Predestination/Calvinism

[cooterhein]

Benedictus, do you realize how similar Thomism and Calvinism are to each other? If you did, I don’t think you would be so critical of Calvinism.

When the Thomists and the Molinists initially got into it with each other, the main accusation that the Thomists brought against the Molinists was that they’re semi-Pelagian. (Debatable, but true, I think). The main charge that the Molinists brought against the Thomists was that the teaching was far too similar to Calvinism. With the exception of the doctrine pertaining to perseverance, they really are practically identical.

Calvinists who become Catholics can be quite comfortable as Thomists. All they have to change is their idea of eternal security. That’s about it. Jimmy Akin knows this. That’s what he did. His description of this transition can be found in numerous articles that are fairly well-known. He goes into great detail. You’ve probably seen some of them before.

So tell me this. Why doesn’t Jimmy Akin ever write about the extremely problematic points of Calvinism? Why doesn’t he ever talk about how his former beliefs, when followed to their logical conclusion, led to a monstrous concept of God? Why doesn’t Jimmy Akin ever talk about being saved from the thoroughly un-Christian doctrines of Calvinism?

Why does he instead talk about the ease with which he transitioned into Thomism when he became a Catholic? Why does he instead talk about a very small number of differences and a very large number of similarities? Why does he instead write about all the ways in which Thomism is identical to Calvinism and the care that is required of Catholics when teasing out a small number of differences from so many similarities?

I can go ahead and answer that for you. He does it so Catholics don’t have to make the same mistakes that you did. I give you an A for effort, though. I’m sure you’re well aware of the cautionary material that Jimmy’s put out there for you, but instead of heeding the stop sign and proceeding with care, you took it full speed. No California roll for you- you just went full-on careening through the intersection, hit all the orange cones, went off the road, upended a few pedestrians, helped get someone banned, t-boned another motorist, and contributed to a pretty epic pile-up.

This is not how Catholics are supposed to interact with Calvinism. You didn’t do it right at all. You do know who Jimmy Akin is, right? Read some of his stuff. He does it for you. Make use of it!

 

[benedictus2]

What follows are examples of things that, if said of Catholics and Catholicism, would cause a non-Catholic to receive infractions and probably get banned. Along with each of them, I’m going to suggest an alternate course of action.

First, be more charitable. Then maybe you can ask the Calvinist to say for himself what kind of God he believes in.

This is not about being charitable or not charitable. This is about truth. And the truth is if you use rational thinking and logic, that is the kind of god that you come up with. There is no getting away from that.
As I showed you, Truid actually realized the quandary and tried to fix (but yet again created an even bigger quandary)

Be more charitable. Alternate course of action…don’t do this.

If something is idiotic it is idiotic. How else would you call it? Would you prefer lacking in logic? Maybe not well thought out? Ill thought? Badly reasoned?
Let me know which you prefer and I will use that.

Be more charitable. Perhaps you could do a better job of parsing out the relationship between Calvinist soteriology and the Calvinist doctrine of predestination.

If a theology is a lie, a falsehood, erroneous, then it is a lie, a falsehood, erroneous. It would be not be charity to confirm someone in their error, in their lies.

Be charitable, and assume that the person you’re talking to is functioning with the same mental capacity as you.

Of course they have the same mental capacity as I do. All I ask is they show it in their post. If you actually follow the premises, the conclusions I arrived at are inescapable. There are no other conclusions possible.

Be charitable, assume that Calvinists are reasonable people, and assume that these kinds of comments don’t help create a situation where you can reason together. It does the opposite.

Sorry, but that is the truth and nothing but the truth. Reason is in short supply that is why they come up with this ridiculous notions. If they actually thought it through they would realize their error. But no they just keep hashing and re-hashing what they have said before even when it has been shown that what they have written is illogical.
Are you one of those overly politically correct people?

Be more charitable, and don’t call people stupid. For Christ’'s sake, do I really have to tell you this?

No. And it is not being uncharitable. I did not call Truid stupid. What I referred to as stupid is the statement that " God did not create all human beings". I think Christians would agree that that is a stupid statement for a Christian to make.

It is simply calling a spade a spade. It is obvious that they have not thought out exactly how their premises hang together so when confronted with the problem inherent in their argument they come up with the most ridiculous notion ever for a Christian to say : that “ God did not create all human beings.”

**And if all you can reply is this “be charitable” thing, then you obviously concur with me vis a vis my conclusions or else you would have rebutted them **instead of just saying “Be charitiable” like a broken record.

So in response to the be charitable comment I say to you.
Think more. Think clearer. Do not be afraid of the Truth.
And when you realize that something is actually making sense, acknowledge it. It is called humility.

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=7391568
​

And FYI, I have personally been told off by moderators before so No, Catholics get the same treatment as everyone else.

 

[benedictus2]

Benedictus, do you realize how similar Thomism and Calvinism are to each other? If you did, I don’t think you would be so critical of Calvinism.

Cooterheim did you even understand my two part post **(Posts 258 and 259) ** entitled Predestination, Grace and Free Will?

**That is exactly what I said.

**(Sigh) This kind of thing will try anyone’s charity.

 

[benedictus2]

Benedictus, do you realize how similar Thomism and Calvinism are to each other? If you did, I don’t think you would be so critical of Calvinism.

When the Thomists and the Molinists initially got into it with each other, the main accusation that the Thomists brought against the Molinists was that they’re semi-Pelagian. (Debatable, but true, I think). The main charge that the Molinists brought against the Thomists was that the teaching was far too similar to Calvinism. With the exception of the doctrine pertaining to perseverance, they really are practically identical.

Calvinists who become Catholics can be quite comfortable as Thomists. All they have to change is their idea of eternal security. That’s about it. Jimmy Akin knows this. That’s what he did. His description of this transition can be found in numerous articles that are fairly well-known. He goes into great detail. You’ve probably seen some of them before.

So tell me this. Why doesn’t Jimmy Akin ever write about the extremely problematic points of Calvinism? Why doesn’t he ever talk about how his former beliefs, when followed to their logical conclusion, led to a monstrous concept of God? Why doesn’t Jimmy Akin ever talk about being saved from the thoroughly un-Christian doctrines of Calvinism?

Why does he instead talk about the ease with which he transitioned into Thomism when he became a Catholic? Why does he instead talk about a very small number of differences and a very large number of similarities? Why does he instead write about all the ways in which Thomism is identical to Calvinism and the care that is required of Catholics when teasing out a small number of differences from so many similarities?

I can go ahead and answer that for you. He does it so Catholics don’t have to make the same mistakes that you did. I give you an A for effort, though. I’m sure you’re well aware of the cautionary material that Jimmy’s put out there for you, but instead of heeding the stop sign and proceeding with care, you took it full speed. No California roll for you- you just went full-on careening through the intersection, hit all the orange cones, went off the road, upended a few pedestrians, helped get someone banned, t-boned another motorist, and contributed to a pretty epic pile-up.

This is not how Catholics are supposed to interact with Calvinism. You didn’t do it right at all. You do know who Jimmy Akin is, right? Read some of his stuff. He does it for you. Make use of it!

Hey, I don’t know why Akin does not write about the problems of Calvinism that I have identified. You can ask him if you like. He’s got a website.

What you are meant to do on this thread, is to show me that the problems I see with Calvinism DOES NOT EXIST. That is your job as a Calvinist, to rebut me.

But you couldn’t do that could you? Or else you would have come up with a rebuttal by now. Instead of going on and on about charity.

 

[cooterhein]

This is not about being charitable or not charitable.

It actually is. That’s why I brought it up about a dozen times.

This is about truth. And the truth is if you use rational thinking and logic, that is the kind of god that you come up with. There is no getting away from that.

Jimmy Akin and Scott Hahn are two examples of Catholics who used to be Calvinists. They’re also two examples of people who seem to have gotten away from that pretty cleanly. Both of them go into great detail about their conversion experiences. If you can show me where either of them say “if we’d used rational thinking and logic, that is the kind of god we’d have come up with,” I will retract this. Until then, I respectfully disagree.

If something is idiotic it is idiotic. How else would you call it? Would you prefer lacking in logic? Maybe not well thought out? Ill thought? Badly reasoned?

How about “pulling a Benedictus”? We could start using that one.

Let me know which you prefer and I will use that.

“Pulling a Benedictus” it is, then.

Of course they have the same mental capacity as I do. All I ask is they show it in their post. If you actually follow the premises, the conclusions I arrived at are inescapable. There are no other conclusions possible.

Except, of course, the conclusions of every Catholic convert from Calvinism that has made any sort of contribution to this site. The ones that address the issue directly (ie., articles to the effect of “This is how Catholics should talk to Calvinists”) are geared toward helping you not do what you’ve been doing.

And if all you can reply is this “be charitable” thing, then you obviously concur with me vis a vis my conclusions or else you would have rebutted them instead of just saying “Be charitiable” like a broken record.

And right on cue, I’m doing something new. Not only am I rebutting you, I’m making a demand. You better believe I’ll do it like a broken record until you concede, too. Here’s the demand.

There are several Catholic apologists directly affiliated with CAF and/or Catholic Answers Live that were formerly Calvinists. Show me material from any one of them that supports your assertions about the inescapable and monstrous god of Calvinism. In the meantime, I will show you examples of “how-to guides” from these very individuals that advise you to take an entirely different strategy than the one you’ve chosen.

Sound good?

 

[cooterhein]

Hey, I don’t know why Akin does not write about the problems of Calvinism that I have identified.

Because they don’t exist. Simple.

You can ask him if you like. He’s got a website.

Three things.

One, I am a Calvinist. I don’t need to ask an ex-Calvinist about the beliefs that I already have.

Two. You do. And I’m sure you’d listen to him before you’d listen to me. Scott Hahn is another source you could make use of. Maybe give him a try, too.

Three. Jimmy also makes regular appearances on EWTN. I think he’s usually on from 3-4 PT doing an open Q&A. So how about this: Go check the schedule, see when he’s on next, call him up, and ask him whatever you want. Maybe you can ask him if his former Calvinist beliefs led him to a monstrous concept of God when followed to their logical conclusion. Maybe you can tell him what you’ve been doing on the forums lately and ask if it was a good idea. Maybe you can ask him for some general advice on how to talk to Calvinists.

This could be really good for you. I think you should take advantage of the opportunity.

What you are meant to do on this thread, is to show me that the problems I see with Calvinism DOES NOT EXIST. That is your job as a Calvinist, to rebut me.

I mean to do whatever I deem best on this thread, and what I deem best is to point you toward a course of action that will effectively stop you from interacting with Calvinists in the way that you’ve been doing. You should follow the examples of your superstar apologists. I assume you’re already at least as familiar with them as I am.

 

[cooterhein]

Ok, this one, under the “Personal Encounters” section. envoymagazine.com/planetenvoy/081704-TeenageRoadToTradition-Full.htm
*"I expected Catholicism to fall into a typical “semi-Pelagian” category where God’s sovereignty and power is severely undermined by human free-will. To my utter surprise, however, Dr. Hahn said that a Catholic could agree – in a qualified sense – with the Calvinists. He explained that the Catholic Church was emphatic about salvation being accomplished by grace alone, and that a Catholic in the tradition of St. Thomas Aquinas could agree with many aspects of the Calvinist understanding of predestination.

This shocked me. How could a Catholic even remotely agree with a Calvinist??? To prove that he wasn’t making this stuff up, Dr. Hahn recommended Fr. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange’s book entitled Predestination (Rockford, IL: Tan Books and Publishers, Inc., 1998). I had never heard of the Garrigou-Lagrange before. Dr. Hahn explained that Garrigou-Lagrange was one of the most brilliant Catholic theologians of the twentieth century. He had taught for many years at the Angelicum school of theology in Rome, and was John Paul II’s doctoral theology advisor.

Dr. Hahn smiled. “Garrigou-Lagrange is one of my favorite authors. Check out his book. I think you’ll like it.”*

Perhaps you can look into Garrigou-Lagrange and his book called Predestination.

Here’s one more. catholic.com/thisrock/1993/9309fea1.asp
“There are other ways to construct a Thomist version of TULIP of course, but the fact there is even one way demonstrates that a Calvinist would not have to repudiate his understanding of predestination and grace to become Catholic. He simply would have to do greater justice to the teaching of Scripture and would have to refine his understanding of perseverance.”

You’ll notice that Akin recommends the same book by Garrigou-Lagrange.

If you like, you may also look at this. catholic.com/thisrock/1993/9307fea1.asp

It’s a critique of “The Fatal Flaw.” If you can find anything about a monstrous, inescapable Calvinist god, please let me know. It’s an argument against the claims of an anti-Catholic 5-point Calvinist, so if this monster-god is going to rear his ugly head, it will surely be here.

Do you see him? Anywhere? Where is he? Where did he go? Why is it that you find him so easily, but we don’t see him anywhere when we start listening to what your leading apologists and theologians have to say?

That was mine. Now it’s your turn. Go.

 

[PRmerger]

I think however that grace is not always efficacious but always sufficient.

This, b2, is just what I love–little soundbites, little nuggets of truth that I can tuck away into my apologetics pocket and bring out pro re nata.

:bowdown:

 

[benidict]

No. Not in the literal sense. God did not create you, nor did God create me. God created Adam and Eve. Adam and Eve procreated their children, and their children procreated theirs, and so on and so forth. I will admit that God has intervened in the birth of certain people (according to the Bible). But that in no way proves He is intimately involved in our personal creation. Otherwise, God is guilty of creating some pretty horrible monsters such as Hitler, Pol Pot, Stalin, Che Guevera, etc. etc.

Yes, God is merciful.

Yes. God is Just.

Yes. God is love.

That argument only works if you ASSUME God personally created each and every human being ever born on this planet. I, for one, do not believe God is responsible for creating evil human beings (such as Hitler and his ilk).

Nope. That argument ONLY works if both parties agree that God created ALL of the human race (each and every person). I don’t believe He did. What an evil and cruel God He must be to create an entire race of people, only to have the Israelites slaughter and basically wipe them off the face of the earth. Isn’t that called Genocide? Yeah, God loves a little genocide in the morning!

That’s right! That’s what you have if you believe God personally created each and every single human being ever born on this planet! Glad you see it my way!

Jesus came to seek and save His sheep. He left the 99 to find the 1. Remember that parable. These were HIS sheep. Not someone elses. Jesus came to die on the cross for His sheep (the elect). Not for Hitler, not for rapists, murderers, child molesters, false prophets/teachers. And certainly not for the anti-Christ. But according to you, Jesus died on the cross for their sins too. No, I don’t believe so.

this is one of the most un biblical statements i have read to date. and if he really believes this, then calvin himself was not of the elect. was he not a dictator in geneva? did he not have people unjustly put to death? so following his logic, Jesus must not have died for calvins sins either. am i missing something? oh, and one could also call calvin in a sense, a false prophet. since he went out from us, but was not of us. i believe Jesus died for john calvins sins. shoot…my dad is a very Godly man, despite calvinism, and guess what his name is…John Calvin! i respect him highly, even though i disagree with his theological views for the most part. my dad that is. not the original. Peace

 

[jericho777]

jericho, ALL who died prior to the atoning death of Christ were in hades, the abode of the dead. There was no entrance into heaven yet.

Not to mention this is a parable, so I will acknowledge that in a parable Jesus talks about a rich man being in hell.

However, in reality, we cannot know with certainty what human being has been condemned to eternity there.

And the Scriptures mention no one.

You stated that Pharaoh, because he “pursued them to kill them” was condemned to hell (and really, it was God who made him do this and thus God, at his pleasure, sent Pharaoh to eternal torture after hardening his heart.)

Paul, also “pursued them to kill them”. Do you also believe, then, that Paul is in hell?

Yes this before Jesus led captivity captive to heaven. There are two places mentioned. You fail to realize there was a gulf fixed between the rich man and Lazarus. The rich man was in total agony and longed for just a drop of water from the finger of Lazarus. He was tormented in the presence of the joyful state of Abraham’s bosom. When he asked father Abraham if he could just warn his brothers about this place father Abraham replied. “He answered, ‘Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my father’s house, 28for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.’
29“Abraham replied, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.’
30“‘No, father Abraham,’ he said, ‘but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.’
31“He said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’”
It is clear this is a place of eternal torment where there is no release from.

Jesus, Paul and Peter all tell people they are eternally saved.

Pharaoh was in the act of committing a mortal sin when he died. Is that sufficient enough for you?

Paul was called according to God’s purpose. We know God’s redemptive work in the life of Paul.

 

[jericho777]

Addressing your last point here, of what is bolded, scripture says otherwise:

2 Peter 3:9

“The Lord is not slow about his promise, as some think of slowness, but is patient with you, not wanting any to perish, but all to come to repentance.”

It seems that God is the Father and creator of all, as he wants all to come to repentance, as stated. Furthermore, with these verses:

1 Timothy 4:16

“Pay close attention to yourself and to your teaching, continue in these things, for in doing this you will save both yourself and your hearers”

Romans 2:6-8

“6 God “will repay everyone according to what they have done.”[a] 7 To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. 8 But for those** who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger.” **

Colossians 1:21-23

“21 Once you were alienated from God and were enemies in your minds because of[a] your evil behavior. 22 But now he has reconciled you by Christ’s physical body through death to present you holy in his sight, without blemish and free from accusation— 23** if you continue in your faith**, established and firm, and do not move from the hope held out in the gospel. This is the gospel that you heard and that has been proclaimed to every creature under heaven, and of which I, Paul, have become a servant”.

It is evident that yes, we are to keep in the faith. While God’s grace is unmerited, we are to continue in this, and not falter, or in other words, “maintain your good standing with your father.”

It is God working in the life of the believer bringing them to salvation.

In Colossians it is God who is reconciling us to Himself. You cannot serve God unless it is His Spirit working in you. So therefore it is the work of God in the life of the believer keeping saved.

Grace is directed to the believer being unmerited it is not revolkable otherwise it is not grace. It is His active grace that works salvation in the life of the believer. It is grace that will bring us home.

 

[jericho777]

Do people in hell desreve to be there?

 

[GaryTaylor]

Benedictus, do you realize how similar Thomism and Calvinism are to each other? If you did, I don’t think you would be so critical of Calvinism.

When the Thomists and the Molinists initially got into it with each other, the main accusation that the Thomists brought against the Molinists was that they’re semi-Pelagian. (Debatable, but true, I think). The main charge that the Molinists brought against the Thomists was that the teaching was far too similar to Calvinism. With the exception of the doctrine pertaining to perseverance, they really are practically identical.

Calvinists who become Catholics can be quite comfortable as Thomists. All they have to change is their idea of eternal security. That’s about it. Jimmy Akin knows this. That’s what he did. His description of this transition can be found in numerous articles that are fairly well-known. He goes into great detail. You’ve probably seen some of them before.

So tell me this. Why doesn’t Jimmy Akin ever write about the extremely problematic points of Calvinism? Why doesn’t he ever talk about how his former beliefs, when followed to their logical conclusion, led to a monstrous concept of God? Why doesn’t Jimmy Akin ever talk about being saved from the thoroughly un-Christian doctrines of Calvinism?

