“Confused by the issues surrounding Calvinism? Does Romans 9 teach unconditional predestination? Want to cut through some of the red tape? Then read Leighton’s book. He is charitable but gets right to the point, making a strong, biblical case for a God who is glorified by sacrificing Himself for creation and not by sacrificing creation for Himself. He makes a strong case for the God of Jesus Christ. Chapter 5 is one of the best point by point refutations of a Calvinist reading of Romans 9 that I’ve read, and I’m very grateful for this work. It will be a blessing to the church.” – Austin Fischer, author of Young, Restless and No Longer Reformed
A former Calvinistic Reformed Baptist minister and now a Professor of Theology, recounts his theological journey in and out of Calvinism. In so doing, Professor Flowers sets out to help his readers understand a non-Calvinistic “Traditional” Southern Baptist interpretation of one of the most quoted and relied upon chapters for defending Calvinistic soteriology: Romans 9. Flowers writes,
“Paul is not attempting to distinguish between those vessels eternally blessed with effectual salvation and those vessels cursed with reprobation; instead, the apostle is drawing a distinction between those vessels blessed to carry out the noble purpose of fulfilling God’s promise and those vessels hardened in their rebellion in order to ensure the fulfillment of that same promise…it is all about The Potter’s Promise to bring the Word to all the families of the earth!”
This is a 6-Session study on the biblical doctrines of salvation (Soteriology) with Dr. Leighton Flowers.
In this study we unpack the key errors of the “limited” 5-point Calvinistic perspective as contrasted with the “provisional” corporate perspective that has been more traditionally held by many Christian pastors and theologians.
The student will learn the main distinctions between the “limited” (Calvinistic) doctrines and the “provisional” (Traditionalist) doctrines regarding salvation. Dr. Flowers teaches students how to respectfully disagree with Calvinistic believers and answer the most common objections surrounding the topics of predestination, election and soteriology. There are 6 videos along with a printable student guide that will lead students through the popular Calvinistic acronym TULIP in a side by side comparison of the two main theological perspectives in dispute.
JTLEOSALA,
You wrote: “There is no problem with me if the term used differs such as : all the world”, “every creature, “all nations”. Preachers of the gospel are not omniscient.God did not reveal to them exactly who are the elect from among the vast audience that’s why the offer is universal, but only the legitimate beneficiaries are the ones who are truly saved, Those who are pseudo or “nominal Christians” are still perishing. They have not actually possessed the gift of Salvation at all that is why nothing was lost to them.”
My Response: Where are the scriptures, with an exegesis? You are just making assertions here, which amount to mere opinion, not proof.
This still doesn’t refute the scriptures which clearly show that God wants – all men everywhere – to be saved (1 Timothy 2:4; Acts 17:30).
You wrote: “Probably, Timothy has known Jesus as His Savior at an earlier age. God used the Grandma as an instrument
for his spiritual second birth”
My Response: Timothy, whose mother was Jewish, was also also taught from the scriptures from an early age. This was always the source of his faith and their faith. The point is that the sacred writings led to that saving faith which is in Christ Jesus “and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.”?
You wrote: “This means that the word of God alone is not enough for those who are spiritually dead and are not truly the beneficiaries of Christ’s death on the cross.”
My Response: Again, where are the scriptures, with an exegesis? You are just making assertions here, which amount to mere opinion, not proof. Just referring to the parable of the sower with an unsubstantiated opinion is of no value. This opinion runs contrary to what the scriptures teach about God’s word.
(Isaiah 55:11)
“So shall My word be that goes forth from My mouth;
It shall not return to Me void,
But it shall accomplish what I please,
And it shall prosper in the thing for which I sent it.”
Some of the spiritually dead are able to reject it (John 12:48). And some of the spiritually dead are able to accept it (Eph. 2:1-5).
You wrote: “Disagreement in between of us disappears when only applied to the elect sinners”
My Response: My point still stands, that the Holy Spirit converts only through the instrumentality of the word. He does not operate on the sinner, separate and apart from His word.
You wrote: “For me, “every creature” that you asked: That is in reference to all human beings, not to other living things, angels and satan not included.”
My Response: If you believe that “every creature” means “all human beings,” then you have no reason, other than your Calvinistic beliefs, to deny that God wants “all human beings” to be saved.
You wrote: In fact, Jtleosala, you used the term “Particular Redemption”
My Response: Where in the Bible do you find the term “Particular Redemption”? I have never read it anywhere in the scriptures? Again, I’m only interested in scriptural proof for your statements.
Aidan, Here I am to engage with your arguments:
Matt. 29:19 Go therefore and make disciples to ALL NATIONS, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. (this is parallel with Jesus Christ parable told in Matt. 13:3-9. the parable of the sower. I don’t have the time to type the contents of that reference here. You can read it Aidan if you want)
1. The mandate in the verse was Universal in scope and was directly given by Jesus Christ to the Disciples, not including Judas. The original disciples were already dead and so it is being picked up today by both Calvinists and Armenians. Why is it Universal in scope? Answer is: Human Preachers of the gospel are not omniscient, they don’t know who are the elect from among the vast audience. If Christ told the names of those elect, then the Disciples will do so, but this was not the way Christ want them to do, so… Aidan has no right to complain and argue with Christ here.
2. The very same seeds [gospel word of God] therefore were sown to all types of people – the 4 types of soil told in the parable of the sower, which represents the entire humanity. Only those seeds that fell on the good ground prosper while the rest of the types of soil are all failures. – Matt 13:3-9. Isn’t this a proof that few are saved and the rest are all damned?.- Then, the Calvinist is on the right rail tract concerning Particular Redemption or Limited atonement, Effectual atonement] Don’t ask me to show you the literal words “Particular Redemption”, you’re too silly if you do that here.
3. You also argue with the term used “Creature”. I’m not very sure if you hold on to Universal Salvation when that thing is only an illusion and cannot be proven in Scripture. Show me the verse that says ALL HUMANITY
Corrigendum to my previous post here dated Oct. 1, 2019 at 12:44 am:
Matt. 29:19 should be Matt. 28:19. Sorry it was just a typographical error
This is a continuation with My counter argument with Aidan McManus:
1. Aidan, according to Jesus Christ He only offered His life for the sheep. This is found in John 10:11, 15 “I am the good Shepherd. The good Shepherd gives His life for the sheep. v. 11 and in v. 15 it says again : “… and I lay down My life for the sheep”.
2. Who are the sheep? The answer is found in Isaiah 45:4 which says: “For Jacob My servant’s sake, and Israel My elect, I have even called you by your name; I have named you, though you have not known.
[“though you have not known”, means that Jacob has been identified already before before he was born as the one who is the elect and Loved by God and the one who will become Israel]
3. Then in John 10:16, Jesus said: “And other sheep [gentile believers] I have which are not of this fold; them [Gentile believers] also I must bring, and they [Gentile believers] will hear My voice; and there will be one flock and one shepherd.
If you deny this (gentile believers who belongs to the flock of Jesus), then who is the good shepherd of the Gentile believers? if you will say it’s only intended for Israel? then, who Is the God of the Gentile believers? The truth is that: according to Jesus Christ Himself ” and there will be one flock and one shepherd”
4. Then in John 17:20, Jesus in His claim for the identity of His sheep, He clearly said in His prayer: “I do not pray for these alone, but also for those who will believe [“those who will believe refers to the elect who will acknowledge Christ in the days ahead as their Savior] in Me through their word. [“through their word – refers to the witness of the disciples and preachers today]
So… Aidan your claim of Universal Salvation if you hold on to this remains ineffectual, and does not work because Christ did not offer His life for all humanity. He did it only for the sheep, not intended for the following :
1. goats 2. swine 3. tares 4. the stony ground 5. wayside soil 6. thorny ground 7. false prophets 8. the residents of Canaan that Joshua and his armies annihilated except Rahab, 8. Judas Iscariot whom Christ assured of being lost that the scripture might be fulfilled in John 17:12
If Ed C’s claim of Hitler been in Hell now, only shows that the doctrine of universal Salvation loaded in his backpack that Ed C also sponsor here has been knocked out. That is why I suggested to him to plead to God to provide Hitler a free pass or ticket in heaven so that Hitler will also be joining Jesus in heaven drinking a fine glass of : _______ I don’t know, but I’m sure Ed C.. knows it.
