Calvinism Is The Gospel, So Only Believers Of Calvinism Are Saved.

[Rosenritter]

Those are only true Jesus' followers.

Those raised to shame and everlasting contempt and those told to depart into everlasting fire are true Jesus followers?

Meshak, how far do you intend to cling to your statement in the face of utter contradiction? There is a resurrection of the dead, both the just and the unjust, as told by Daniel, and Isaiah, and Jesus, and Paul. "The wicked will not be resurrected" is plainly false.

 

[Hawkins]

Not at all. I'm simply asking how God knew...

God has an Elect. He knew His Elect before hand. This Elect is the saved. That's what the Bible says. If you don't have a question about this. Then,

knowing the future is part of God's omniscience. Simple as that!

 

[Rosenritter]

I notice, still no scripture. Your hatred of God's word must be great.

Darn, Mennosota. If you understood that you should have responded to the content. That would have been an awesome opportunity for constructive effort or reconciliation effort. Scripture is a little harsher.

Proverbs 26:3-12 KJV
(3) A whip for the horse, a bridle for the as.s, and a rod for the fool's back.
(4) Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.
(5) Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.
(6) He that sendeth a message by the hand of a fool cutteth off the feet, and drinketh damage.
(7) The legs of the lame are not equal: so is a parable in the mouth of fools.
(8) As he that bindeth a stone in a sling, so is he that giveth honour to a fool.
(9) As a thorn goeth up into the hand of a drunkard, so is a parable in the mouth of fools.
(10) The great God that formed all things both rewardeth the fool, and rewardeth transgressors.
(11) As a dog returneth to his vomit, so a fool returneth to his folly.
(12) Seest thou a man wise in his own conceit? there is more hope of a fool than of him.

 

[meshak]

Those raised to shame and everlasting contempt and those told to depart into everlasting fire are true Jesus followers?

Meshak, how far do you intend to cling to your statement in the face of utter contradiction? There is a resurrection of the dead, both the just and the unjust, as told by Daniel, and Isaiah, and Jesus, and Paul. "The wicked will not be resurrected" is plainly false.

Ok explain to me that what is the purpose of resurrecting the wicked?

thanks.

 

[nikolai_42]

God has an Elect. He knew His Elect before hand. This Elect is the saved. That's what the Bible says. If you don't have a question about this. Then,

knowing the future is part of God's omniscience. Simple as that!

So did God know His Elect would be saved because He chose them or because He saw that they would choose Him?

I'm admittedly missing some things today so I may have just misread your post (and that's part of why I'm asking).

 

[steko]

Ok explain to me that what is the purpose of resurrecting the wicked?

thanks.

Fair trial.

 

[meshak]

Fair trial.

I am waiting for Roson's reply.

 

[steko]

I am waiting for Roson's reply.

Okay. Have a nice day!

 

[MennoSota]

What Election is if God doesn't have foreknowledge. Is there such an Elect in the case that God doesn't have foreknowledge?

No Elect can exist if God doesn't have the ability to foresee. That's the dependence! To put it another way, such an Elect won't exist if God doesn't have the foreknowledge!

You imagine God is bound in time and is "foreseeing" events. Time is a creation of God, in which he is not bound. Therefore God sees all events simultaneously. We live on a timeline. We are bound by the line upon which we exist. God is not bound on that line.
Therefore, God's election is not constrained by foreknowledge. God simply recognizes that his election is what it is.
There is nothing that is changing or in flux or unknown. What is is what always is. We humans simply don't experience it in that fashion. We are limited and finite.

 

[Rosenritter]

If, as Moses said, God already wrote this book, then it is complete. He didn't say God was writing it. So unless there is evidence of anyone being added in scripture, I can't see holding that they can.

1. If someone does not yet exist then they cannot have their name written.
2. If a name can be be blotted out, by definition the book is not yet completed.

My response is the same as it was to GT : this is a book of remembrance, not what was called the book of life. It was written after Moses' day (when Moses spoke of a book already written) so it couldn't have been the same book. The book of life seems to be referred to as "the book" repeatedly.

The appeal to grammar is not a valid argument. If I am taking notes for a Chemistry class, and someone asks to look in the notes which I have written, can that possibly be construed to mean that the notes are complete and that no more notes shall be taken? Most especially since there are lectures that have not yet been given?

 

[Idolater]

I was thinking that a typo had gotten embedded in your spell-check dictionary and propagated itself with auto-correct.

:chuckle: I appreciate your grace.

It was deliberate. And if you've followed mine and AMR's interactions, it doesn't look like it's going to change yet. No matter what he says, 'Romanism,' et al., are pejoratives. No one of the Catholic school of theological thought refers to themselves by such monikers. If he doesn't want to say 'Catholic,' perhaps due to the word being littered throughout the Church fathers, or in the creeds (to which he does confess), then let's find another word, but not an offensive word. It's like someone arguing that 'negro' isn't pejorative, even though black people object to it. Though, in their case, sometimes they do use that and associated words, out of solidarity and identity. In no case is it acceptable for non-black people to use those words, and it's similar here. 'Romanism,' 'Romish,' and I'll include 'papist,' 'popish,' also, since again, no theological Catholic calls themselves those things either.

No, if for some (legitimate) reason, we cannot use 'Catholic,' then let's find another word, so that we can all drop the name-calling.

But I doubt AMR will play along, because I think he knows, that once we actually engage each other on the topic of the Clavinist school versus the Catholic school, point for point, that his boat will sink.

 

[Rosenritter]

Ok explain to me that what is the purpose of resurrecting the wicked?

thanks.

There is purpose in justice and mercy and closure; while it should be sufficient proof that we are told that the unrighteous dead are raised, any of these reasons would be sufficient to explain the why. Which reason would you like to have explained first?

1. Justice follows due process and procedure. It is not enough for someone to be justly judged, but the person judged must also know that they have received justice. Someone may be worthy of death, but justice requires that the person is sentenced and tried by evidence and be given a chance to speak. Justice is not served by a silent assassin's bullet to the back of the head.

2. Mercy defeats judgment but is conditional upon repentance. Can someone repent of sins that they do not understand? Can one turn to and believe in a savior that they have never known or have had the possibility of knowing? The final judgment has goats but it also has sheep; some are cast into the fire but others enter into eternal life.

3. The judgment is the time when all loose ends are tied up, all actions are resolved, and no one can say that justice has not been done. People that maintained a good appearance but with falsity and lies inside aren't going to simply vanish without explanation: we shall all give account of ourselves before God. Even the devil himself shall stand before kings in that day when hell is raised.

 

[Rosenritter]

:chuckle: I appreciate your grace.

It was deliberate. And if you've followed mine and AMR's interactions, it doesn't look like it's going to change yet. No matter what he says, 'Romanism,' et al., are pejoratives. No one of the Catholic school of theological thought refers to themselves by such monikers. If he doesn't want to say 'Catholic,' perhaps due to the word being littered throughout the Church fathers, or in the creeds (to which he does confess), then let's find another word, but not an offensive word. It's like someone arguing that 'negro' isn't pejorative, even though black people object to it. Though, in their case, sometimes they do use that and associated words, out of solidarity and identity. In no case is it acceptable for non-black people to use those words, and it's similar here. 'Romanism,' 'Romish,' and I'll include 'papist,' 'popish,' also, since again, no theological Catholic calls themselves those things either.

No, if for some (legitimate) reason, we cannot use 'Catholic,' then let's find another word, so that we can all drop the name-calling.

But I doubt AMR will play along, because I think he knows, that once we actually engage each other on the topic of the Clavinist school versus the Catholic school, point for point, that his boat will sink.

There is more than one variety of Catholic. The town where I live right now has some non-Roman Catholic church buildings.

In addition to the Latin, or Roman, tradition, there are seven non-Latin, non-Roman ecclesial traditions: Armenian, Byzantine, Coptic, Ethiopian, East Syriac (Chaldean), West Syriac, and Maronite. Each to the Churches with these non-Latin traditions is as Catholic as the Roman Catholic Church.

Catholicism - Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholicity

I think most people assume "Roman Catholic" when they hear "Catholic" ... did you mean to say you were Roman Catholic or a generic Catholic? If Roman Catholic, would "Roman Catholic" be OK or is there a less lengthy term that can be used?

 

[JudgeRightly]

You imagine God is bound in time

No, we don't.

We believe time is an aspect of God's existence, just like righteousness and justice and love, etc.

and is "foreseeing" events.

Huh?

Time is a creation of God,

You cannot prove that using ONLY the Bible. To assert such you must rely on the teachings of pagans and heretics.

in which he is not bound.

Argument based on a false premise.

Therefore God sees all events simultaneously.

Not what the Bible says.

We live on a timeline.

The past has already happened and the future doesn't exist.

We are bound by the line upon which we exist. God is not bound on that line.

Supra.

Therefore, God's election is not constrained by foreknowledge. God simply recognizes that his election is what it is.

Did God ever have the ability to change what would eventually happen on your "timeline"?

If so, when did He give that ability up, and why?

There is nothing that is changing or in flux or unknown.

:blabla:

What is is what always is.

More :blabla:

We humans simply don't experience it in that fashion.

In what fashion?

We are limited and finite.

lain:

 

[john w]

God simply recognizes that his election is what it is.

All of us on TOL need to write that one down.We had not thought of that. Next up?:The truth is, truth is truth.

Please teach us.Please?

Take it away, slick Willy...

 

[Idolater]

There is more than one variety of Catholic. The town where I live right now has some non-Roman Catholic church buildings.

That's right. I don't consider 'Roman Catholic' to be pejorative, even though it is imprecise, since the Catholic school of thought is Roman Catholic plus the other Catholic churches that are in full communion with the Holy See. The other Catholic rites are called 'Eastern Catholic,' and their story is interesting. They are parishes that used to be Orthodox, but have since sought reunion with Peter's pastorate, and were and are permitted to continue to celebrate Mass and the sacraments according to their tradition at the time that we were reunited with the rest of the Catholic Church. Their liturgy is closer to what the whole Church's liturgy was in the 11th century.

It's pie-in-the-sky right now, but I have a glimmer of hope that the bishops will at some point be open to entire Protestant congregations converting to Catholicism, and preserving our own traditions for worship services, with the inclusion of newly and validly ordained priests (current non-Catholic non-Orthodox pastors being ordained by bona fide bishops to do so) celebrating the true Eucharist. It's unlikely. But I have some hope.

The recipe for Mass is very succinctly summed up in Acts 2:42 KJV.

I think most people assume "Roman Catholic" when they hear "Catholic" ... did you mean to say you were Roman Catholic or a generic Catholic?

I am not bodily Catholic at all. I am of the Catholic school of theological thought though, just as anybody else can choose which theological school they'd prefer to be a part of.

 

[Right Divider]

I think most people assume "Roman Catholic" when they hear "Catholic" ... did you mean to say you were Roman Catholic or a generic Catholic? If Roman Catholic, would "Roman Catholic" be OK or is there a less lengthy term that can be used?

Both claim a similar bogus authority and similar false doctrines, so we don't usually differentiate.

 

[Idolater]

I think most people assume "Roman Catholic" when they hear "Catholic" ... did you mean to say you were Roman Catholic or a generic Catholic? If Roman Catholic, would "Roman Catholic" be OK or is there a less lengthy term that can be used?

Roman Catholic is fine. 99% of the Catholic Church is Roman Catholic, but 'Roman' is not what makes the Church authentic. If the English didn't appropriate 'episcopal' for themselves, that would otherwise be fine too, since that's largely an accurate description of this school of theological thought. The Catholic bishops and the Orthodox bishops all descend from the Apostles, through the valid celebration of the sacrament of Holy Orders. (The Orthodox I believe call it something else, but it's the same thing.) The difference between Catholicism and Orthodoxy is political, with the former receiving the supreme pastorate of Peter in Rome (the Antiochan church is also a Petrine see), while the Orthodox believe that each patriarch (the archbishop of the Roman diocese being one of them) is autocephalous.

Since the primacy of Peter's pastorate in Rome was considered 'first among equals' without any serious dispute for about 1000 years, that is one reason why I settled on Catholicism instead of Orthodoxy, with both of them tracing their roots back all the way to Pentecost in AD 33 (or thereabouts). It is the original Church, in my estimation.

 

[MennoSota]

No, we don't.

We believe time is an aspect of God's existence, just like righteousness and justice and love, etc.



Huh?



You cannot prove that using ONLY the Bible. To assert such you must rely on the teachings of pagans and heretics.



Argument based on a false premise.



Not what the Bible says.



The past has already happened and the future doesn't exist.



Supra.



Did God ever have the ability to change what would eventually happen on your "timeline"?

If so, when did He give that ability up, and why?



:blabla:



More :blabla:



In what fashion?



lain:

What exists, exists because God created it.
Time is a human construct, it is not something within which God is bound.

 

[JudgeRightly]

What exists, exists because God created it.
Time is a human construct, it is not something within which God is bound.

Proof by repeated assertion is a fallacy. Either defend your position or stop asserting it without evidence.

I said that you cannot assert that God is outside of time ONLY by using Scripture.

It is your responsibility to show that you can do so.