Why does he instead talk about the ease with which he transitioned into Thomism when he became a Catholic? Why does he instead talk about a very small number of differences and a very large number of similarities? Why does he instead write about all the ways in which Thomism is identical to Calvinism and the care that is required of Catholics when teasing out a small number of differences from so many similarities?

I can go ahead and answer that for you. He does it so Catholics don’t have to make the same mistakes that you did. I give you an A for effort, though. I’m sure you’re well aware of the cautionary material that Jimmy’s put out there for you, but instead of heeding the stop sign and proceeding with care, you took it full speed. No California roll for you- you just went full-on careening through the intersection, hit all the orange cones, went off the road, upended a few pedestrians, helped get someone banned, t-boned another motorist, and contributed to a pretty epic pile-up.

This is not how Catholics are supposed to interact with Calvinism. You didn’t do it right at all. You do know who Jimmy Akin is, right? Read some of his stuff. He does it for you. Make use of it!

I fail to see what you are referring to with Jimmy Atkins. For exmple here “is” his exact words on Thomists, Molinists and Calvin.

---

I am particularly suspicious of strategies that attempt to handle biblical language as if it did not contain a large amount of ambiguity. There is a tendency among many Calvinist authors to treat biblical language as if it is a lot less ambiguous than is really the case. For example, many of the key terms connected with salvation–“redemption,” “justification,” “sanctification,” and even “salvation” itself–occur in Scripture with more than one meaning. This is not often appreciated in some circles. Also, it is often assumed that certain terms are synonyms, when in fact they may not be. These tendencies appear particularly in Calvinist writings, and in reading them one often gets the feeling that a system is being imposed on the data of the text rather than being derived from it.

To ultimately settle what I think about many of these matters, I’d have to conduct an extensive review of the biblical literature and how thought on this question has developed over time. Given the practical orientation of my work–which involves defending the liberty of opinion that Catholics have rather than trying to prove one particular school of thought correct–I have not had the occasion to do that research. Thus I’m better at explaining the boundaries of Catholic teaching and what particular biblical verses might mean than what school of thought (if any) is correct and what the relevant verses definitely do mean.

In other words, I try to be transparent to the Church: If the Church allows a variety of opinion on a particular point, I tend to leave matters as they are. There are more urgent priorities in research that I need to pursue than trying to settle my views on highly complex, highly debatable matters of this type. At some point I may have the leisure, or the personal motivation, to do a systematic review of this area, but thus far I have not.

Jimmy Atkins

 

[GaryTaylor]

Do people in hell desreve to be there?

Yes they bought the ticket and must take the ride. Though Our Lady also says to “Pray for the lost Sinners, because many Souls Go to Hell because there in No-One to Pray for them!”

A Soul is not officailly condemned to hell. until they are in Hell. Being God is all mercy as we see with Saul/Apostle Paul. Then redemption is possible even for murderers. But once that Mercy is no longer on the table? The who knows but God?

Baptism and Christs decent and his decent at the resurrection are yet another thought.

GT

 

[elvisman]

It is God working in the life of the believer bringing them to salvation.

In Colossians it is God who is reconciling us to Himself. You cannot serve God unless it is His Spirit working in you. So therefore it is the work of God in the life of the believer keeping saved.

Grace is directed to the believer being unmerited it is not revolkable otherwise it is not grace. It is His active grace that works salvation in the life of the believer. It is grace that will bring us home.

**Ay, ay, ay . . . **
Jericho - first of all - you never answered my post #91 where I pretty much smashed your positions on predestination and eternity to bits.

**Secondly, your argument about grace here is silly. First of all, God’s grace is a gift - right? We can agree on that. IF it is a gift, then it CAN be rejected - otherwise it’s not a gift. It becomes a sentence from which we cannot escape. God doesn’t force himself on us like a rapist.

**As I told you back in post #44 - 1 Cor. 3:9 tells us that as co-workers (Sunergos) with God, we cooperate with his grace - plain and simple. **

Finally - my Calvinist siblings tell me all the time that you MUST accept Jesus as your Lord and Savior. Tell me something - if I am predestined for salvation - WHY would I have to accept him if he has already accepted me?

 

[jericho777]

Yes they bought the ticket and must take the ride. Though Our Lady also says to “Pray for the lost Sinners, because many Souls Go to Hell because there in No-One to Pray for them!”

A Soul is not officailly condemned to hell. until they are in Hell. Being God is all mercy as we see with Saul/Apostle Paul. Then redemption is possible even for murderers. But once that Mercy is no longer on the table? The who knows but God?

Baptism and Christs decent and his decent at the resurrection are yet another thought.

GT

We agree those in hell are justly there. Now why would God even create someone He knows will spend eternity in hell being tortured? How is that different from Him not choosing to save someone and they receive the same end? People are saying god is a monster and worse. Gary is this not directed towards you. It is a response to others here. You have been most kind.

I fully agree with your second point also. You make my point for me by saying it is God’s intervention with mercy that saves. Just as the one thief on the cross was saved and the one on the other side was not. Mercy is not getting something we do deserve like hell. God has the right to dispense grace and mercy as a prerogative of His sovereign will. People can label it as they wish but whatever you call it I believe it is biblical.

 

[elvisman]

We agree those in hell are justly there. Now why would God even create someone He knows will spend eternity in hell being tortured? How is that different from Him not choosing to save someone and they receive the same end? People are saying god is a monster and worse. Gary is this not directed towards you. It is a response to others here. You have been most kind.

I fully agree with your second point also. You make my point for me by saying it is God’s intervention with mercy that saves. Just as the one thief on the cross was saved and the one on the other side was not. Mercy is not getting something we do deserve like hell. God has the right to dispense grace and mercy as a prerogative of His sovereign will. People can label it as they wish but whatever you call it I believe it is biblical.

Do you believe that Jesus redeemed ALL of mankind throughout history?

 

[PJM]

=jericho777;7393791]We agree those in hell are justly there. Now why would God even create someone He knows will spend eternity in hell being tortured? How is that different from Him not choosing to save someone and they receive the same end? People are saying god is a monster and worse. Gary is this not directed towards you. It is a response to others here. You have been most kind.

I fully agree with your second point also. You make my point for me by saying it is God’s intervention with mercy that saves. Just as the one thief on the cross was saved and the one on the other side was not. Mercy is not getting something we do deserve like hell. God has the right to dispense grace and mercy as a prerogative of His sovereign will. People can label it as they wish but whatever you call it I believe it is biblical.

The idea of God and prestination used in the same sentance can only be true if it ends with the understanding that this idea, this concept is literally an impossibility for God. WHY?

1. Because God is perfect
2. Because God is and MUST be Just **READ: 1 Jn. 1: 8-10, 1 J. 5: 16-17 and John 20:19-23.] **
3. Becaue it denies the way God Created humanity and the precise use of humanities [and only humanities] SPIRTUAL gifts of mind, intellect, frewill AND soul. These gifts can be shown to exist, but are not quantifiable, becaue they, like God Himself are Spiritual.
4. God in Divine Justice cannot give us a freewill, and then prohibit us from using it. Imposible logic and Theology.
5. God is either ALWAYS good and JUST; or God does not exist.

Love and prayers,
Pat

 

[pipper]

I have been reading “Dancing Alone” by Frank Schaffer the Orthodox son of the famous Cavinist Francis Schaffer.

Part of it tells of how Calvin got his teachings from St Augustine, and Roman Catholicism and Cavinism are related. Calvin just took Augustine to extremes.

I cannot beleive in a God who creates humans and predestins them to hell.

Why I went East.

 

[mark_a]

I cannot beleive in a God who creates humans and predestins them to hell.

As our priest once said, it is the most cruel doctrine ever invented.