Reformed Theology: Somewhere Between..

[Lon]

Thanks for the honest answers, they're better than any I get from mainstream Calvinists and are on par with the honesty of B57 (that's actually a compliment). However, your answers prove the point that some of us have been making: the god of Calvinism is a liar and his gospel is a fraud that does not save the elect (they're already safe) and cannot save the reprobates (no blood for them).

Nope, and I told you 'not for the reason you think,' and you went ahead and made that mistake anyway.

John 3:18Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already[predetermined], because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.

Yeah, because he CAN'T believe because the god of Calvinism didn't ENABLE him to believe, yet holds him eternally damnable for not doing what your god never made it possible for him to do.

Joh 3:18Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.

Yeah, because he CAN'T believe because the god of Calvinism didn't ENABLE him to believe, yet holds him eternally damnable for not doing what your god never made it possible for him to do.

I'm infralapsarian, which probably means nothing to you and you aren't interested in.
It basically means your decisions are part of the overall, yet God is both decreeing and prescribing His own actions, according to everything. I have tended to think you are Open Theist, but if you are not, you are illogical (even if you are, but not for the same reason). Arminians recognize God's decretive and prescriptive will and embrace His exhaustive definite foreknowledge, so you are quickly relegating to an Open Theist mindset with a God who loses divine attribute to suit fallible man's whims concerning justice. I can't bow to that tower. It is idolatry of self as far as I can discern. We already worship ourselves before bowing to Christ. He is not supposed to be bowing to us, nor us, overtly bowing to the non-Christian to 'be nice to them.' That is no gospel. You are treating them better in that sense than your potential brothers. I want to glorify Christ, even if my beliefs have to change. God has go to show me that clearly, because I'm no slouch, but there I go elevating myself again and I work hard against that.

So the gospel according to Calvinism is lie all the way around that has no need for the Cross. It's a whole other gnostic, fatalistic religion.

:nono: In fact, post your scripture? I can already tell you beforehand 1) I'll embrace and 2) I'll change if it demands it. You are not at ALL open to the converse. That says a lot more about you and your layman cockiness than mine. If you can prove the point, I'd not just change, I'd 'gladly' change. I want to follow God, not my own whims and pets and darlings. I have no agenda today but giving and listening to scriptures. I don't appreciate or like banter. It doesn't mean a lot to me. God's word is active, and sharper, and is deadly to cause. Use it. Become a Berean and sword-wielder. This ain't it. It is a haughty self-important assertion and puffy proclamation.

Yeah, you don't care what I think. I knew that. But the above is not just what I "think." It's not just my opinion.

Yeah. It is. Not one lick of scripture...

It's a demonstrable fact that you have just confirmed. Calvinism is idolatry.

Yeah? Pull me out of it, but you won't. I am MUCH more concerned with scripture and have exponentially used it more than you have. I can show that clearly as well. If your theology isn't based in His Word, I don't really care for it...

Rom 9:11 though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls—
Rom 9:13 As it is written, "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."
Rom 9:14 What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God's part? By no means!
Rom 9:15 For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion."
Rom 9:16 So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy.
Rom 9:17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth."
Rom 9:18 So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.

How is your response, not this:

Rom 9:19 You will say to me then, "Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?"
Rom 9:20 But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, "Why have you made me like this?"
Rom 9:21 Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use?
Rom 9:22 What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction,
Rom 9:23 in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory—

You are basically saying God has no right to do this. God does not 'not have to be Calvinist' for Him to be righteous. That is just your logical or illogical demand. Until you could possibly walk me through this and other passages in a way that changed them from the clear context I understand, I am tending to see your objection in the light Paul already, in God's omniscience, sovereignty, and providence shed light upon. It very much looks like the exact objection Paul himself fields to me.

Again, I'm not interested in banter or the Musterion Show. It doesn't appeal to me. If you are trying to Champion Christ, that's great. If you are rather championing MAD, or else, that doesn't appeal to me, and it quickly becomes apparent in these conversations. I'm interested in Christ and have, will, and will continue to prove that. Do the same. If God is for you.... Don't do it alone. Pray for me as I am praying for you and myself, for wisdom, to honor and glorify Him, not my own wisdom.

 

[musterion]

Nope, and I told you 'not for the reason you think,' and you went ahead and made that mistake anyway.

You confirmed these two postulations earlier today:

1. The Gospel, according to Calvinism, does not save the elect so much as, when believed, provide evidence (not proof, there is none) that they were safe in election from eternity past. Since that election was unconditional and unilaterally decided for them, for the elect, then, believing the Gospel is at best a mere formality but is not the means by which God saves them since He as good as saved them back when He elected them. 2. The Gospel, according to Calvinism, cannot save those who were not elected because (a) they were not chosen to believe it, (b) will not be regenerated to be able to believe it, and (c) the blood of Christ was not shed for them anyway, so the Gospel is worthless to them.

Since you confirmed those, these logically follow:

3. Since the elect can't be lost and the reprobate can't be saved, the Gospel is a lie, if Calvinism is true. 4. If the Gospel is a lie, the god who gave it is a liar. 5. The Bible says God cannot lie. 6. The lying god of Calvinism is not the God of the Bible, but a fatalistic fetish wrapped in deliberately dense layers of gnostic philosophy and mystery. An idol.

 

[Lon]

You confirmed these two postulations earlier today:

1. The Gospel, according to Calvinism, does not save the elect so much as, when believed, provide evidence (not proof, there is none) that they were safe in election from eternity past. Since that election was unconditional and unilaterally decided for them, for the elect, then, believing the Gospel is at best a mere formality but is not the means by which God saves them since He as good as saved them back when He elected them.

Well, first of all link. You are trying to save me from this, right? It isn't my Calvinism. Next, I disagree with this statement. I know you logically/illogically went to that conclusion (for me it is wrong, thus illogical 'unless' I need to change and I'm open to that, genuinely if I were). Maybe we can get along because I'm not 'that' Calvinist, or Calvinist at all in your mind. We don't agree on everything, but if you are really against the strawman, so am I.

2. The Gospel, according to Calvinism, cannot save those who were not elected because (a) they were not chosen to believe it, (b) will not be regenerated to be able to believe it, and (c) the blood of Christ was not shed for them anyway, so the Gospel is worthless to them.

True.... I think, correct me if not: 1 Corinthians 2:14-15 John 6:44 John 3:17&18

Since you confirmed those, these logically follow:

:nono: Both in supposition and ensuing 'logic.' It isn't true.

3. Since the elect can't be lost and the reprobate can't be saved, the Gospel is a lie, if Calvinism is true.

Well, forget 'lie' for an [unfounded] accusation for the moment (it needs a proof set all itself). Just ask if you understand Calvinism to be saying elect can't lose salvation (true) nor the unbeliever be saved (not true, we were all unbelievers). Then also try and define what the gospel is. If you can show it is specifically to save the world, then you are universal. If you deny God's omniscience, such that God has no idea, but truly tried to save the whole world, just isn't accomplishing that, you are an Open Theist, and God seems to not be omnicompetent as they claim. Our sense of justice is never fair. We'd like it to be, and that's great, but we do not have the power of God, nor His goodness, knowledge, or righteousness... Faith is necessary, not just that He is, but is rewarder of those who believe and earnestly seek Him. Hebrews 11:6

There has to be a point where we give in to God and accept 'because I say so' from Him. I hated that answer as a kid and don't much care for it now, but it I pride that demands an answer from a Holy, Loving, Righteous and Perfect God. I think He did allow us logical minds, but knowing good and evil has messed us up as well, especially in the pride category. Genesis 3:22

4. If the Gospel is a lie, the god who gave it is a liar.

Agree.

5. The Bible says God cannot lie.

Agree.

6. The lying god of Calvinism is not the God of the Bible, but a fatalistic fetish wrapped in deliberately dense layers of gnostic philosophy and mystery. An idol.

I'm not sure if you understand how this logic and proof things work. You are FAR from ability to make this proof statement. All points must unerringly support the claim and they don't. There are huge gaps as well as errors to this thus far. Again, I said I'm correctable, and that I have to combat even my own opinions and logic, but you need to show me where I am wrong pedantically.

 

[chrysostom]

you can't have a meaningful dialogue with a calvinist
they have corrupted the language
all because someone convinced them they don't have free will
but
they know they make choices
so
how can someone believe they don't have free will?
could it be they don't want to be held responsible for their decisions?
can you think of any other explanations?

 

[Zeke]

Nope, and I told you 'not for the reason you think,' and you went ahead and made that mistake anyway.

[/COLOR][/SIZE]
[/COLOR][/SIZE]






I'm infralapsarian, which probably means nothing to you and you aren't interested in.
It basically means your decisions are part of the overall, yet God is both decreeing and prescribing His own actions, according to everything. I have tended to think you are Open Theist, but if you are not, you are illogical (even if you are, but not for the same reason). Arminians recognize God's decretive and prescriptive will and embrace His exhaustive definite foreknowledge, so you are quickly relegating to an Open Theist mindset with a God who loses divine attribute to suit fallible man's whims concerning justice. I can't bow to that tower. It is idolatry of self as far as I can discern. We already worship ourselves before bowing to Christ. He is not supposed to be bowing to us, nor us, overtly bowing to the non-Christian to 'be nice to them.' That is no gospel. You are treating them better in that sense than your potential brothers. I want to glorify Christ, even if my beliefs have to change. God has go to show me that clearly, because I'm no slouch, but there I go elevating myself again and I work hard against that.



:nono: In fact, post your scripture? I can already tell you beforehand 1) I'll embrace and 2) I'll change if it demands it. You are not at ALL open to the converse. That says a lot more about you and your layman cockiness than mine. If you can prove the point, I'd not just change, I'd 'gladly' change. I want to follow God, not my own whims and pets and darlings. I have no agenda today but giving and listening to scriptures. I don't appreciate or like banter. It doesn't mean a lot to me. God's word is active, and sharper, and is deadly to cause. Use it. Become a Berean and sword-wielder. This ain't it. It is a haughty self-important assertion and puffy proclamation.




Yeah. It is. Not one lick of scripture...


Yeah? Pull me out of it, but you won't. I am MUCH more concerned with scripture and have exponentially used it more than you have. I can show that clearly as well. If your theology isn't based in His Word, I don't really care for it...

Rom 9:11 though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls—
Rom 9:13 As it is written, "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."
Rom 9:14 What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God's part? By no means!
Rom 9:15 For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion."
Rom 9:16 So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy.
Rom 9:17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth."
Rom 9:18 So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.

How is your response, not this:

Rom 9:19 You will say to me then, "Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?"
Rom 9:20 But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, "Why have you made me like this?"
Rom 9:21 Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use?
Rom 9:22 What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction,
Rom 9:23 in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory—

You are basically saying God has no right to do this. God does not 'not have to be Calvinist' for Him to be righteous. That is just your logical or illogical demand. Until you could possibly walk me through this and other passages in a way that changed them from the clear context I understand, I am tending to see your objection in the light Paul already, in God's omniscience, sovereignty, and providence shed light upon. It very much looks like the exact objection Paul himself fields to me.

Again, I'm not interested in banter or the Musterion Show. It doesn't appeal to me. If you are trying to Champion Christ, that's great. If you are rather championing MAD, or else, that doesn't appeal to me, and it quickly becomes apparent in these conversations. I'm interested in Christ and have, will, and will continue to prove that. Do the same. If God is for you.... Don't do it alone. Pray for me as I am praying for you and myself, for wisdom, to honor and glorify Him, not my own wisdom.

So whats happens to the sin that dwelt in Paul's flesh? was this a imaginary foe of his mind, or was it a separated persona of Paul's conscience that is portrayed as crucified with Christ?

Which is also Calvin's lost race of men dressed in their own tabernacles of flesh when it's only a conscience twin Galatians 4:24-28

Romans 9 can't be any evidence for you're lost theory, seeing it's remedy is found in chapter eleven, Just like Romans 3 does for 2. Just like Jacob reconciled with his twin, Metaphoric gone literal makes for a lot of fancy Dan theology that is only mind candy.

 

[chrysostom]

you make a statement like
it matters what you do
and
they ask what does that mean
and
you respond with
it affects your salvation
and
they answer with something about david
and
it didn't matter what he did
well
did you get the part about repenting?
did you get the part about all of us being sinners?

do you understand that repenting is something that you do?
do you understand that part is necessary?

 

[Lon]

you can't have a meaningful dialogue with a calvinist
they have corrupted the language

:nono: Simply trying to be very clear and using language correctly.

all because someone convinced them they don't have free will
but
they know they make choices
so
how can someone believe they don't have free will?

Romans 7:15-25
Romans 7:19 For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I keep on doing.

could it be they don't want to be held responsible for their decisions?

Romans 7:22 For I delight in the law of God, in my inner being,
Romans 7:23 but I see in my members another law waging war against the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members.
Romans 7:24 Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death?

can you think of any other explanations?

I have a will and I make decisions, there is not disagreement there, but that I never think I'm free. If I'm not free, then none of my decisions can be. It is only the one that the Son sets free, that is free indeed, but freedom is expressed then in the parameters and protection of His will, not my own. It is when I am His, doing His will, that I am free.

This is a bit off the beaten path of the OP, however.

you make a statement like
it matters what you do
and
they ask what does that mean
and
you respond with
it affects your salvation
and
they answer with something about david
and
it didn't matter what he did
well
did you get the part about repenting?
did you get the part about all of us being sinners?

do you understand that repenting is something that you do?
do you understand that part is necessary?

Yes, but you didn't ask about repenting. You asked if what we do can eliminate our Salvation. You put the cart before the horse: First a new creation Then, works that follow that new nature you were created in. All Christians repented of sin and turned to Christ ("repentance" and "turned" are redundant here) and thus became new creations where the old has passed away. It was an important distinction and again: Sin is against God and it is buried in Christ. Harm against man is not the same as sin, which is why 'David' (by scriptural example) said he had only 'sinned' against God.

 

[chrysostom]

I have a will and I make decisions, there is not disagreement there, but that I never think I'm free. If I'm not free, then none of my decisions can be.

so who is making these decisions for you?
and
why can't we hold them responsible?

we can't hold you responsible
you don't know what you are doing

 

[Lon]

You used to believe this, but now as an 'other' and not identifying with the body of Christ. Your Universalism Urantia take is going to be a long discussion in a thread like this, I'm afraid.

So whats happens to the sin that dwelt in Paul's flesh? was this a imaginary foe of his mind, or was it a separated persona of Paul's conscience that is portrayed as crucified with Christ?

He said he lived in the flesh, but that the Work of Christ had reconciled that. In effect, it is no longer sin against God, but yet problematic both for ourselves and the Body of Christ and society. We still face consequences for our actions, though they aren't counted against us as sins. Ephesians 2:10 reminds us of our true calling, to honor Christ in or bodies.

Which is also Calvin's lost race of men dressed in their own tabernacles of flesh when it's only a conscience twin Galatians 4:24-28

All of us lost race of men, but I'm not sure I am privy to this context. Perhaps AMR or another can better field this part.

Romans 9 can't be any evidence for you're lost theory, seeing it's remedy is found in chapter eleven, Just like Romans 3 does for 2.

How so?
Rom 11:5 So too at the present time there is a remnant, chosen by grace.
Rom 11:6 But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace.
Rom 11:14 in order somehow to make my fellow Jews jealous, and thus save some of them.

Just like Jacob reconciled with his twin, Metaphoric gone literal makes for a lot of fancy Dan theology that is only mind candy.

Again, your Universalism is a longer conversation that is a bit beyond this OP. I'm not sure I can adequately address it in this particular thread.

 

[Lon]

so who is making these decisions for you?
and
why can't we hold them responsible?

Again there is a difference between a will in bondage verses a will that is Christ's. In sin, Genesis 3 explains the will in bondage. It took the serpent to deceive Eve, and he was responsible. It took Eve being tempted, not just deceived, and it took man disobeying and not protecting what was right nor his flesh of flesh.

we can't hold you responsible
you don't know what you are doing

Not altogether. I can still get a ticket for doing a traffic violation on the grounds that I 'should' know and that it is still a violation.
If my master were evil, and I am a slave, am I still not accountable for obeying the evil master and harming another?

 

[chrysostom]

they have corrupted the language
predestination no longer means predestination
unconditional election no longer means unconditional election
total depravity no longer means total depravity
but
free will still means free will

we just don't have it

what exactly do we have?

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

I'm an Armenian with a strong nod to aspects of reformed theology,

http://tinyurl.com/zb9kre2



AMR

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

1. Was the eternal destiny of all - whether with Christ or separated from Him - effectively predetermined by the sovereign will and decree of God in eternity past?

Of course it was. The fact that God knows all that happened, is happening, and will happen necessarily implies that He has decreed all events. What you ignore is that His decree encompasses man's choosing according to his greatest desires at the moment he so chooses as secondary means of His ends. What troubles you is your desire to peek behind the curtain and seek to discover exactly how God's sovereignty and man's responsibility are maintained in the mind of God. Rather trust that He knows what He is doing and how He manages to pull it off is not for anyone to discern (Deut. 29:29). This is a much better (and Biblical) approach versus those that would seek to rob God of His sovereignty by elevating man's feebleness.

2. Do those for whom the blood of Christ was allegedly not shed (those who did not receive your allegedly Limited atonement) have any hope of salvation? ANY AT ALL?

Our Lord's active and passive obedience in His sacrifice was not something potential, but something accomplished. The atonement was for those given to Our Lord and none so given will be lost to Him. Those whom God the Father left in their state of sin in Adam have but one destiny...eternal punishment. Now if you can identify all those persons, you would do the church militant a great service in the focusing of the church's efforts. Since you or no one can do so, we share the Good News promiscuously to all knowing that the foolishness of preaching is the ordinary means by which God's children are brought into the Kingdom.

Your likely counter to this is that, well, man has this so-called ability to choose. You will also likely deny that all are born sinners and sin because they are so born. These are the two roots of all your caviling about the sovereignty of God. Until you can demonstrate these two views have warrant from Scripture, nothing else matters for all other related discussions flow from these two key points.

The Reformed understand that it is God who gives ability to choose and the faith resulting from that ability with zero contribution from His fallen creatures.

3. Someone hears the Gospel of grace and understands it, but does not believe it and dies in rejection of it. What does the Bible say will happen to him/her?

4. Why will that happen to them?

A false dilemma. Someone who "understands" the Good News will be saved and never reject it. Rather you mean someone hears the Good News and has some natural reasoned idea about what he has heard and rejects it. Of course, this is what Paul makes clear in Romans 1 explaining the why of the matter.
As far as the gospel offer is concerned all men could exercise faith as a point of natural capability and responsibility. It is because they will not exercise faith as a result and manifestation of their own natural depravity that they are entirely inexcusable. All the lost (unregenerated elect and reprobate) cannot understand the things of God for they possess zero moral ability to do so. None in the sin of Adam deserve mercy. That God grants it to even one person is reason to rejoice. Again, you seek to discern the will of God, not revealed to us, as to why He chose some and not all. You would rather rob God of doing His own pleasure to preserve a notion that mankind merits something more than condemnation from birth.

Like I intimated above, start with Adam and the state of all his progeny following his fall in the Garden.

AMR

 

[Lon]

they have corrupted the language
predestination no longer means predestination.

I'm not sure what you mean. Romans 8:28-29 Those in Christ are predestined to be conformed. Doesn't it still mean to give a destination beforehand/prior?

unconditional election no longer means unconditional election

I might give you this one because it is a response to Arminian thought and both are against Catholic understanding of merited favor or conditional acceptance of members to the body of Christ. Such can become a confusing issue, but I think God choosing us, rather than us choosing Him, without partiality, is the desired conveyance. Titus 3:5-7

total depravity no longer means total depravity
but

Well, it means total depravity but not as 'most wicked.' It is rather that we are (totally) separated from God by sin (depravity).

free will still means free will

we just don't have it

what exactly do we have?

We have a will that is separate from God before being indwelled and changed by Christ. We have a nature that is Christ's when we are indwelled as new Creations. We are told whom Christ sets free, is free indeed. That freedom is expressed as His will, it isn't liberated (libertarian) freewill (from or independent of Him), but a will freed to do what Christ desires, where, because of separation and sin, we couldn't before, not knowing it/Him. John 15:4-5

Romans 6:15-18
What then? Shall we sin because we are not under the law but under grace? By no means! Don’t you know that when you offer yourselves to someone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one you obey—whether you are slaves to sin, which leads to death, or to obedience, which leads to righteousness? But thanks be to God that, though you used to be slaves to sin, you have come to obey from your heart the pattern of teaching that has now claimed your allegiance. You have been set free from sin and have become slaves to righteousness.

 

[Clete]

Gee, almost like when Christ says 'If you are not with me, you are against me'

or

Salvation and Damnation

Reformed doctrine is 'all or nothing' because that is what Christianity is. You can't have one foot in, one foot out, having control here and letting God have it there thinking you are 'working out' yourself and the world around you with the sovereign God.

God is one of order, not chaos, and your ideology is nothing but chaos. This world is no different then the universe it is in.

Note the absolute complete absence of any sort of argument in this post. Not even the slightest hint of an answer to the question of how can a just god act arbitrarily and punish people for actions that they did not choose to do.

Instead, you have here an occurrence of the relatively rare bread of Calvinist who thinks that the TULIP doctrines define Christianity itself and that to reject them is to reject Christ and doom yourself to Hell as though, if the TULIP doctrine where correct, anyone would have the option of accepting them or not. Which, incidentally, is another self-evident proof that Calvinism is indeed a false doctrine. Not even Calvinists are capable of discussing their doctrine without tacitly contradicting themselves all over the place. This is one of several reasons I've come to the conclusion that Calvinists no longer have a mind that functions properly. They always respond to that as being insulting but its just a statement of fact that they don't like. Besides, the alternative to their being blind is the notion that they refuse to see. I'll leave it to you to decide which is worse.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[chrysostom]

The fact that God knows all that happened, is happening, and will happen necessarily implies that He has decreed all events.

based on what?

What you ignore is that His decree encompasses man's choosing according to his greatest desires at the moment he so chooses as secondary means of His ends.

huh?

What troubles you is your desire to peek behind the curtain and seek to discover exactly how God's sovereignty and man's responsibility are maintained in the mind of God.

did you peek?

Rather trust that He knows what He is doing and how He manages to pull it off is not for anyone to discern (Deut. 29:29).

but somehow you understand

can you explain what we are doing here?

I can

we are being tested

our free will is being tested

it is true some have been elected to control history
but
they are very few

 

[Clete]

What troubles you is your desire to peek behind the curtain and seek to discover exactly how God's sovereignty and man's responsibility are maintained in the mind of God.

Anyone considering Calvinism must be on the look out for such comments as this! AMR is saying that the Calvinist's doctrine of God's sovereignty is clearly contradictory to man's responsibility BUT THAT IT DOES NOT MATTER!

He is saying that God is super-rational and that we aught therefore (note the use of reason) not to expect for our doctrine to make sense!

The term they use for such things is 'antinomy' and it means "against law" and in this context it means, "against the law of reason".

They do not attempt to explain how the doctrines are compatible. They simply tell you that you have to accept it in spite of the fact that it makes no sense. This is what they think faith is! The more they are willing to accept the irrational, the more pious they believe themselves to be.

But be sure you understand what the implications are. First of all, it is flatly not biblical. God says to mankind, "Come let us reason together." The Calvinist says that reason is a lower form of thought. You know why they say that? It isn't because they can conceive of a higher form its because they're doctrine is irrational! That's why! If they could rationally defend their doctrine they would and then it would be the irrational that is the lower form, the "feeble human" form of thought.

Further, once rational thought is tossed in favor of dogma, no argument can touch the dogma! The entire system becomes unfalsifiable. If AMR wakes up tomorrow and decides to post that Calvinism teaches that God is a striped cat with six tails, who could prove him wrong? What outlandish doctrine is outside the all reaching trump card of 'antinomy'? Such a doctrine is not in the bible, you say? That's just you using the merely human law of reasoning known as the 'law of contradiction'! You have to believe such things by faith, not reason!

The more intellectually honest Calvinists do not take AMR's rout as often as he does. They'll simply tell you straight that you can't choose and that God decided, before He created a thing, who would go to heaven and who would be punished forever in Hell and precisely what they would do and when they would do it. Not only that but the decision God made before creation had NOTHING at all to do with what you do or don't do in your life!

“The devil, and the whole train of the ungodly, are in all directions, held in by the hand of God as with a bridle, so that they can neither conceive any mischief, nor plan what they have conceived, nor how muchsoever they may have planned, move a single finger to perpetrate, unless in so far as he permits, nay unless in so far as he commands, that they are not only bound by his fetters but are even forced to do him service” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 1, Chapter 17, Paragraph 11)​

And what will really get your goat is that AMR will not say that Calvin got it wrong in the above quote. And if you ask him to reconcile what he said in his post from which I quoted with what Calvin said above you're as likely as not to get another appeal to antinomy.

In short, what I'm getting at is that Calvinists simply do not care whether their doctrine makes sense. The only thing they care about is preserving two things; the absolute immutability of God and the absolute inability of man to do anything good. Neither of which are biblical in the slightest.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Lon]

based on what?
See your own Catholic documentation for some of this discussion. It at least gives credence to it.

huh?

God decrees and/or prescribes our lives.

did you peek?

No. There is no way to peek but that hasn't stopped a few attempts or worse, excuses for God regarding His Divine counsel.

but somehow you understand

:nono: Just the explained and revealed.

can you explain what we are doing here?

What does scripture say?

I can

we are being tested

Verse?

our free will is being tested

Verse?

it is true some have been elected to control history
but
they are very few

Verse?

 

[Zeke]

You used to believe this, but now as an 'other' and not identifying with the body of Christ. Your Universalism Urantia take is going to be a long discussion in a thread like this, I'm afraid.


He said he lived in the flesh, but that the Work of Christ had reconciled that. In effect, it is no longer sin against God, but yet problematic both for ourselves and the Body of Christ and society. We still face consequences for our actions, though they aren't counted against us as sins. Ephesians 2:10 reminds us of our true calling, to honor Christ in or bodies.

All of us lost race of men, but I'm not sure I am privy to this context. Perhaps AMR or another can better field this part.

How so?
Rom 11:5 So too at the present time there is a remnant, chosen by grace.
Rom 11:6 But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace.
Rom 11:14 in order somehow to make my fellow Jews jealous, and thus save some of them.


Again, your Universalism is a longer conversation that is a bit beyond this OP. I'm not sure I can adequately address it in this particular thread.

I still acknowledge the scripture, yet in a different angel than the strict literal path that demands historical dependence on events that haven't been proven, Which isn't the meat of the teaching anyway according to Galatians 4:24, 2Cor 3:6, a clue that warns us we should use caution when building a literal foundation on symbols and personas used to teach a truth about our own behavioral smorgasbord dramatized by them, Galatians being a prime example of that tug of war.

If the scripture isn't really to be taken as literal events, and we have no real solid substance from history to even know if even Jesus, Paul or the twelve even existed then the only conclusions is it's all a lie or it's a universal story for all times, based on a Conscience being going through those events.

 

[Crucible]

Note the absolute complete absence of any sort of argument in this post. Not even the slightest hint of an answer to the question of how can a just god act arbitrarily and punish people for actions that they did not choose to do.

Instead, you have here an occurrence of the relatively rare bread of Calvinist who thinks that the TULIP doctrines define Christianity itself and that to reject them is to reject Christ and doom yourself to Hell as though, if the TULIP doctrine where correct, anyone would have the option of accepting them or not. Which, incidentally, is another self-evident proof that Calvinism is indeed a false doctrine. Not even Calvinists are capable of discussing their doctrine without tacitly contradicting themselves all over the place. This is one of several reasons I've come to the conclusion that Calvinists no longer have a mind that functions properly. They always respond to that as being insulting but its just a statement of fact that they don't like. Besides, the alternative to their being blind is the notion that they refuse to see. I'll leave it to you to decide which is worse.

Resting in Him,
Clete

First, I've never known a Calvinist to not see TULIP as the defining abstract of Christianity.
You must have simply just happened by certain Presbyterians or churches that have watered it down.

All of you all's doctrines and ideologies continually change and are tailored to fit your preferences. Every church does it over time, except for those anchored to Calvinism.

Those who aren't Catholic or hold to Reformed doctrine have become a web of heresies transfiguring all throughout Christian society.

So don't even try to say that 'Calvinists don't think right'- you all just can't recognize the light so you create your own, using the foundation that the Reformers built to go and bite into them just as the Roman Church.



The truth of the matter is that Calvinism is the only belief that does make sense, and all you or any other person opposed to it is the same shallow, emotional response that 'if God created people to perdition, He is evil'.

Well, God is not one of chaos, but of order. Look at the universe, look at nature, and look at your ideology- where is the chaos?
If you were given free will, how would your choices be different then as they are now? How does God, the All-knowing, sovereign and omnipotent Creator be subject to your choices?
These are questions you can't honestly answer because you are in rebellion against it.

Must have been predestined