ECT The Calvinist 5 Solas

[Dialogos]

Jerry, you replied.

The "purpose" of believing is that those believing will have life.

I don’t disagree.

For what purpose do you breathe? Is it not to live? Does that mean that you weren’t alive until after you took your first breath?

Weird conclusion, don’t you think?

Purpose does not necessitate temporal priority. That’s what you fail to realize and it’s the Achilles heel of your argument in John 20.

Jerry:
You don't understand that the word "believe," being in the present tense, is only saying that it is a continuous action happening at the present time but it doesn't mean that the believing only started then. You evidently know little about the Greek verbs in the "present" tense.

How does this erase the fact that “has been born again.” Is in the perfect tense relative to the present tense of the participle.

The same kind of construction happens in 1 John 2:29 and 1 John 4:7.
I going to go out on a limb and assume you don’t think that people are born again because they practice righteousness (1 John 2:29) or are born again because they love one another (1 John 4:7)…, am I wrong?

So why do you assume that 1 John 5:1 means that they are born again because they believe?

Hmmm?

:sherlock:

Now you ask:

Jerry:
For what reason did Paul think that Satan had blinded the mind of those who are perishing?:

"And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing. The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel that displays the glory of Christ, who is the image of God" (2 Cor.4:3-4).

According to Paul the reason Satan blinded the minds of those who are perishing was so "that they cannot see the light of the gospel."

Yes.

Jerry:
Evidently Paul thought that if these people's minds were not blinded that they could in fact see the light of the gospel.

Sure, if their minds are not blinded, then they can see.

But, their minds are blinded, so they can’t.

So what’s the solution?

All you have to do is want to really, really hard and the blinders come off?

:nono:

The answer is verse 6.

For God, who said, "Let light shine out of darkness," has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. (2 Corinthians 4:6 ESV)

God is the one who shines in our hearts to give us the light of the gospel.

Jerry:
Why would Satan be blinding their minds to the light of the gospel if there was absolutely no chance that they could ever see the light of the gospel since, according to Calvinism, these people had not been given a so-called "gift of faith"by the LORD?

You are completely missing the point. Remedying the Satan caused blindness (that all non-believers have because we are, by nature, children of wrath prior to being born again) is what it means to be given the “gift” of faith.

How else do you think the blinders get removed?

Satan does it?

We try, really, really hard and eventually find a way to remedy our own blindness?

I’m genuinely interested, Jerry.

If Satan is blinding non-believers from the light of the gospel, how exactly does one overcome that blindness on their own, apart from any Divine intervention?

 

[Jerry Shugart]

I said:

The "purpose" of believing is that those believing will have life.

To which you replied:

I don’t disagree.

But Calvinism teaches that life precedes believing.

Purpose does not necessitate temporal priority. That’s what you fail to realize and it’s the Achilles heal of your argument in John 20.

You just ignored the fact that when a person passes from spiritual death to spiritual life he is made alive "together" with Christ:

"Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved)" (Eph.2:5).​

Since the life of Christ is "eternal" in nature then when a person is made alive "together" with Christ then that person's life also becomes eternal in nature. And no one receives any other kind of life prior to the time when he receives eternal life which is in the Son (1 Jn.5:11).

And no one receives eternal life until he believes (Jn.5:24, 6:47). So life comes as a result of faith and not prior to faith, as the Calvinists teach. The following two verses provide even more evidence that life comes as a result of faith, and not prior to faith:

"Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God...And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you" (1 Pet.1:23,25).​

"Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures" (Jas.1:18).​

You just ignored these two verses as well as Ephesians 2:5 so perhaps next time you will actually address them.

How does this erase the fact that “has been born again.” Is in the perfect tense relative to the present tense of the participle.

If you will actually study the Greek "present" tense of verbs you will see that just because they are in the present tense doesn't mean the action started then but instead it is an ongoing action at the present time.

So why do you assume that 1 John 5:1 means that they are born again because they believe?

Because of John 20:30-31 as well as what he wrote here:

"He came unto his own, and his own received him not. But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the children of God, even to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God" (Jn.1:11-13).​

Those who "believed on His name" were given the right to become children of God so in order to become children of God they were "born of God." it was "believing" which resulted in their being "born of God." They were not born of Godbefore they believed, as the Calvinist teach.

You are completely missing the point. Remedying the Satan caused blindness (that all non-believers have because we are, by nature, children of wrath prior to being born again) is what it means to be given the “gift” of faith.

In some instances Satan blinds the minds of those who are perishing. and no one becomes a child of wrath until he sins. After all, the Lord Jesus was made like His brethren in "all things" (Heb.2:17) so it is inconceivable that anyone emerges from the womb as a child of wrath.

How else do you think the blinders get removed?

Satan does it?

We try, really, really hard and eventually find a way to remedy our own blindness?

One way Satan blinds the mind of the light of the gospel of the grace of God is through his minions (2 Cor.11:14-15) in the church at Rome because they teach a false gospel. That false gospel declares that even though salvation comes by grace through faith that "works" of one kind or another are required to be saved by grace. In that way they blind people to the true gospel of grace.

In order for the blinders to be removed from those who have been deceived a Christian needs to show them, from the Scriptures, the true meaning of the gospel of grace. Then they can see the light of that wonderful gospel and as a result they are saved,

 

[Clete]

Dialogos,

If you do not use the quote tag properly, I get no notification that you've responded to my post. How much time did you spend writing this post, that I had to go looking for to even know that it existed, which I do not usually do!

And it is clear from the context of each of those quotes that Calvin is combating the errant notion that God's choice is a reaction to human merit or effort. Calvin rebuts such notions and posits instead that the reasons for God’s choosing are His will, and His own good counsel. In no way does Calvin imply that God’s sovereign election is “arbitrary.”

This was an intentional lie!

Those quotes are not taken out of context in any way shape or form! Calvin absolutely did believe and teaches that God's choice was for no reason whatsoever other than 'His will' or that "it please Him to do so' or the equivalent. I don't care how much of Calvin's work you read, there is no other conclusion that any honest reader could come to because he wasn't the slightest bit vague or cryptic about it. He believe that proudly and used it repeatedly in perhaps a thousand sermons!

You're just a flat out liar dialogos! You either made this stupidity up and presented it as fact having never read a word of Calvin's books or else you have read them and just openly and flagrantly misrepresented them because you rightly think most everyone here hasn't read them and will believe you.

LIAR!

Hence, you are great at misquoting Calvin. That either comes because you are dishonest or mentally ill equipped to understand the context. Either way, your critique of Calvinism isn’t a critique of Calvinism as a whole or Calvin, but is a critique of an imaginary theology you have invented and projected onto Calvinists.

The problem for you is that I have the direct quotes.

Nothing in all the vast universe can come to pass otherwise than God has eternally
purposed. Here is a foundation of faith. Here is a resting place for the intellect. Here is
an anchor for the soul, both sure and steadfast. It is not blind fate, unbridled evil, man
or Devil, but the Lord Almighty who is ruling the world, ruling it according to His own
good pleasure and for His own eternal glory. – A.W. Pink

“If there is one single molecule in this universe running around loose, totally free of God’s sovereignty, then we have no guarantee that a single promise of God will ever be fulfilled.”
― R.C. Sproul, Chosen By God: Know God's Perfect Plan for His Glory and His Children

"The biblical doctrine of God’s immutability says that God is always what he is. He is never any more or any less than he is. He is not becoming. He is not changing. He is utterly reliable. He is utterly perfect. He needs nothing. He wants nothing. He lacks nothing. The word immutable means unchangable. It means God cannot be anything other than what he is. God says, “For I Yahweh do not change; therefore you, O children of Jacob, are not consumed” (Mal 3:6). As Richard Muller explained decades ago to the Open Theists (those who deny that God is immutable, who claim that God not only does not know the future but also that he cannot know or control the future and is mutable with us), the second half of that verse only makes sense if the first half is literally true.

There are even some ministers and theologians in NAPARC churches (though none in the URCs of which I know) who are challenging the confessional formulation of immutability. They seem to be suggesting that, when we consider God’s covenant with his people, we may consider that he is mutable “covenantally” or something like that. Other writers have said, in response to Open Theism, essentially, “Well, God changes a little.” Of course, both these approaches are not only unhelpful but they are profoundly false.

Our entire doctrine of providence, our entire doctrine of salvation, the covenants of redemption and grace all depend upon divine immutability. As Muller noted in 1980, if God is not immutable then we are left with an incompetent Marcionite deity." - Dr. R. Scott Clark

"Here, then, is something fundamentally necessary and salutary for a Christian, to know that God foreknows nothing contingently, but that he foresees and purposes and does all things by his immutable, eternal, and infallible will. Here is a thunderbolt by which free choice is completely prostrated and shattered, so that those who want free choice asserted must either deny or explain away this thunderbolt, or get rid of it by some other means." - Martin Luther​

I've got dozens if not hundreds of them!

You now provide us with a false dichotomy:

1. Accept that God cannot change in any way whatsoever.
2. Reject the whole of Calvinism's distinctive doctrines.

First, in God’s character, knowledge, holiness, goodness etc…, God is immutable.

You simply don't know your own doctrine! If this where the doctrine of immutability then it wouldn't be the source of controversy that it's been for centuries. This is very nearly the open theist's understanding of the way God does not change and it is a major reason, if not THE reason why reformed theologians consider open theism to be heresy!

Tell this to your pastor. I dare you!

Be prepared to get kicked out of that reformed baptist church you go to if you hold to this belief too loudly. And I'm not kidding!

What he will tell you is something along the lines of "From God's eternal perspective, everything is unchangeably ordered. But from our perspective, blah blah blah". That the passages that talk about God learning something or changing His mind are somehow lengthy figures of speech that mean that God always knew and that God does not change His mind (i.e. the opposite of what they say.)

And it flat out is not a false dichotomy! I have debated Calvinist on this specific point for years and years. The boys over on the CRTA (Center for Reformed Theology and Apologetics) web forum understood the foundational nature of immutability intuitively. None of them would move one single centimeter toward even your modified stance, which is by far the furthest anyone who called themselves a Calvinist has ever been willing to go in my presence. Calvinism absolutely does teach that God cannot change in anyway WHATSOEVER! If you think otherwise, it is you who don't understand Calvinism not me and if you reject immutability, you might as well drop the rest because I'm telling you that the whole theological construct is built on that single premise and on no other!

Perfection requires immutability.

The whole argument goes like this...

And what do you think of a second principle? Shall I ask you whether God is a magician, and of a nature to appear insidiously now in one shape, and now in another–sometimes himself changing and passing into many forms, sometimes deceiving us with the semblance of such transformations; or is he one and the same immutably fixed in his own proper image?

I cannot answer you, he said, without more thought.

Well, I said; but if we suppose a change in anything, that change must be effected either by the thing itself, or by some other thing?

Most certainly.

And things which are at their best are also least liable to be altered or discomposed; for example, when healthiest and strongest, the human frame is least liable to be affected by meats and drinks, and the plant which is in the fullest vigour also suffers least from winds or the heat of the sun or any similar causes.

Of course.

And will not the bravest and wisest soul be least confused or deranged by any external influence?

True.

And the same principle, as I should suppose, applies to all composite things–furniture, houses, garments: when good and well made, they are least altered by time and circumstances.

Very true.

Then everything which is good, whether made by art or nature, or both, is least liable to suffer change from without?

True.

But surely God and the things of God are in every way perfect?

Of course they are.

Then he can hardly be compelled by external influence to take many shapes?

He cannot.

But may he not change and transform himself?

Clearly, he said, that must be the case if he is changed at all.

And will he then change himself for the better and fairer, or for the worse and more unsightly?

If he change at all he can only change for the worse, for we cannot suppose him to be deficient either in virtue or beauty.​

That's from Plato's Republic and it is THE reason that the doctrine of immutability exists. Augustine, who all but worshiped Aristotle and even refused to become a Christian until the bible was explained to him with a Classical interpretation, introduced this line of reasoning into church.

Compare the pagan Greek philosophy of Plato and Aristotle with modern Calvinists...

"Briefly put, whatever changes acquires something new. But God cannot acquire anything new, since he is absolutely perfect; he could not be better. Therefore God cannot change.

God is by his very nature an absolutely perfect being. If there were any perfection that he lacked, then he would not be God. However to change one must gain something new. But to gain a new perfection is to have lacked it to begin with. Hence, God cannot change. If he did, he would not be God. Rather, he would be a being lacking in some perfection, not the absolutely perfect God that he is." - Dr. Norman Geisler​

I believe Calvin also saw God as impassible, which is an argument with which I would contend.

Well you don't get to pick and choose, bub! Reason doesn't work that way. The doctrine of impassibility is nothing but a subset of immutability. You cannot have one without the other. If God's state of mind is mutable then where is the desire to retain the rest of the doctrine?

“We correctly deny that God has passions… He cannot be affected by love…” - C. S. Lewis (Miracles, 1960, pp. 92 93)​

My goal isn’t to prove Calvin right, its to accurately understand and represent the infallible word of God. I believe in the doctrines of Grace not because I am committed to Calvinism but because I am committed to believing the word of God.

That's what every Christian alive says. Every single one!

They cannot all be right.

The fact is you believe Calvinism because you were taught to believe Calvinism. The "doctrines of grace" as you so blasphemously call them, cannot survive even a surface reading of the most famous texts in all of scripture so long as the doctrines are not brought a priori to the reading.

Why do your imaginations always go to the most perverted places??

Because if your logic doesn't survive there, it doesn't survive at all. God either predestined everything or he didn't.

So lets take Jefferey Dahmer as an example.

At what point did God become powerless to prevent Jefferey Dahmer from his atrocities? What moment was God forced to say, “I want to stop this from happening, but I can’t.”

"Powerless to prevent"?

You think that God's sovereignty is limited to whether He is or is not "powerless to prevent" something?

Tell that one to your pastor and watch his head spin right off his shoulders!

I'm telling you that this is not Calvinist doctrine. You might as well be an Open Theist!

Explain to me how you end up being smarter than God (may it never be) according to your interpretation of Jeremiah 19:5?

Facts:

1. God was aware of child sacrifice to the Baals when Ahaz burned his own children to Baal in 2 Chronicles 28:1-3
2. Jeremiah was written in the time of Josiah who was Ahaz’s great, great grandson.

So, either God wasn’t paying attention during the time of Ahaz (heretical view) or He forgot and the possibility slipped His mind (heretical view) or when the text says, “it did not come into my mind.” It means: “It was not in the heart of God” for this to happen.

:rotfl:

Well, you pulled it off! That's sure is one I've never heard before! :rotfl:

So, according to you, the heart of God is seperate from the mind of God; that He has parts that are compartmentalized from one another and that what God planned, predestined, ordained and commanded to happen was at odds with what was in His heart to happen.

You Calvinists just have broken minds. You literally cannot tell when you've said something that contradicts you own beliefs. In order to refute an argument that defeats one Calvinist doctrine, you make an argument that turns the entire system upside down!

None of what you quote Pink saying is inconsistent with anything I have argued. Of course God does as he pleases! Romans 9, you need to read the chapter and read it carefully.

Pink isn’t arguing inconsistently with the Westminster Confession…

How do you claim to have discussed Calvinism for 20 years and still don’t get this…?

What did I say that makes you think that I was suggesting that Pink was being inconsistent with the WCF?

No disagreement on my part.

What is misfiring in your brain that you think you’ve latched on to some inconsistency here?

If you can't see the contradiction, your mind is broken.

You cannot both choose and not choose. You cannot choose to accept irresistible grace otherwise, it wouldn't be irresistible.

Further, the bible explicitly states that people resist his will! (Luke 7:30 and elsewhere) Thus, as I said, it is not because of faith that people are saved but because God chose them before they ever existed.

If you can’t admit that God predestined “people” to be conformed to the image of Christ then you either can’t read or your theology has overridden your willingness to believe what the scriptures plainly teach.

God predestined the group of people known as "the Body of Christ" to be conformed to the image of His Son, not specific individuals.

The word “those” in Romans 8 28-29 are “people.” Not a plan, but God predestined “people.”

Right, and American Airlines have predetermined to send people from Dallas to New York several times today. They have no idea who, they just know that there are people who are going to board those planes.

Regarding John 3:16 you said: "It means exactly what it says. It isn't written in code."

No, it was written in Greek… And in Greek it isn’t a statement about the breadth of the atonement. It’s a statement about the “way” God chose to love the world.

Look up what ουτω means, it has some meaning of magnitude but is principally about method.
…”in this way..”

So are you seriously suggesting that the single most famous verse in the whole of scripture has been mistranslated every single time anyone has ever bothered to translate it into English since the 1611 edition of the King James Bible until you showed up here on TOL to correct the record?!

Is that seriously what you are suggesting!

Why can't you just read the bible and take it to mean what it says when the contexts and the words themselves make it plainly obvious that it means what it seems to mean?

The reason why is because it contradicts your doctrine. So much for sola scriptura!

False equivalency.

As lost people, God is their enemy, they are in full on rebellion against God.
And the lost person doesn’t see the cross as a gift, he/she sees it as foolishness.
Something has to change to remove the blinders and change the stone-cold heart. In your theological system, it’s all up to your lonesome.

LIAR!

It is absolutely not a false equivalency and you know it! God didn't offer the gift of salvation to people because He hated them but because He loves them!

Where is the limit to which you will twist yourself into knots in order to preserve your idiotic, self-contradictory, blasphemous doctrine?

Is there any limit?

Forgiveness isn't earned, ever.

My forgiveness was earned (i.e. paid for) by the shedding of God's own blood.


I don't have the time or the patience for the rest of you drivel.

Clete

 

[heir]

Calvinists, holding to the historical Reformed Faith of the Protestant churches, witness to the following Gospel doctrines:

Sinners are saved by the grace of God only (SOLA GRATIA), through God’s gift of faith alone (SOLA FIDE), in the righteousness of Jesus Christ alone (SOLUS CHRISTUS), as revealed to mankind from God via the Holy Scriptures alone (SOLA SCRIPTURA), to the glory of God alone (SOLA DEO GLORIA)!

Anyone who declares these Calvinist beliefs & teachings to be delusional, deny the very Gospel message that alone will save souls.

May God show mercy to those who falsely bring dark accusations against those who walk in the light of Godly TRUTH.

What is the gospel of your salvation?
Is the righteousness of God by the faith of Jesus Christ unto all?
Did the man Christ Jesus give Himself a ransom for all to be testified in due time?

 

[Dialogos]

Jerry.
First, allow me to express my appreciation to you for discussing this without all the drama and posturing that sometimes characterizes discussion on TOL. We may not agree but I appreciate your willingness to be cordial. It is greatly appreciated.

I said:
The "purpose" of believing is that those believing will have life.

To which you replied:

But Calvinism teaches that life precedes believing.

Not exactly.
Calvinism believes that regeneration precedes faith in logical priority. Calvinists don’t believe that there are some who are born again unbelievers. Most Calvinists, that I have encountered, believe that regeneration and faith happen simultaneously in a “temporal” sense, but that regeneration precedes faith in a “logical” sense. It is our regeneration that enables us to believe. In other words, we have been born again unto belief as 1 John 5:1 will show, but more on that verse later.
As the apostle Peter said:

1 Peter 1:3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! According to his great mercy, he has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, (1 Peter 1:3 ESV)

The logical order is that being born again causes us to have a living hope.
Non-Calvinists have to reverse the order. In their (your) view, hoping in Christ leads to being born again.

You just ignored the fact that when a person passes from spiritual death to spiritual life he is made alive "together" with Christ:
"Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved)" (Eph.2:5).

I don’t ignore it at all, I rejoice in it! Even when we were dead in sins, by God’s grace alone God caused us to be made alive together with Christ.

Since the life of Christ is "eternal" in nature then when a person is made alive "together" with Christ then that person's life also becomes eternal in nature. And no one receives any other kind of life prior to the time when he receives eternal life which is in the Son (1 Jn.5:11).

"Eternal" in the sense of having a definite point of origin and proceeding eternally into the future, yes. But my belief isn’t into eternity past. Respectfully, you are still missing the point of this verse.
1 Jn 5:11 clearly shows that the experience of being born again leads to belief (in logical order) not the other way around.
The way John talk about being born again in 1 John confirms this.
Here’s proof.
I John 5:1 says:

Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God, and everyone who loves the Father loves whoever has been born of him. (1 John 5:1 ESV)

“Believes” (πιστευων) is a present participle and “has been born” (γεγεννται) is a perfect tense verb. Therefore everyone who is currently believing is done being born again regardless of when that “believing” is. They have been born again unto belief.
Your conclusion is that belief precedes “being born of Him.”
But I guarantee you won’t be consistent when you see the same grammatic construction in other verses in the same letter.
For example.

1 John 2:29 If you know that he is righteous, you may be sure that everyone who practices righteousness has been born of him. (1 John 2:29 ESV)

The same construction is present. Ποιων (is a present participle and γεγεννται is the same perfect tense verb as in 1 Jn 5:1. To be consistent, you must now argue that practicing righteousness precedes being born of Him. You must now argue that one practices righteousness unto regeneration.
:jawdrop:

That’s salvation by works!

The only way that verse can be properly understood is that born again (perfect tense) is logically prior so that one is born again unto practicing righteousness.
Or the following:

1 John 4:7 Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God, and whoever loves has been born of God and knows God. (1 John 4:7 ESV)”

“Whoever loves” (ο αγαπαων) is another present participle and γεγεννται is the same perfect tense verb as 1 Jn 5:1. So now, to be consistent in your interpretation you must conclude that loving one another precedes being born again. You must argue, to be consistent, that one loves their neighbor unto being born again.
More works righteousness…?
No, the only way this verse makes sense is to conclude that the perfect tense verb (born again) is unto loving one another. The perfect tense action is completed before the action of the substantive participle.
Looking at how John uses the perfect tense form of γεγεννται (born again) makes it crystal clear that he means that it comes first. In 1 John 4:7 it comes before loving our neighbor, in 1 John 2:29 it comes before practicing righteousness and in 1 John 5:1 it comes before “believing.”

Jerry, Please address why you are willing to make 1 John 5:1 the lone exception to the way γεγεννται is used in every single other use of the form of the word in the epistle of John.

"Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God...And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you" (1 Pet.1:23,25).

Yes, but you are ignoring the fact that Peter has already told us that God has “caused” us to be born into a living hope. Of course, the living hope we are born into is the truth of the gospel.

"Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures" (Jas.1:18).

Yes, Jerry, of His own will, not our will.

Jerry said:
If you will actually study the Greek "present" tense of verbs you will see that just because they are in the present tense doesn't mean the action started then but instead it is an ongoing action at the present time.

I understand that the present tense talks about ongoing action. I don’t deny that. 1 John 5:1 says that whoever is “presently” believing – regardless of when that believing started - the selfsame person has “already been” born again (in the sense of logical priority). This is true from the very first moment anyone can be accurately described as “believing” or the verse is falsified. This means that if a person came to Christ at 8:32 AM EST, they are “believing” at 8:32 and must be described as having already been born again at 8:32 AM EST.

"He came unto his own, and his own received him not. But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the children of God, even to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God" (Jn.1:11-13).

Yes, there are a good number of things that accompany our faith. I don’t dispute any of them. Having the right to become the children of God is among them. Note, however, the verse is clear that they weren’t born by the “will of man” which you must ignore (and assume the opposite) to make the verse work to support your theology. According to the verse you just cited, the “will of man” has absolutely nothing to do with our being born again. You must believe that man wills to believe unto being born again in direct contradiction to the verse you just cited.
Finally, let us talk about 2 Cor 4:4.
Here’s where we both agree. The passage is clear that Satan, the god of this world, has blinded the minds of unbelievers. We both agree that the word of God is indispensable when it comes to preaching the gospel.
Here is where we disagree.

For the blinders to be removed from those who have been deceived a Christian needs to show them, from the Scriptures, the true meaning of the gospel of grace. Then they can see the light of that wonderful gospel and as a result, they are saved,

I completely agree that no one even knows what the gospel is until they are shown, from the scriptures. Nevertheless, your interpretation ends up being that Satan blinds the minds of unbelievers from seeing the light of the gospel and the solution is sharing the gospel.
What you are describing is like man with 20/20 vision giving a blind man directions by pointing to relevant landmarks on a map. 2 Cor 4:4 says that they are blinded from the light of the gospel so even if they see it, from the scriptures, they are still blinded.
There needs to be an intervention into the sightless state of the blind man, one that removes the blinders so that they can see and understand the very scriptures you rightly say must be explained by a faithful Christian.
The answer is clear…

For God, who said, "Let light shine out of darkness," has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. (2 Corinthians 4:6 ESV)

God must “shine in our hearts” to give us the “light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ.” In other words, God must do what only He can do, He must overcome the darkness and give us the ability to know the real, awesome, saving identity of Jesus Christ.
If ‘we’ could remove the blinders by our preaching then Paul could never have said..

The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned. (1 Corinthians 2:14 ESV)

God must intercede, opening the mind of the nonbeliever, shining His light into the mind darkened by Satan’s blinding so that they can understand the spiritual truths of the gospel.


God Bless, Jerry.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Jerry.
First, allow me to express my appreciation to you for discussing this without all the drama and posturing that sometimes characterizes discussion on TOL. We may not agree but I appreciate your willingness to be cordial. It is greatly appreciated.'

I appreciate your willingness to be cordial as well.

“Believes” (πιστευων) is a present participle and “has been born” (γεγεννται) is a perfect tense verb. Therefore everyone who is currently believing is done being born again regardless of when that “believing” is. They have been born again unto belief.

The Greek "present" tense only reveals that the believing is ongoing. It doesn't indicate when the believing started. And there is nothing which forbids the idea that the believing started at the time when a person is born again. In fact, the following two passages demonstrate in no uncertain terms that the new birth happens as a result of believing:

"Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures" (Jas.1:18).​

"Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God...And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you" (1 Pet.1:23).​

Life comes as a result of believing and not prior to believing.

I understand that the present tense talks about ongoing action. I don’t deny that. 1 John 5:1 says that whoever is “presently” believing – regardless of when that believing started - the selfsame person has “already been” born again (in the sense of logical priority).

Here John makes it plain that "life" comes as a result of believing, and not prior to believing:

"Jesus performed many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name" (Jn.20:30-31).​

In verse 31 the Greek word translated "that" is hina and it means "a Final conjunction...denoting purpose and end,to the intent that, to the end that, in order that..." (Thayer's Greek English Lexicon).

The "purpose" of believing is that you may have life.

Now let us look again at this passage:

"He came unto his own, and his own received him not. But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the children of God, even to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God" (Jn.1:11-13).​

Those who "believed" in His name were given the right to become children of God. And in order to become the children of God one must be born of God. So those who received Him were born of God as a result of their faith. They were not born of God prior to believing. You said:

Note, however, the verse is clear that they weren’t born by the “will of man” which you must ignore (and assume the opposite) to make the verse work to support your theology. According to the verse you just cited, the “will of man” has absolutely nothing to do with our being born again. You must believe that man wills to believe unto being born again in direct contradiction to the verse you just cited.

Believing something has nothing to do with a person's will. Instead, what a person believes is based on the "evidence" which he has at his disposal on any given subject. Biblical faith is described in the following way:

"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen" (Heb.11:1).​

No matter how hard you try you will find that it is impossible to believe something which is contradicted by the "evidence." You cannot will yourself to believe that five plus five is anything but ten. So a person's will plays no part in believing the gospel. And the gospel is true and it comes in power and in much assurance and in the Holy Spirit:

"For our gospel came not unto you in word only, but also in power, and in the Holy Spirit, and in much assurance" (1 Thess.1:5).​

The gospel itself provides the "evidence" that it is true and everyone should believe the gospel but some people "resist the Holy Spirit" (Acts 7:51) and they don't believe. But the evidence is there because it comes with much assurance and in power and in the Holy Spirit.

I completely agree that no one even knows what the gospel is until they are shown, from the scriptures. Nevertheless, your interpretation ends up being that Satan blinds the minds of unbelievers from seeing the light of the gospel and the solution is sharing the gospel.
What you are describing is like man with 20/20 vision giving a blind man directions by pointing to relevant landmarks on a map. 2 Cor 4:4 says that they are blinded from the light of the gospel so even if they see it, from the scriptures, they are still blinded...God must “shine in our hearts” to give us the “light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ.”

He does that by the gospel which comes in power and in much assurance and in the Holy Spirit. Paul explains that his preaching was in demonstration of the Spirit of power so that a person's faith will stand in the power of God:

"And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power: That (hina) your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God" (1 Cor.2:4-5).​

Here Paul is describing his preaching, and he is obviously speaking of the gospel which comes in the Spirit and in power. Then we see the word hina again, meaning that it is the gospel which results in a person's faith. But the Calvinists teach that faith is a gift which he gives to some people but not all.

Now I have a question for you. What kind of "life" does a person receives when he is made "alive together with Christ (Eph.2:5)?

In His grace,
Jerry

 

[Dialogos]

Clete,

Let me save you some keystrokes going forward.

I don’t care enough about your opinion of me to be phased by your name-calling. Calling me a “liar” or referring to my post as “drivel” might be self-entertaining for you but, at best, I get a little chuckle out of your temper tantrums. At worst, I simply yawn it all off. If you want to continue to stomp your feet and beat your chest to impress your friends, then do so, but it is lost on me.

Those quotes are not taken out of context in any way shape or form! Calvin absolutely did believe and teaches that God's choice was for no reason whatsoever other than 'His will' or that "it please Him to do so' or the equivalent.

And that would be because the alternative is to locate the basis for God’s choosing in man’s merit or man’s effort. Which is exactly what I said.

And it is clear from the context of each of those quotes that Calvin is combating the errant notion that God's choice is a reaction to human merit or effort.

That’s really the crux of Calvin’s argument. I find it amusing that you would continue to quote from authors who would, in no way, agree that God’s sovereign election is “arbitrary” and then accuse me of lying about what any of them said.
Calvin didn’t think God’s election was arbitrary. Neither did Pink or Sproul. R. Scott Clark doesn’t, would you like me to confirm that? They all agree on some key concepts. Among them are the notion that God’s election is based solely on his own wisdom and counsel, and solely for His own glory. That’s for sure, and I agree with them. That’s not the same as “arbitrary.” In, fact, the only way God would escape your charge of being “arbitrary” would be not to “elect” at all.

It is time to be honest, Clete.

I see very little reason for you to continue to plug your quarters into the Calvinist quote machine as if anyone is impressed by your ability to use a search engine. If God's election is “personal” (meaning God chooses individuals for any reason) then God is being arbitrary in your view, isn’t He?

You subscribe to the corporate predestination bucket theory. I’ve heard that analogy more than once. It goes like this…

“You see, it’s like God has a bucket called the “body of Christ…”

Nobody who ever read any of the passages in the Bible concerning predestination or election would get the “bucket theory” out of the text, you must import it into the text. The Bible explicitly says God predestines “individuals.”

John 6:37-39 All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out. For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me. And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day. (John 6:37-39 ESV)

God didn’t hand Jesus an empty bucket with a message written on it in sharpie that says, “the body of Christ.”
Jesus is crystal clear here, there are individuals who belong to Him and individuals who do not. Those who do will come to Him and those who don’t will not. I know you’ll try to dance like a ballerino around this passage but the word doesn’t change for your dancing.

The problem for you is that I have the direct quotes.

You have direct quotes…that don’t claim God’s election is arbitrary.

You simply don't know your own doctrine! If this where the doctrine of immutability then it wouldn't be the source of controversy that it's been for centuries. This is very nearly the open theist's understanding of the way God does not change and it is a major reason, if not THE reason why reformed theologians consider open theism to be heresy!

Calvinists and Arminians alike consider the open view to be heretical because it contradicts fundamental aspects of God’s character, namely, His Omniscience and in most cases, His Sovereignty.

Tell this to your pastor. I dare you!...
...What he will tell you is something along the lines of "From God's

You mean, he will tell me that Numbers 23:19, Psalm 102:25-28, Malachi 3:6 and Isaiah 46:10 are all true and not in contradiction to the passages where God condescends to reveal His ability to be impassioned?

Calvinism absolutely does teach that God cannot change in anyway WHATSOEVER!

I understand that some Calvinists do. And I would agree with them wholeheartedly on the question of God’s immutability. Depending on how one defines “impassibility” I might find some disagreement with the fine folks at CRTA and would certainly disagree with you on your own understanding of impassibility.

Compare the pagan Greek philosophy of Plato and Aristotle with modern Calvinists...

I’ve heard this argument before and it issues from a false premise. Namely, that if Plato said it, it must be wrong since Plato was a pagan and all. Apply the same standard to your own theology and the Open View takes a tumble as well. The pagan deities were constantly changing their minds and they moved through time with humanity. They were constantly learning, changing and sometimes surprised by the antics of humanity. Just read the Odyssey and see how Zeus interacts with Odysseus. If Calvinism falls for its similarity with Plato’s view of immutability then the Open View fails for its similarity with the Greek mythology.

These arguments from analogy aside, it simply doesn’t matter what the pagan Greeks said, it matters what the word of God says. And the Bible describes our God Who is perfect in all of His ways and does not change in His nature, goodness, being, power holiness, justice or truth. It also says that God experiences emotions and it is clear that sometimes the Word uses anthropomorphic language to describe God’s disposition.

There is really no need to pit those verses against the other, clear, verses of scripture that speak of God’s perfect, unchanging nature, His unchanging character, and His unswerving plan and purpose.

Regarding Impassibility you said:

Well you don't get to pick and choose, bub!

You have to see some irony in a guy named “Clete” calling me bub…”

Reason doesn't work that way.

Reasoning from the scriptures is the only kind of reasoning with which I am concerned. God clearly experiences emotion and also, clearly, does not change in His nature, character, goodness, plan or purpose. That stance may not be Calvinist enough for you… I don’t care.

The fact is you believe Calvinism because you were taught to believe Calvinism. The "doctrines of grace" as you so blasphemously call them, cannot survive even a surface reading of the most famous texts in all of scripture so long as the doctrines are not brought a priori to the reading.

Quite to the contrary. I was saved in an Acts 2 dispy Arminian church. I spent some time studying from a mid-acts dispy church pastor. I come by my commitment to the 5 points not by being instructed to embrace them but by my observations that you can’t escape the sovereign election of God in the Bible. I got tired of doing the parkour version of exegesis where I jumped and flipped around certain passages rather than just accept what they said.

Passages like John 6 and Romans 8 are ones I'm speaking of, passages which you have already demonstrated a remarkable facility to avoid the obvious conclusions.

You can bandy about your philosophy all day to your heart’s content but when you open the word you find the notion inescapable.

Now, regarding my comment on Dahmer you said:

"Powerless to prevent"?
You think that God's sovereignty is limited to whether He is or is not "powerless to prevent" something?

Of course not. But whether you like it, or you don’t, there is not a Christian theological framework that does not, in the end, claim that all that happens is either part of God’s active or permissive will. Everyone, to some extent, is a determinist. Either God:
1. Determines that it will happen beforehand, or
2. knows that it will happen beforehand and determines to allow it, or
3. knows, beforehand, that it could happen and is determined not to do anything to preclude the possibility, or at the very least..
4. sees it happening and determines in the moment to do nothing to stop it despite being fully capable of so doing.

There are certainly permutations of all four of these but you get the idea. Even the open view must confess that God “determines” all that occurs.

When your argument, like a boomerang, comes right back around and knocks you in the head, you know it’s a faulty argument.

Now, regarding Jeremiah 19:5 you said:

So, according to you, the mind of God is separate from the mind of God; that He has parts that are compartmentalized from one another and that what God planned, predestined, ordained and commanded to happen was at odds with what was in His heart to happen.

Where do you get this stuff?

My argument is that there are, at the very least, things that man does that God does not desire but nevertheless determines to permit.

My argument is in contrast to yours.

You appear to claim that God warned Israel not to do “x” like the pagan nations around them, who were practicing “x” (and God was aware enough of “x” to command against it) and then saw a King of Judah do exactly “x” a few generations beforehand, and yet goes on to tell us all that He had no idea anyone might ever do “x”?

*where “x” equal, offering one’s children to a pagan god through fire.

Cmon’ is your argument really that God couldn’t put 2 and 2 together? He commanded Israel not to sacrifice their children like the pagan nations that surrounded them and then saw a King of Judah do just that…! The Bible says He saw it!
“And he did not do what was right in the eyes of the LORD (2Ki 16:2 ESV)”

Why does your theology give God memory loss?

No, here’s my interpretation. God never commanded Israel to do ”x”, He, in fact, commanded them not to do “x” because He saw the nations surrounding Israel practicing “x” and it was a detestable thing. God wasn’t asleep when Ahaz did “x.” Which is why the Bible says, “he (Ahaz) did not do what was right in the eyes of the Lord….” So, when it says “x” did not come into God’s heart it means that it did not come into His heart that they “should” do such a detestable thing.
This in contrast to your ridiculous interpretation which says that such a practice just slipped God’s mind. I’ll leave it to clear-headed thinkers to discern which they think is the better interpretation.

Let’s talk about predestination, shall we?

God predestined the group of people known as "the Body of Christ" to be conformed to the image of His Son, not specific individuals.

This simply isn’t what the Bible says. I’ve heard the whole, “God has a bucket called the “body of Christ” explanation before and it doesn’t pass muster.

Romans 8 says:
“Those he foreknew He predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son.”

Your argument is that God doesn’t foreknow. In your view, He is like American Airlines. He has absolutely no blessed clue who will be on the flight from Earth to Heaven when He scheduled the flight.

Right, and American Airlines have predetermined to send people from Dallas to New York several times today. They have no idea who, they just know that there are people who are going to board those planes.

In reality, most airlines won’t take off until they have enough seats personally booked in advance to justify the expense. They foreknow more about who is going to be on their planes beforehand than you have God foreknowing about His creation before He creates. But in your analogy, it is to their credit and merit that they “have no idea who…”

Here’s the problem. Your ultimate argument hinges on God “having no idea who..” like your version of American Airlines. In other words, your argument hinges on God not foreknowing those He predestined.

Your words, “they have no idea who…”

And yet, according to the Bible, God does foreknow exactly that.

“For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined…”

Your words are in direct contradiction of the scriptures.

I find that ironic given your lecture to me about John 3:16.

So are you seriously suggesting that the single most famous verse in the whole of scripture has been mistranslated every single time anyone has ever bothered to translate it into English since the 1611 edition of the King James Bible until you showed up here on TOL to correct the record?!

Nope. I’m suggesting that the word translated “so” has more to do with the means and method of God’s love than the breadth of the atonement.

But I don’t expect you to take my lil’ ol’ word for it.

Find a way to explain how the Holman Translation renders the verse as follows.
“For God loved the world in this way…” HCSB

Or laugh at how United Bible Society defines the word “ουτω” in their Greek lexicon.

“οὕτω and οὕτως (1) adv. in this way, thus, so, in the same way, like this.”

Or, just continue to laugh like a dancing clown amusing yourself with your own ignorance.

In any event, I’ve had enough of you for today.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Calvin didn’t think God’s election was arbitrary. Neither did Pink or Sproul. R. Scott Clark doesn’t, would you like me to confirm that? They all agree on some key concepts. Among them are the notion that God’s election is based solely on his own wisdom and counsel, and solely for His own glory. That’s for sure, and I agree with them. That’s not the same as “arbitrary.” In, fact, the only way God would escape your charge of being “arbitrary” would be not to “elect” at all.

If God's election is based solely on His own wisdom and counsel and solely for His own glory where there is no difference between Joseph Stalin and Billy Graham, then it can't be anything else but arbitrary.
Here, let me highlight all the definitions that show that it is arbitrary.
All the YELLOW highlighted definitions are indisputable (election based solely on God's own wisdom and counsel).
The GREEN highlighted definition is the only one that you could dispute, and disputing that definition does not invalidate the other three which prove by your very words that God's election is arbitrary in Calvinism.

arbitrary subject to individual will or judgment without restriction; contingent solely upon one's discretion decided by a judge or arbiter rather than by a law or statute. having unlimited power; uncontrolled or unrestricted by law; despotic; tyrannical capricious; unreasonable; unsupported Mathematics. undetermined; not assigned a specific value

​

the alternative is to locate the basis for God’s choosing in man’s merit or man’s effort.

That is fairly easy to do.

Malachi 3:16-18 16 Then they that feared the Lord spake often one to another: and the Lord hearkened, and heard it, and a book of remembrance was written before him for them that feared the Lord, and that thought upon his name. 17 And they shall be mine, saith the Lord of hosts, in that day when I make up my jewels; and I will spare them, as a man spareth his own son that serveth him. 18 Then shall ye return, and discern between the righteous and the wicked, between him that serveth God and him that serveth him not.​

So, what basis for God's choosing is listed in this passage?

• they feared the Lord
• they thought upon His name
• they are righteous
• they serve God

I do not believe anyone can save themselves by works.
The truth is that people can always damn themselves by their works, but never can they save themselves by their works.

However, God is looking for precious jewels among mankind to populate His kingdom in the world to come, and those precious jewels are only found among people that fear the Lord, that serve God, that are righteous in deed and thought, and that continually seek the Lord.
Those precious jewels that God finds among mankind become the elect, the ones that God chooses to spare, and there is nothing arbitrary about His choice because He has imposed restrictions on what makes a person eligible to be chosen and what makes a person ineligible.

Proverbs 10:32 32 The lips of the righteous know what is acceptable: but the mouth of the wicked speaketh frowardness.​

The Bible tells us what to do to be acceptable to the Lord.

 

[ttruscott]

IF there was a condition that the non-elect shared that forbid their election, then none of the elect could have had that condition...which is the condition for their election, that is, they did not share the condition of the non-elect that made them unsuitable for election. Thus UNconditional election forces us to accept an unconditional non-election.

IF there was indeed no condition found in those passed over for election then they were free from all dismerit which means they were just as able to be chosen, just as perfect a candidate for election, as everyone else as there was no reason for their being passed over. No sin was found in them so they were innocent of all guilt. An unknown reason is still a condition found in them that we do not know about so only NO reason makes their non-election to be UNconditional.

This doctrine implies that innocents are suffering eternal hell for no reason. Period.

The refusal to elect innocents unto a sure salvation from future sin for no reason found in them is also a decison to choose some innocents to be condmened for any future sin and so to end in hell even if it were only a decision to ignore them.

This is a hard position to hold because 1. it contradicts HIS character as loving, righteous and just and 2. A GOD who acts for no reason (and unknown reason would make election conditional - only no reason makes our election unconditional) in such matters of a life and eternal death and suffering is especially hard to accept as such a capricious nature could not be trusted and our faith would be in a god of shifting sand which does NOT describe YHWH: Isaiah 1:18 “Come now, let us reason together,” says the LORD.

 

[Clete]

Clete,


Let me save you some keystrokes going forward.


I don’t care enough about your opinion of me to be phased by your name-calling. Calling me a “liar” or referring to my post as “drivel” might be self-entertaining for you but, at best, I get a little chuckle out of your temper tantrums. At worst, I simply yawn it all off. If you want to continue to stomp your feet and beat your chest to impress your friends, then do so, but it is lost on me.

I couldn't care less about what you do or don't care about. I don't say such things for your benefit anyway. If they happen to benefit you then that's bonus but it's not expected nor required. Your brain is broken. Why would I care about your state of mind?

I'll respond to the rest of your post when time allows.

Incidentally, you have literally dozens of color change tags throughout your post. I will not edit around them. I'll let you deal with your own stupidity.

 

[Clete]

IF there was a condition that the non-elect shared that forbid their election, then none of the elect could have had that condition...which is the condition for their election, that is, they did not share the condition of the non-elect that made them unsuitable for election. Thus UNconditional election forces us to accept an unconditional non-election.

IF there was indeed no condition found in those passed over for election then they were free from all dismerit which means they were just as able to be chosen, just as perfect a candidate for election, as everyone else as there was no reason for their being passed over. No sin was found in them so they were innocent of all guilt. An unknown reason is still a condition found in them that we do not know about so only NO reason makes their non-election to be UNconditional.

This doctrine implies that innocents are suffering eternal hell for no reason. Period.

The refusal to elect innocents unto a sure salvation from future sin for no reason found in them is also a decison to choose some innocents to be condmened for any future sin and so to end in hell even if it were only a decision to ignore them.

This is a hard position to hold because 1. it contradicts HIS character as loving, righteous and just and 2. A GOD who acts for no reason (and unknown reason would make election conditional - only no reason makes our election unconditional) in such matters of a life and eternal death and suffering is especially hard to accept as such a capricious nature could not be trusted and our faith would be in a god of shifting sand which does NOT describe YHWH: Isaiah 1:18 “Come now, let us reason together,” says the LORD.

Great point!

They will respond, or would if they decided to respond at all, that there is no such thing as "an innocent" that all are equally "totally depraved".

The problem with their doctrine isn't that they believe innocent people are sent to Hell or even that their doctrine implies such a thing. The problem is that their doctrine teaches that people are sinful, not because they sinned, as the bible teaches, but because Adam sinned and/or because God predestined that they would ("they" includes Adam, by the way).

 

[Dialogos]

I couldn't care less about what you do or don't care about...

Great! So then maybe you can stop chest thumping and actually make a few arguments.

I'll respond to the rest of your post when time allows.

Take your time, embrace some gentlemanly civility and you will find that I respond in kind.

Incidentally, you have literally dozens of color change tags throughout your post. I will not edit around them. I'll let you deal with your own stupidity.

I have no idea what those are or where they came from. I am certain you are much better than I am at using "tags". Enjoy what ought to be a very shallow reason to boast.

 

[JudgeRightly]

I have no idea what those are or where they came from.

Did you choose a non-default color in the text editor on the website? (whatever color the hex code #1c1e29 represents)

If anything, disable the font color button in the editor.

 

[Dialogos]

Did you choose a non-default color in the text editor on the website? (whatever color the hex code #1c1e29 represents)

Not intentionally.

I have been using Grammarly as a text editor for the posts. Maybe that fiddled with things.

If anything, disable the font color button in the editor.

Ok, I'll give that a shot. Its been awhile since I've posted regularly and the WYSIWYG editor has gotten a lot more feature rich...

Thanks

 

[Dialogos]

IF there was a condition that the non-elect shared that forbid their election, then none of the elect could have had that condition...

Who would be doing the forbidding? Who would be the one forbidden?

Your first assumption presumes a form of polytheism I’m not willing to accept.

IF there was indeed no condition found in those passed over for election then they were free from all dismerit which means they were just as able to be chosen,

What do you mean by “able to be chosen?”

Who would define their eligibility? Upon what criteria would that be decided?

This doctrine implies that innocents are suffering eternal hell for no reason. Period.

No. Your conclusion, derived from a hypothetical model with assumptions that are rejected because they appeal to heresies no orthodox Christian can accept (not that you yourself accept them), don’t comport with reality.

There are no innocents who have been reprobated. Your argument fails, if for no other reason, that for this one alone.

Thanks for the dialog.

 

[Clete]

Great! So then maybe you can stop chest thumping and actually make a few arguments.

Calvinists are inherently stupid.

The implication that I've not made arguments is just so much more confirmation that you are, in fact, a liar.

Take your time, embrace some gentlemanly civility and you will find that I respond in kind.

I do not treat people with respect on the come. When you've earned respect, you'll get it, not before.

I have no idea what those are or where they came from. I am certain you are much better than I am at using "tags". Enjoy what ought to be a very shallow reason to boast.

I can't imagine how they could have been put there by accident and they surely don't show up by magic. They definitely do show up when you decided to change the color of the text. They're dozens of them throughout that last big post of yours. If you think I'm making it up then hit the edit button and look for yourself.

 

[Dialogos]

Calvinists are inherently stupid.

The implication that I've not made arguments is just so much more confirmation that you are, in fact, a liar.

I do not treat people with respect on the come. When you've earned respect, you'll get it, not before.

K:

Thanks for the laughs.

:chuckle:

I can't imagine how they could have been put there by accident...

Congrats, Clete. You win the post format contest.

:first:

Proud moment for you, I'm sure....

 

[ttruscott]

Great point!

They will respond, or would if they decided to respond at all, that there is no such thing as "an innocent" that all are equally "totally depraved".

But when HE passes them over they are not guilty because supposedly they are not yet created and a figment of GOD's imagination cannot sin. They were chosen to end in hell before GOD made them sinners or they sinned by choice, ie, while innocent, real innocence if alive, or figurative if not yet created.

 

[Dialogos]

But when HE passes them over they are not guilty because supposedly they are not yet created and a figment of GOD's imagination cannot sin.

So you accuse God of injustice because He condemns figments of His imagination?

How many authors have you accused of acting unjustly because they supposedly mistreated characters in their books?

How many storytellers should we despise for condemning figments of their imaginations?

Let's start with Jesus. He told a story about a wicked and lazy servant (who, because it was a story, was a figment of Jesus imagination), by the end of the story, Jesus has the guy being cast into outer darkness where the wicked weep and gnash their teeth. But this guy is just a figment of Jesus' imagination, and according to you, presumably, all figments of imagination are innocent because they haven't "really" done anything wrong, not existing (or not existing yet). So did Jesus condemn an "innocent man?"

Is Jesus guilty of literary character abuse?

 

[ttruscott]

This quote was in response to my post:

Originally Posted by ttruscott:
IF there was a condition that the non-elect shared that forbid their election, then none of the elect could have had that condition...

Who would be doing the forbidding? Who would be the one forbidden?

GOD did the forbidding or denying their election and those not elected are those forbidden or denied election.

Your first assumption presumes a form of polytheism I’m not willing to accept.

This non-sequitur is meaningless in this context. I am speaking of GOD and HIS creation, not multiple gods which I most vehemently reject. If this is an anti-Trinity shot, it is misplaced.

What do you mean by “able to be chosen?”

I mean that if there was nothing found in them that made it impossible for GOD to elect them, that is, if their reprobation was without a condition found in them, then they were as perfect a candidate for election as those who were elected...there was no difference between them.

Who would define their eligibility? Upon what criteria would that be decided?

We are talking about there being NO condition for their reprobation. I quote again

Originally Posted by ttruscott
IF there was indeed no condition found in those passed over for election then they were free from all dismerit which means they were just as able to be chosen,

...so if there was no condition for their reprobation, who do you think defines their reprobation? GOD of course...there is no one else. The doctrine of UNconditional reprobation claims there IS no criteria.

No. Your conclusion, derived from a hypothetical model with assumptions that are rejected because they appeal to heresies no orthodox Christian can accept (not that you yourself accept them), don’t comport with reality.

My conclusions in this topic are derived from Calvinist doctrine that reprobation is unconditional as a logical extension of that reprehensible doctrine that innocents, ie, those NOT judged to be guilty of anything are chosen to be passed over for election.

There are no innocents who have been reprobated.

Theo-babble. The doctrine of unconditional reprobation says that at the time they were reprobated they had done no sin nor were they reprobate for any sin they might do...UNconditional reprobation means they were innocent of sin in GOD's estimation and you know it.

BUT: IF THEY WERE NOT INNOCENT AND THEREFORE GUILTY as you now insist, then there was a reason for their reprobation, their guilt, and it was not UNconditional reprobation at all. This also gives reason for the conditional election of the elect in that they were NOT guilty of the sin that caused the reprobation of the others.