The Potters promise of Salvation to the elect is sure, can be depended upon at all times. It is not a false promise or a provisional promise depending on how imperfect humans will take care of it. Sponsoring that Universal Salvation when it is not true is just a false promise. No one can present here a verse in the Bible saying that all humanity on earth shall be in heaven.
Aidan McManus posted this one:
“Again, where are the scriptures, with an exegesis? You are just making assertions here, which amount to mere opinion, not proof. Just referring to the parable of the sower with an unsubstantiated opinion is of no value. This opinion runs contrary to what the scriptures teach about God’s word.”
(Isaiah 55:11)
“So shall My word be that goes forth from My mouth;
It shall not return to Me void,
But it shall accomplish what I please,
And it shall prosper in the thing for which I sent it.”
“Some of the spiritually dead are able to reject it (John 12:48). And some of the spiritually dead are able to accept it (Eph. 2:1-5).”
——Below is My counter argument with Aidan McManus——-
1. Isaiah 55:11 is parallel with Matthew 13:3-9 about the parable of the sower and is a strong scaffold concerning God’s decrees that shall come to pass. The problem that I see it is that you assume that God’s words is always effective even to the reprobates or non elect that they will also go to heaven. To be fair God’s plan is not about the salvation of all the types of soil that is why the remaining 3 types of soil were all failures. How can you argue with this to claim that the rest of the types of soil are also given the chance to be saved if they were all failures?
2. You have cited John 12:48 saying they are spiritually dead. I’m happy that you acknowledge that because a spiritually dead fallen man cannot come back to God on his own accord without first being regenerated by God. And it is God who decides as to whom He will regenerate not man. I don’t deny that the elect belongs to the spiritually dead because I believe that all humanity are sinners and are to be thrown to hell, but God pick up some in His covenant with Abraham and extended His mercy to the Gentile elect believers.
3. Eph. 2:1-5 is a passage that talks about the former status-the fallen man of the Jewish believers and Gentile believers in Christ. Here showing that the words of God are really effective to the elect by the time they will hear the gospel call. The result is that they are saved, Even if Aidan will preach multiple sermons and Bible study to the Non-Elect, it will not prosper unless God will remove from them the veil that hinders for them to see the truth and for God to restore their ears that are deaf to hear spiritual things of God. Humans cannot do the act of removing that veil and deaf ears, only God can and He alone had already done with His decision on the matter by writing and not writing the names on the book of life before time.
Who is the pronoun used “US”, and “WE” in Eph. 2? Aidan might be mistaken to refer that pronouns “US” and “WE” – to all humanity on earth that are saved.
Aidan MacManus posted this one:
“And, If God, “.. desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.” (1 Timothy 2:4) What does it mean if we say, that the devil, “..desires all men to be lost and not come to the knowledge of the truth?”
——-Here’s My Response typed below this line———-
1. The wordings used : “… desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth” in I Tim. 2:4 can create greater problems if one will use it as proof text to back up “Universal Salvation”. In this view, God is presented as an insincere and a self-contradicting God desiring all men to be saved when the rest of mankind He decided for them to be in hell. (God desires and not desire) It would also bring to the table that Christ’s blood atoned for them is futile and does not work. Also, a double punishment is served that Christ had been punished for them already and at the same time they will be punished in hell.
Others will say: “it’s because of unbelief to Christ that they are in hell”. I don’t buy this kind of reasoning because Christ died for all of the sins and this include the sin of unbelief. If Christ did not die for the sin of unbelief, then who died for them?
It would be precise if this wordings “… desires all men to be saved …” be referred to the elect people of God. In this view, God is presented as the one who is consistent and sincere to offer the gospel to legitimate beneficiaries of Christ’s atonement done at the cross of Calvary.
2. regarding the last wordings you asked: “… the devil, desires all men to be lost and not come to the …” – I cannot find this in scripture, so.. I chose to remain silent about that, unless you can show that in scripture.
jtleosala
The wordings used : “… desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth” in I Tim. 2:4 can create greater problems if one will use it as proof text to back up “Universal Salvation”
br.d
On the topic of salvation – the Calvinist mind seems to be permanently limited to the FALLACY of False Dilemma.
Bipolar Black-&-white thinking.
Its either Calvinism or Universalism
And the brain seems to exist in a state of thought-blocking beyond those two extremes.
Can’t think outside of that little box.
I suspect that is a byproduct of the indoctrination process.
I’m sorry, