Rosenritter
New member
Regardless, acceptance is an essential requirement. Nothing else is going to work without that.
Is Calvinism Wrong?
- Thread starter Robert Pate
- Start date
Regardless, acceptance is an essential requirement. Nothing else is going to work without that.
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Actually, GM, you are responding to something not related to my post. The topic to which I was responding concerns the atonement. Can you interact with my actual post on this particular matter?
As an aside and directly related to what you are calling attention to above, what orthodox Calvinists believe runs along the following.
I and all Calvinists happily confirm your "God created humanity with a 'free-will' to choose what they desire to place their faith in".
In fact, the 'free-will' of the non-believer is your same "..'free-will' to choose what they desire to place their faith in."
What is unstated in that phrase is what exactly are the "desires" of a person, since these desires ultimately determine our choices.
For the case of the non-believer, in possession of "a 'free-will' to choose what they desire to place their faith in," the choices made will always be to exchange the truth for a lie, to never choose to believe, because that is exactly what they desire (see Romans 1:18-32)
Left to our own devices, none of us would choose the righteousness of God, for we are all sinners and our desires are not for God (see Romans 1:18-32). Yet when the grace of the inward call of God takes place, our fallen natures are radically changed—born anew, regenerated, quickened—such that our desires, and hence our choices, will be towards the good.
If they think carefully about the matter, I doubt any believer will claim that they were walking around with this 'free will' to choose to believe or not believe before they were born anew. For if they did, they are claiming contribution, even a scintilla of a contribution, to their new state of belief. They would be forced to admit they were somehow wiser, more discerning, or more open to the Good News that reached their ears and not their neighbor's ears, who heard the same Good News, but chose badly. What else between these two persons alone would account for the difference?
If all are given the same amount of grace, then does one makes better use of that grace than does another? Again, a claim of personal contribution to one's salvific state.
Does God woo all equally such that they can choose to believe or not believe? Again, a claim of personal contribution born of one's better decision making abilities over their neighbor.
Many more examples could be made and they all imply some claim of personal merit of those that choose to believe.
The only way to escape the charge of having a claim to merit and boasting, is to declare what Scripture teaches us: that until God acts first upon the non-believer, he or she will never desire to choose rightly and will never actually choose rightly.
But, after God acts first upon those He has set His preference upon, the desires of these persons are now for the good, and the choices made will be motivated by these desires. They still have your "'free-will' to choose what they desire to place their faith in," except now they will be placing their faith in the right places. And they have no warrant to claim any personal merit nor are they able to boast. Indeed, they can only answer "Why you, and not your neighbor?" with "I did not desire it until God did it. Afterwards I could not not desire it and chose accordingly."
AMR
...
Last edited:
beloved57
Well-known member
"... I have my own private opinion that there is no such a thing as
preaching Christ and him crucified, unless you preach what now-a-days is
called Calvinism. I have my own ideas, and those I always state boldly. It is
a nickname to call it Calvinism; Calvinism is the gospel, and nothing else."
Charles Spurgeon !
See ya at the Judgment !
Rosenritter
New member
Actually, GM, you are responding to something not related to my post. The topic to which I was responding concerns the atonement. Can you interact with my actual post on this particular matter?
As an aside and directly related to what you are calling attention to above, what orthodox Calvinists believe runs along the following.
I and all Calvinists happily confirm your "God created humanity with a 'free-will' to choose what they desire to place their faith in".
In fact, the 'free-will' of the non-believer is your same "..'free-will' to choose what they desire to place their faith in."
What is unstated in that phrase is what exactly are the "desires" of a person, since these desires ultimately determine our choices.
[Paragraph 6]
For the case of the non-believer, in possession of "a 'free-will' to choose what they desire to place their faith in," the choices made will always be to exchange the truth for a lie, to never choose to believe, because that is exactly what they desire (see Romans 1:18-32)
Left to our own devices, none of us would choose the righteousness of God, for we are all sinners and our desires are not for God (see Romans 1:18-32). Yet when the grace of the inward call of God takes place, our fallen natures are radically changed—born anew, regenerated, quickened—such that our desires, and hence our choices, will be towards the good.
If they think carefully about the matter, I doubt any believer will claim that they were walking around with this 'free will' to choose to believe or not believe before they were born anew. For if they did, they are claiming contribution, even a scintilla of a contribution, to their new state of belief. They would be forced to admit they were somehow wiser, more discerning, or more open to the Good News that reached their ears and not their neighbor's ears, who heard the same Good News, but chose badly. What else between these two persons alone would account for the difference?
If all are given the same amount of grace, then does one makes better use of that grace than does another? Again, a claim of personal contribution to one's salvific state.
Does God woo all equally such that they can choose to believe or not believe? Again, a claim of personal contribution born of one's better decision making abilities over their neighbor.
Many more examples could be made and they all imply some claim of personal merit of those that choose to believe.
The only way to escape the charge of having a claim to merit and boasting, is to declare what Scripture teaches us: that until God acts first upon the non-believer, he or she will never desire to choose rightly and will never actually choose rightly.
But, after God acts first upon those He has set His preference upon, the desires of these persons are now for the good, and the choices made will be motivated by these desires. They still have your "'free-will' to choose what they desire to place their faith in," except now they will be placing their faith in the right places. And they have no warrant to claim any personal merit nor are they able to boast. Indeed, they can only answer "Why you, and not your neighbor?" with "I did not desire it until God did it. Afterwards I could not not desire it and chose accordingly."
AMR
Your argument breaks down at paragraph 6.
Rosenritter
New member
I'm glad you mentioned "Your God" because, the God I believe in created humanity with a free-will, all the time hoping we will hear His Gospel and place our faith in His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ. My God did not 'choose' just a few of you guys (the Elect) and send the rest into eternal damnation. I've known about 'my God' for over 50 years and I believe in 'rightly dividing' His written Word.' As I've said before, Calvinists CHANGE the character of the God of the Bible and they dismiss the Gospel of the grace of God (as called by the Apostle Paul.) in favor of a 'false doctrine' imagined by men such as, John Calvin, and others.
By the way, AMR, I ONLY read a few sentences and couldn't find the gumption to go any further. So, I'm afraid your usual $20.00 words were wasted on the likes of 'Old GM.'
I didn't see any complicated language in AMR's post? Personal, preference, and orthodox was as complex as it got.
Spoiler
I didn't see any complicated language in AMR's post? Personal, preference, and orthodox was as complex as it got.
Spoiler
It's not that it's complicated. It's just that it's not according to the Bible.
T0 believe that God predestinates people to hell before the are born, is to believe that God is unjust. To believe that God is unjust is to believe that God is a sinner. It is not humanly possible to have faith in a God that would do such a horrible thing as that.
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Actually, GM, I did not mention "Your God." It would help the discussion move forward if you took some care to read me properly.
Hopefully, you will never find me using that phrase as if to imply there is some other God out there other than the one and only God.
The actual facts are that I stated this:
I and all Calvinists happily confirm your "God created humanity with a 'free-will' to choose what they desire to place their faith in."
Note the word "your" followed by a quote " ", which therefore attaches the entire quote to the word "your".
In other words, your quoted statement—"God created humanity with a 'free-will' to choose what they desire to place their faith in"—as written, is a statement that I and all Calvinists happily confirm. To avoid confusion, I went on to carefully detail the meanings behind choose and desire used in your statement to show precisely why I and all Calvinists may happily affirm such a statement and in the hopes that persons making such a statement actually consider what such a statement entails.
Returning now to your declaration above, the God you and I believe in is the one and only God, so no one need use a meaningless or ridiculing phrase "your God" to garner support from the crowd or in hopes of making some point. That some have varying views about theology proper—the being, attributes, and works of God—means only their own understandings differ, not that the one true God becomes something different.
Use of the phrase "your God" is usually presumptive arrogance, as it implies another has somehow wholly apprehended God, despite God's own declaration that His ways and thoughts are not our ways and thoughts. We will never in this life, or the next, arrive to the point of fully understanding God, for if we did, we would, in fact, become God.
AMR
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Disappointing. I took special care to construct the post plainly using words that the average person should not struggle with at all. A modest 10% of the 570 words I used exceeded three or more syllables.
I doubt I could go any further in diluting the words used for the topic at hand.
I do not want to "waste words" or rather, my time, for fear of becoming a poor steward of the time God has granted me for these things (Ephesians 5:15-17; Ecclesiastes 11:9; Mark 12:30). My guiding litmus test is that the time granted me should be spent bringing glory to God in word, deed, or thought (Romans 11:36; 1 Corinthians 10:31; 2 Corinthians 10:5; Philippians 4:8). Admittedly, I often fail at this, but am making more effort to do better in the approaching twilight of my life.
Naturally I do not want to waste your time, too. Given your position, if and until you wish otherwise, I will refrain from responding to you from this point onward.
May the Lord bless you and keep you.
AMR
beloved57
Well-known member
You believe and teach God is unjust punishing those in hell for whom Christ already was punished for.
Sent from my LGMP260 using Tapatalk
Rosenritter
New member
If you believe that "hell" is eternal life in excruciating misery that does seem rather unjust. People that are innately sinful would be infinitely tortured for nothing more than simply being as God created them, and such unnecessary cruelty would be unjust.
But if you acknowledge that man perishes the same as the beast, that death is actually the cessation of being rather than an infinite state of being, then the charge of cruel injustice doesn't have the same ground to stand on. Do you say God was "unjust" for predestining the entire animal kingdom for hell (he does not offer them eternal life) ... ? The Calvinist application here would be that a secret portion of humanity (the non-elect) are animals and another secret portion (the elect) are created in the image of God.
Rosenritter
New member
You did well with adapting your writing style; it was very easy on my eyes. I appreciate it and hope that it continues.
...
Last edited:
That was God's only begotten Son dying on the cross for your sins, John 3:16. If you reject that maybe you deserve to go to hell. We are all born with the knowledge of good and evil. If you chose evil then you have chosen hell.
Animals do not have souls like humans do, nor are they sinners. The Bible does not say that animals go to hell.
...
Last edited:
...
Last edited:
As usual you are wrong again.
All men are sinners because Adam who was the head of the human race sinned against God, Romans 5:12.
"Therefore as by the offense of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation" Romans 5:18.
We are sinners without works. No one has to sin to prove that they are sinners. We are born into sin, Psalm 51:5. It is not our fault that we are born into sin, but its our fault if we reject Christ as our savior.
God has taken full responsibility for the sins of man and has sent his only begotten Son into the world to atone for our sins and the sins of the world, 1 John 2:2.
Rosenritter
New member
The Bible does say that man and beast are both living souls.
Num 31:28 KJV
(28) And levy a tribute unto the LORD of the men of war which went out to battle: one soul of five hundred, both of the persons, and of the beeves, and of the as ses, and of the sheep:
Job 12:9-10 KJV
(9) Who knoweth not in all these that the hand of the LORD hath wrought this?
(10) In whose hand is the soul of every living thing, and the breath of all mankind.
The bible also says that man and beast die the same death, and the wicked will be destroyed as the beast.
Ecc 3:19-21 KJV
(19) For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts; even one thing befalleth them: as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have all one breath; so that a man hath no preeminence above a beast: for all is vanity.
(20) All go unto one place; all are of the dust, and all turn to dust again.
(21) Who knoweth the spirit of man that goeth upward, and the spirit of the beast that goeth downward to the earth?
2Pe 2:12 KJV
(12) But these, as natural brute beasts, made to be taken and destroyed, speak evil of the things that they understand not; and shall utterly perish in their own corruption;
I do agree, in that animals do not sin, nor are they given such capacity... which incidentally should be an evidence that a sinless life (animals do not sin) does not earn eternal life.
I agree that the Bible does not say that animals go to hell. Hell is a state of destruction that gives up its dead in the resurrection. When we speak of the resurrection we say that hell is moved from beneath and stirreth up the dead (Isaiah 14:9) and delivers up its dead (Revelation 20:13). When there will be no further resurrection of the wicked which are to be destroyed by fire, it is then said that death and hell also cast into that fire. Hell is concept with specific purpose and limitation. Its initial purpose is to give up its dead to Him which holds its keys.
Joh 5:28 KJV
(28) Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,
Rev 1:18 KJV
(18) I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.
And of course, he that will raise the dead from hell can also completely and irrevocably destroy that which he has raised.
Mat 10:28 KJV
(28) And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.
Here, when our body is destroyed we know that God will still raise us whole (raise the soul) but when God chooses to destroy us he will also wholly destroy (body and soul) and who would restore what God has destroyed?
Back to the original point, the key difference between man and beast is that man was created in the image of God and shall be raised once in judgment. The beast was not created in the image of God and is not raised in the judgment. God who created all things also has the right to destroy his creation be it man or beast, which is why I said such a choice in the context of destruction would not be unjust.
Last edited:
Rosenritter
New member
The most unusual word there was scintilla.
scin·til·la
sinˈtilə
noun
a tiny trace or spark of a specified quality or feeling.
"a scintilla of doubt"
synonyms: particle, iota, jot, whit, atom, speck, bit, trace, ounce, shred, crumb, fragment, grain, drop, spot, modicum, hint, touch, suggestion, whisper, suspicion; informal smidgen, tad
"you haven't got a scintilla of evidence to back that up"
Last edited: