John Calvin's Nazi God.
- Thread starter Robert Pate
- Start date
- Status
Course you say that cause you don't believe in a place called hell. You fell for celestial's tales instead of trusting the books breathed by your Creator, Himself. God said there's a place called hell.
Yes, there is a hell and all that are trusting in their religions, instead of Christ and his Gospel will go there.
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Robert Pate Denies the Omniscience of God
Robert Pate Denies the Omniscience of God
Ignoring the desperate appeal to Godwin's Law by the anti-Calvinist, I will respond.
No, John Calvin merely echoes what Scripture teaches, as has also been echoed by many men that came long before him. Despite your fascination for a man you have not really read nor carefully studied, let's not give Mssr. Calvin too much credit.
Furthermore, given that you believe God is unable to know what is going on....
...your statement "predestinates to hell before they are born" makes no sense at all. Per your own words, given that what one does after he or she is born is unknown to God since God does not know everything that is happening on the earth. You seem to have twisted yourself into a knot here, Robert. :AMR:
Then again, your views have often been shown to be quite bizarre and double-minded:
http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...edestination&p=4402162&viewfull=1#post4402162
http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...redestinated&p=4851757&viewfull=1#post4851757
God's decree encompasses what He has ordained. If God has not ordained something to be so, then there is nothing for Him to foresee. God's predestination contemplates that which He has created. The decree of predestination contemplates a fallen lump of humanity. Read that again. A fallen lump of humanity. Out of this fallen lump of clay, God, for His own purposes and not based upon any foreseen merit, sets His preferences upon—that is, God's love—an amount no man can number to be brought into His Kingdom according to the fullness of time. The remainder are left in their fallen state, in Adam.
AMR
Robert Pate Denies the Omniscience of God
Ignoring the desperate appeal to Godwin's Law by the anti-Calvinist, I will respond.
No, John Calvin merely echoes what Scripture teaches, as has also been echoed by many men that came long before him. Despite your fascination for a man you have not really read nor carefully studied, let's not give Mssr. Calvin too much credit.
Furthermore, given that you believe God is unable to know what is going on....
...your statement "predestinates to hell before they are born" makes no sense at all. Per your own words, given that what one does after he or she is born is unknown to God since God does not know everything that is happening on the earth. You seem to have twisted yourself into a knot here, Robert. :AMR:
Then again, your views have often been shown to be quite bizarre and double-minded:
http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...edestination&p=4402162&viewfull=1#post4402162
http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...redestinated&p=4851757&viewfull=1#post4851757
God's decree encompasses what He has ordained. If God has not ordained something to be so, then there is nothing for Him to foresee. God's predestination contemplates that which He has created. The decree of predestination contemplates a fallen lump of humanity. Read that again. A fallen lump of humanity. Out of this fallen lump of clay, God, for His own purposes and not based upon any foreseen merit, sets His preferences upon—that is, God's love—an amount no man can number to be brought into His Kingdom according to the fullness of time. The remainder are left in their fallen state, in Adam.
AMR
Ignoring the desperate appeal to Godwin's Law by the anti-Calvinist, I will respond.
No, John Calvin merely echoes what Scripture teaches, as has also been echoed by many men that came long before him. Despite your fascination for a man you have not really read nor carefully studied, let's not give Mssr. Calvin too much credit.
Furthermore, given that you believe God is unable to know what is going on....
...your statement "predestinates to hell before they are born" makes no sense at all. Per your own words, given that what one does after he or she is born is unknown to God since God does not know everything that is happening on the earth. You seem to have twisted yourself into a knot here, Robert. :AMR:
Then again, your views have often been shown to be quite bizarre and double-minded:
http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...edestination&p=4402162&viewfull=1#post4402162
http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...redestinated&p=4851757&viewfull=1#post4851757
God's decree encompasses what He has ordained. If God has not ordained something to be so, then there is nothing for Him to foresee. God's predestination contemplates that which He has created. The decree of predestination contemplates a fallen lump of humanity. Read that again. A fallen lump of humanity. Out of this fallen lump of clay, God, for His own purposes and not based upon any foreseen merit, sets His preferences upon—that is, God's love—an amount no man can number to be brought into His Kingdom according to the fullness of time. The remainder are left in their fallen state, in Adam.
AMR
You have 0 knowledge of the Gospel. If it wasn't for God seeing ALL THINGS in his Son Jesus Christ, God would wrap up this whole universe in one big ball of fire.
Thankfully, God sees ALL THINGS in his Son Jesus Christ for now. However, when Christ appears all of that is going to change. You need to pick out a good hiding place so that when he appears you have a place to go, Revelation 6:14-17.
You have not been predestinated. Why would God predestinate you? You don't even believe the Gospel. You don't believe that Jesus Christ has reconciled you to God, 2 Corinthians 5:18, 19. You don't even believe that Jesus is the savior of the whole world, 1 John 2:2.
A God that predestinates people to hell before they are born is not the God of the Bible, nor is a savior that does not atone for the sins of the whole world worth trusting in. So I see you as a lost person that is without hope. A mean cruel God and a worthless savior.
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Robert Pate Never Responds to Actual Points Made. He is but blogging on TOL.
Robert Pate Never Responds to Actual Points Made. He is but blogging on TOL.
Robert, when you actually respond to the points I have actually made perhaps the discussion will move forward for the edification of all that may be reading along. The scant minutes that passed between my post and your blog entry in response tells me you have not afforded me the courtesy I always extend to you of actually digesting what has been posted.
You see, articles are all that you have in mind when posting. That's blogging, Robert. TOL has a very nice feature for blogs. You should use that: http://theologyonline.com/blog.php
You might try reading a good blog, too: http://theologyonline.com/blog.php?7209-Ask-Mr-Religion
Posting in a forum is for discussion. Starting threads, of which you do often and redundantly, is intended for discussion. Discussion is more than mere waxing eloquent and then stepping back, refusing to engage respondents at the same level of substance they have offered.
AMR
Robert Pate Never Responds to Actual Points Made. He is but blogging on TOL.
Robert, when you actually respond to the points I have actually made perhaps the discussion will move forward for the edification of all that may be reading along. The scant minutes that passed between my post and your blog entry in response tells me you have not afforded me the courtesy I always extend to you of actually digesting what has been posted.
You see, articles are all that you have in mind when posting. That's blogging, Robert. TOL has a very nice feature for blogs. You should use that: http://theologyonline.com/blog.php
You might try reading a good blog, too: http://theologyonline.com/blog.php?7209-Ask-Mr-Religion
Posting in a forum is for discussion. Starting threads, of which you do often and redundantly, is intended for discussion. Discussion is more than mere waxing eloquent and then stepping back, refusing to engage respondents at the same level of substance they have offered.
AMR
Last edited:
Robert, when you actually respond to the points I have actually made perhaps the discussion will move forward for the edification of all that may be reading along. The scant minutes that passed between my post and your blog entry in response tells me you have not afforded me the courtesy I always extend to you of actually digesting what has been posted.
You see, articles are all that you have in mind when posting. That's blogging, Robert. TOL has a very nice feature for blogs. You should use that: http://theologyonline.com/blog.php
You might try reading a good blog, too: http://theologyonline.com/blog.php?7209-Ask-Mr-Religion
Posting in a forum is for discussion. Starting threads, of which you do often and redundantly, is intended for discussion. Discussion is more than mere waxing eloquent and then stepping back, refusing to engage respondents at the same level of substance they have offered.
AMR
I usually answer all questions or refutals to what I post. However, I see little profit in arguing religion with some one that is in denial of what the scriptures are saying.
The scriptures say that Jesus is the savior of the world, 1 John 2:2. You say he's not.
You say God predestinates people to heaven and to hell. There is no scripture that says he does that.
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Robert Pate Again Refuses to Engage
Robert Pate Again Refuses to Engage
"World means all of humanity" - Robert Pate
Robert Pate's "world"
Robert Pate Twists 1 John 2:2
Compare your universalistic view of "world" against what Scripture teaches about the extent of the atonement: John 6:37; John 6:39; John 10:29; John 17:11-12; John 17:9; John 17:22; John 18:9.
AMR
Robert Pate Again Refuses to Engage
No you do not, Robert.
Then why quote me to only offer up mere opinion? Rather than talking at me, either speak to me or ignore me. Your statement above is the poor loophole sought by those seeking avoid the effort to offer up substantive rejoinders to responses given. This intellectual laziness typifies not a few anti-Calvinist.
Asked and answered, yet you revert to repeating the same opinion time and again.
"World means all of humanity" - Robert Pate
Robert Pate's "world"
Robert Pate Twists 1 John 2:2
Compare your universalistic view of "world" against what Scripture teaches about the extent of the atonement: John 6:37; John 6:39; John 10:29; John 17:11-12; John 17:9; John 17:22; John 18:9.
AMR
You seem to believe that there is something wrong with the Bible and that scripture contradicts scripture.
There is nothing wrong with the Bible, but there is a whole lot wrong with the way that you interpret the scriptures.
Because you have embraced Calvinism it is imperative that the scriptures fit your Calvinist model, otherwise you might be proven to be wrong. God forbid that you are proven to be wrong.
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
[FONT="]There is nothing wrong with the Bible as long as you have a very low opinion of it, I suppose.[/FONT]
Robert Pate said:
Robert Pate said:
Sigh.
AMR
I retract nothing.
The purpose of the Bible is to reveal Jesus Christ and his Gospel, which it does very well.
The Bible is not another Christian Torah that you want to live by. It is God's revelation of himself and his Son Jesus Christ.
The Gospel that you reject is clearly revealed in scripture, so that you are without an excuse.
freelight
Eclectic Theosophist
The God who Passes over you.....wax on, wax off.......
The God who Passes over you.....wax on, wax off.......
Hi AMR,
I think you'll enjoy my commentary on 'preterition' here, previously mentioned by daqq, with its corresponding post links. I agree with readers being edified and illumined by our discussions so they can make up their own minds and do their own research, polishing their own 'theology' in the process
The God who Passes over you.....wax on, wax off.......
Hi AMR,
I think you'll enjoy my commentary on 'preterition' here, previously mentioned by daqq, with its corresponding post links. I agree with readers being edified and illumined by our discussions so they can make up their own minds and do their own research, polishing their own 'theology' in the process
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Robert Pate Affirms His Low View of Scripture
Robert Pate Affirms His Low View of Scripture
Just wanted to capture this for the record, Robert. Thank you.
AMR
Robert Pate Affirms His Low View of Scripture
Just wanted to capture this for the record, Robert. Thank you.
AMR
freelight
Eclectic Theosophist
I think I shared already in the 'free will' thread, that Adam & Eve were given 'freedom of choice' in the garden, after being given some instructions, they apparently had the ability to 'choose' to eat or not eat of the fruit of certain trees. Is this correct? Did 'God' or satan give them this freedom to choose?
If indeed freedom of choice is given by God our Father and Creator,...how you can say such a gift is of satan?
freelight
Eclectic Theosophist
The wonderful text book you call the Bible is FULL of many instances where 'God' is giving man the freedom to choose from different possibilities, those choices often determining whether they have blessings or curses, life or death. In fact 'God' calls heaven and earth as a witness in their choosing of his word, that if they accept and DO it...they shall have blessings, but if they reject and disobey His word, there is only curses and misery. 'God' makes available the whole spectrum of 'life and 'death' for man's CHOOSING. Isn't that awesome?
beloved57
Well-known member
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Good Stewardship of One's Time Means Being Judicious
Good Stewardship of One's Time Means Being Judicious
Rather, I am quite comfortable in not denying God's right to rule and dispose of His creatures as He sees fit to do so. That is, "God said it. That settles it."
AMR
Good Stewardship of One's Time Means Being Judicious
By trying to be a good steward, I do not normally use the time God has given me for discussion of sacred topics by interacting with cosmic moonbeam New Age views. Nor do I subscribe to the all too common view exemplary of bumper stickers that read "God said it. I believe it. That settles it!" a view that underlies your referenced post and the "make up their own minds" above.Hi AMR,
I think you'll enjoy my commentary on 'preterition' here, previously mentioned by daqq, with its corresponding post links. I agree with readers being edified and illumined by our discussions so they can make up their own minds and do their own research, polishing their own 'theology' in the process
Rather, I am quite comfortable in not denying God's right to rule and dispose of His creatures as He sees fit to do so. That is, "God said it. That settles it."
Spoiler
AMR
There are literally hundreds of examples of people exercising their free will in the Old Testament as well as the New Testament. You still have not answered my question as to who killed Abel. Did Cane do it, or did God do it?
freelight
Eclectic Theosophist
Stewardship includes intellectual honesty........
Stewardship includes intellectual honesty........
We can thank 'God' then that others can view these discussions and think for themselves about the points shared therein My commentary on 'Preterition' holds, since any reader can evaluate the doctrine on principle alone and make up their own minds concerning it.
I also shared a UB view on this particular subject here, which bears considering as well :thumb:
Concerning Spurgeon's sermon (in your spoiler),....when we regard religion or theology in general, any religionist or spiritualist most surely acknowledges the Sovereingty of God, yet they also recognize the gift of free will given to sentient beings as well. Such liberties do not over-ride God's Sovereignty, however such freedom of choice does pertain when determining individual destinies, since each soul can respond in rejecting or accepting the call of salvation. Since this 'freedom of choice' is respected within some theologies, it doesn't have to be 'assumed' that these persons are protesting God when he rises upon his throne to maintain his sovereignty, since his sovereignty does not abrogate their free will ever, in fact it sustains it, and lets souls determine their own destiny within its provisions. The UB even claims God decreed or ordained free will. One can evaluate this claim for themselves, as philosophers have done for centuries, and a good number believed it.
So,....we have a broad spectrum from Calvin to Arminius here, plus other schools and modern innovations on the subject of free will that are to be considered while contemplating the subject. I think considering the total of knowledge on the subject would be advantageous, plus remaining open in your research and studies to learn more. Unless of course your knowledge is final, complete and absolute. - not even the most pious religionist would claim such a thing. - also, don't forget, revelation is progressive. If you've assumed yourself the pinnacle or finality of truth on any matter, you've made yourself a rut and not a ladder in your progress forward.
It should also be noted that I don't necessarily believe what is shared about Calvin in the OP, since I'd have to do the historical research on those certain points or claims, but the doctrinal principles, beliefs and concepts I can certainly test by my own conscience for starters, which is that natural 'compass' given to all men by 'God', naturally, and then from there by reason and logic pursue the truth or falsehood of any idea. Spiritual discernment and then revelation in these matters, or any religious doctrine goes without saying.
~*~*~
This is an awesome discourse -
A Discourse
on the
Immutable Decrees of God
and the
Free Agency of Man
- By Mrs. Cora L. V. Hatch, of New York
Delivered in the City Hall, Newburyport, Mass.,
Sunday, November 22, 1857
Stewardship includes intellectual honesty........
We can thank 'God' then that others can view these discussions and think for themselves about the points shared therein
My commentary on 'Preterition' holds, since any reader can evaluate the doctrine on principle alone and make up their own minds concerning it.I also shared a UB view on this particular subject here, which bears considering as well :thumb:
Concerning Spurgeon's sermon (in your spoiler),....when we regard religion or theology in general, any religionist or spiritualist most surely acknowledges the Sovereingty of God, yet they also recognize the gift of free will given to sentient beings as well. Such liberties do not over-ride God's Sovereignty, however such freedom of choice does pertain when determining individual destinies, since each soul can respond in rejecting or accepting the call of salvation. Since this 'freedom of choice' is respected within some theologies, it doesn't have to be 'assumed' that these persons are protesting God when he rises upon his throne to maintain his sovereignty, since his sovereignty does not abrogate their free will ever, in fact it sustains it, and lets souls determine their own destiny within its provisions. The UB even claims God decreed or ordained free will. One can evaluate this claim for themselves, as philosophers have done for centuries, and a good number believed it.
So,....we have a broad spectrum from Calvin to Arminius here, plus other schools and modern innovations on the subject of free will that are to be considered while contemplating the subject. I think considering the total of knowledge on the subject would be advantageous, plus remaining open in your research and studies to learn more. Unless of course your knowledge is final, complete and absolute. - not even the most pious religionist would claim such a thing. - also, don't forget, revelation is progressive. If you've assumed yourself the pinnacle or finality of truth on any matter, you've made yourself a rut and not a ladder in your progress forward.
It should also be noted that I don't necessarily believe what is shared about Calvin in the OP, since I'd have to do the historical research on those certain points or claims, but the doctrinal principles, beliefs and concepts I can certainly test by my own conscience for starters, which is that natural 'compass' given to all men by 'God', naturally, and then from there by reason and logic pursue the truth or falsehood of any idea. Spiritual discernment and then revelation in these matters, or any religious doctrine goes without saying.
~*~*~
This is an awesome discourse -
A Discourse
on the
Immutable Decrees of God
and the
Free Agency of Man
- By Mrs. Cora L. V. Hatch, of New York
Delivered in the City Hall, Newburyport, Mass.,
Sunday, November 22, 1857
Last edited:
freelight
Eclectic Theosophist
Already have plenty of times, and many more in the 'Free Will' thread and beyond. Granted that fact, you have no exuse of claiming ignorance of such. You're very response to this post, will prove the 'free will' you strive so hard to deny, which is a venture in futility. My commentaries on the reality of free enterprise holds, and my writing this very commentary proves such emphatically
- I know this pains your theology,...but grin and bear it - Status