these verses from Acts:

Acts 8:12-13; 8:35-38; 9:17-18; 10:44-48; 16:14-15; 16:30-34; 18:8; 19:1-5.

So where do these passages say opposite of what I have said? Anyway, I love Acts16 look at this:27 When the jailer woke and saw that the prison doors were open, he drew his sword and was about to kill himself, supposing that the prisoners had escaped. 28 But Paul cried with a loud voice, “Do not harm yourself, for we are all here.” 29 And he called for lights and rushed in, and trembling with fear he fell down before Paul and Silas, 30 and brought them out and said, “Men, what must I do to be saved?” 31 And they said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.” 32 And they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all that were in his house. 33 And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their wounds, and he was baptized at once, with all his family. 34 Then he brought them up into his house, and set food before them; and he rejoiced with all his household that he had believed in God.
See how v31 says “believe”?..thats more than just affirming your faith in Christ, it says in v33 his whole house was Baptized. NOTICE how in v34 it says he was happy that he believed AFTER accepting and getting Baptized.

The sequence is repentance/belief then baptism.

Yes, why would it be any other way? You dont go into something not knowing what your doing. Just like there is no point in being Baptized if you dont even believe in the first place.

I pray you come to see that Baptism really does forgive sins, just like the Bible says.

 

[migurl]

Sandusky, I just love how you avoided answer my question about raising your kids. I mean, I guess if you answered it would make most of humanity look kinder and more loving than the Calvinist God.

 

[sandusky]

Matt16_18:

In other words, the bushman is condemned to hell for not being a Christian - his parents are guilty and condemned to hell for not being Christians, his grandparents are guilty and condemned to hell for not being Christians … even though none of these people ever heard the Gospel preached to them.

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

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

And what is he?

Paul says…:

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

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

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

 

[dennisknapp]

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

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

Peace

 

[Matt16_18]

sandusky:

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

The bushman is born like every other human - he is conceived in original sin. Catholics don’t deny this.**Catechism of the Catholic Church

402** All men are implicated in Adam’s sin, as St. Paul affirms: “By one man’s disobedience many (that is, all men) were made sinners”: “sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned.” The Apostle contrasts the universality of sin and death with the universality of salvation in Christ. "Then as one man’s trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one man’s act of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for all men."Calvinism is teaching damnable heresy when it asserts that the bushmen that never heard the Gospel were created by God for damnation, and that the Calvinist can know with certainty that every bushman that died before the Gospel was preached to them is condemned to the fires of hell.

God loves the bushman. Christ died on the cross for the bushman. This is what scriptures teach. Catholics, unlike Calvinists, believe exactly what scriptures teach – that a loving God desires all men to be saved.Even in the fallen state, man can, by his natural intellectual power, know religious and moral truths.
(De fide)

Despite men’s sins God truly and earnestly desires the salvation of all men.
(Sent. fidei proxima)

God gives all innocent unbelievers sufficient grace to achieve eternal salvation.
(Sent. certa.)

Dr. Lugwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma

 

[Catholic_Dude]

dennisknapp:

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

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

Peace

Amazing!

 

[sandusky]

dennisknapp:

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

And he has good reason to think that.

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

dennisknapp:

God’s glory is so great He can share it with us and lose none of it.

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

dennisknapp:

This is what he does in the process of salvation.

You cannot demonstrate that from Scripture.

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

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

 

[sandusky]

Catholic Dude

Read your long post on baptism, and understand that you believe that sins are forgiven by Christ, and faith in His work on the cross, and that the forgiveness of sins is communicated through baptism, finally. Thank you.

You asked:
Catholic Dude:

So based on what you said is private interpretation a good idea?

There is no biblical prohibition on “private interpretation” of Scripture.

 

[Fiat]

Catholic Dude

Read your long post on baptism, and understand that you believe that sins are forgiven by Christ, and faith in His work on the cross, and that the forgiveness of sins is communicated through baptism, finally. Thank you.

You asked:

There is no biblical prohibition on “private interpretation” of Scripture.

True, there is no prohibition on “private interpretation,” but it is clear that it is possible to twist scriptures to our own destruction. Do we have a choice in interpreting scriptures privately or not?
Fiat

 

[Fiat]

sandusky:

And he has good reason to think that.

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

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

You cannot demonstrate that from Scripture.

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

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

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

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

After all, God is the one true creator, but doesn’t He use His own creation to foster creation, i.e., sexual intercourse? Or, in your mind, does the intercourse within the holy sacrament of marriage somehow trespass against God being the true Creator?

Fiat