Agreed, but I will expand your statement. Believe in your heart. That means put your trust in what he did. If you do, you will call upon his name to save you.
On the omniscience of God
- Thread starter JudgeRightly
- Start date
Yes, he has that right. But that isn't the point. Are you saying he condemns people to hell by his mere choice? I said the opposite.
Bladerunner
Active member
No, Dr. White stated that He believed that GOD treated the Babies as He would Adults.
Derf
Well-known member
Are you trying to be obtuse?
Your definition of "just" is your demand that God offer the same grace to every single individual. If you were to spend as much time as you do in your detestation for the sovereignty of God and instead consider what some Calvinists have to say then you might ask yourself if your definition is what you think it is. It would serve you well to lay aside your traditions for a brief moment and consider the possibility that Calvinism might offer some valid arguments.
John 6:37-40 (NKJV) - All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will by no means cast out. For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me. This is the will of the Father who sent Me, that of all He has given Me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up at the last day. And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him may have everlasting life; and I will raise him up at the last day.”
The result of all Father gives to the Son WILL come to the Son. As a result of coming to the Son they WILL be raised up on the last day. If you want to make the claim that all of humanity is drawn to the Son then you can't escape universalism because all who are drawn WILL be raised up. If you want to make the claim that the drawing can be resisted, where did you derive that from the text, or are you simply demanding that the text should say what you want it to say?
Any Calvinist commentator can walk through texts like this and let it say what it says without inserting tradition or philosophy. Funny how that works.
Derf
Well-known member
And any Calvinist commentator will refuse to acknowledge some of the other scriptures that don't fit with his tradition and philosophy.
I would be happy to go over those other scriptures you have in mind.
Thank you and yes, my intention is to discuss what we may agree or disagree on.
You clearly did not listen to what was played in the video.
You did not listen to the words Dr. White himself said, that were recorded, and then played back for all to hear.
Here is what he originally said, verbatim (yes, I went and looked for the exact quote):
Dr. White: "I think God's probably consistent here and, uh, He's going to have elect infants, and then there are others who will not be, and I don't know what basis to put that on other than the same basis of all the rest of us."
That means some babies will go to heaven, and other babies will go to hell, according to his view.
Actually I did and my response was not aimed at that.
Idolater
"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
Yes, like the tradition of saying Calvinism doesn't promote literally ethical nihilism—even though it most unmistakenly does promote literally ethical nihilism, or call it, moral anti-realism, or moral irrealism. They don't believe ethical propositions bear any truth, that's just the logic of Calvinism simpliciter. It's as clear, to make a perfect parallel (for once), to Mary mother of God. To deny it, is to commit a heresy (Nestorianism), but under Calvinism, with no magisterium, and so no ecumenical Church councils, the promotion of literally ethical nihilism isn't a famous heresy in Calvinism—they don't know what Nestorianism even is. And so can you blame them, for not knowing, what isn't known? This doesn't put the average Roman Catholic who satisfies his Mass obligation and avoids grave matter in any sort of advantage, having a tradition which is full of the detailed exposition of every single heresy that ever popped up in all history. Under Calvinism, there's no record available of that, while in Roman Catholicism simpliciter they are easy to find when you know to look them up. I'm not in any advantage, over the Calvinist, because of this searchable record of known heresies, knowing about Nestorianism, and recognizing that Mary mother of God (we celebrated Mary mother of God on January 1st with the first non-Sunday Mass obligation of 2025) is logically required unless you commit the heresy of Nestorianism.
So Mary mother of God is required, with syllogisms. It's not like the Apostles went around calling the Blessed Virgin "Mother of God"—the problem is that, what they did teach, requires Mary mother of God, through syllogisms. As simple as twice two is four. The Bible doesn't say four. But the Bible does say Twice Two Is. So therefore it HAS to be four. No Other Option.
Calvinism promotes and supports and sustains and substantiates and corroborates and confirms and demonstrates and shows and proves and reveals and teaches and believes and cosigns and approves and defends and coheres with and is inhered by literally ethical nihilism—moral anti-realism and or moral irrealism. With the same syllogistic pressure which promotes Mary mother of God, and the Trinity against Arianism, because it's the only other option, when considering the Apostles' precedence, case law, and common law.
What I mean is Mary mother of God is promoted by and supported by and sustained by and substantiated by and corroborated by and confirmed by and demonstrated by and shown by and proven by and revealed by and taught by and believed by and cosigned by and approved by and defended by and coheres with and inheres Twice Two Is.
The only other option for Twice Two Is is Four, and that's a capital F, because it's Apostolic, and Apostolic means from Jesus. Even though the Apostles never said Four, they all said Twice Two Is. We KNOW they said Four. We know that Jesus says Four, capital F.
No other option.
Idolater
"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
You're about to see the exact parallel in a Calvinist to Nestorianism in a Roman Catholic, thank you for the quote (e4e):
Yes ... 100 Percent. They're going to quibble and get lost in the weeds over their claim that all babies DON'T go to Heaven. What a bizarre hill to die on, but die on it they must, and you know why—it's because otherwise they have to call Our Lady mother of God. And they just reflexively, emotionally, unthinkingly, resist. Why? Because the diabolic. And no other reason. Why is there no database of Calvinist heresies in the annals of Calvinism? Oh, you say Calvinism actually doesn't even possess annals? No annals?
Hmm. If there were annals in Calvinism, would abortion be murdering tens of millions of babies in the womb? even up to tongue-in-cheek "partial birth", "late term" (the most amazing euphemism for baby extermination is "late term abortion", while in comparison literal infanticide is the much less smooth-sounding "partial-birth abortion"—like that one sounds bad—but "late term abortion" is what we're calling right on the front doorstep of literal infanticide rn—"late term abortion's" an absolutely diabolic use of ingenius and unmistable marketing talent)?
rn Calvinists are perfectly content to just sit and watch the bodies hit the floor, and stack, and pile. They're not out fighting for babies. And here they are meanwhile with this doctrine of sovereignty that is the Four to my Twice Two Is analogy above in my prior post, which says God either permits or decrees the current catastrophe happening in abortion clinics like literally rn. And now. And now again. With abortionist "doctors" taking out one baby after another, piece by bloody piece. rn. And again.
And the Calvinist just sits, [twiddling] his thumbs. He doesn't have anything to do, anywhere to go. There's no moral pressure on him. Jesus's yoke and burden are so light and easy for him—because they're not even ontologically there. This is why Calvinism is moral anti-realistic. With no moral obligations, there's no morality at all, which some call nihilism, but I've been told that it's more accurate to call it moral anti-realism, because really what they're saying is that moral propositions do not bear truth, just as an inherent property of them, so the result or upshot is that nobody can say absolutely that you are morally obligated to do or avoid doing anything. So therefore it's a form of moral anti-realism, or nihilism—or rather it supports and instantiates moral anti-realism—a state where moral obligations are not ontic.
And that just includes Babies getting ripped out of (mostly single) women. None of the women's tissues are hurt in the process, these abortionist "doctors" ... are ... "professional". So I guess that makes it uninteresting to most Calvinists, to go out and be big abortion opponents, but it follows Twice Two Is by four, so it has to be true, that there is no moral obligation whatsoever under Calvinism.
That's as true under Calvinism as Mary mother of God is true under Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy—and it means that Calvinists believe murdering by dismembering gruesomely babies is God's WILL. They ACCEPT that many of these BABIES are going to Hell! This is to Calvinists a "nothing burger", since they already believe that everybody's either chosen or elect—or not (reprobated). So abortion murder, isn't different to them morally, than people dying from cancer caused by preventable things like obesity, smoking tobacco, or drinking liquor. There's no difference to them because there's no ontological moral obligations, and there's no ontic morality because we are either chosen or elect—or not (reprobated). The End.
@Bladerunner
Which is exactly the point we've all been making!
It isn't my demand and I didn't define justice.
God Himself states explicitly that grace is offered to all and the only reason you think otherwise is because you need for some reason to insist that God is immutable and that doctrine has certain ancillary doctrines that in turn force you to believe that God is arbitrary - the opposite of just.
I, on the other hand, rather than starting with the premise that God cannot change in anyway whatsoever, start with the premise that God is righteous and therefore His judgements are just.
I don't know how old you are but I've been studying Calvinism for likely as long as you have been alive and almost certainly longer than you've been a Calvinist.
Present the arguments Crede! I literally chuckled at the notion that you think you know something about Calvinism that I haven't heard a thousand times before but if you think you've got the goods then I'm all ears! Have at it!
There is not one single passage of scripture that Calvinists can quote as a proof text where it is not an example of them reading their doctrine into the text. I've been doing this now for over two decades and there has never once been even a single syllable of an exception, most especially John chapter 6!
God is just!
Therefore, Calvinism is false!
That alone is sufficient to tell any honest person that this passage isn't teaching predestination but I'm out of time for this morning and so I'll have to respond more fully later.
Derf
Well-known member
How about
[2Ki 20:1 KJV] In those days was Hezekiah sick unto death. And the prophet Isaiah the son of Amoz came to him, and said unto him, Thus saith the LORD, Set thine house in order; for thou shalt die, and not live.
[2Ki 20:5 KJV] Turn again, and tell Hezekiah the captain of my people, Thus saith the LORD, the God of David thy father, I have heard thy prayer, I have seen thy tears: behold, I will heal thee: on the third day thou shalt go up unto the house of the LORD.
Derf
Well-known member
you lost me at comparing Calvinism to Mary Mother of God. Maybe you can restate and be more specific in what you are trying to convey, without trying to insert unrelated doctrines that you are trying to promote.
Bladerunner
Active member
OK, I agree with Dr. White on what he said. are you horrified yet! Now let me ask you,,,, Jacob and Esau were two infants in the womb. It is obvious that Jacob was an elect and Esau was not....Does this not confirm Dr. White statement above???? Be honest and do not read anything else into his statement. Just what it says..
Has Esau gone to hell...most likely, Yes! Did Jacob go to Hell...NO!
I watch this media and Dr. White stated it again....the other fellow has put forth a statement alluding that God Judges Babies that die...Yet, he will not say so for it is evident in the Bible that God spares the Innocent. Yes, He is dishonest and so is Dr. Flowers as I have read and heard many of his debates and speeches against Calvinism. Here the problem is that Dr. Flowers hate those who believe in Calvinism. All he has to do is preach His theology and let it fall where it may. That is not good enough, he like so many preachers count the heads of those that supposedly were saved by them. Counting Heads as it is called.
One more question: Where is the Doctrine (teachings) of the baby damnation that God is suppose to bring about.
Bladerunner
Active member
The Roman Catholic Church practices a version Amenanism not Calvinism.
Bladerunner
Active member
No, you have not...what you have been speaking of is that Babies who die are condemned to Death and Hell. Yet, Jesus teaches in so many places that young children even babies are innocent and become martyrs These martyrs are in heaven. Now I gave you many verses to support each and every point of Calvinism that are in the Bible...Yet, you have given me no verses that support your view.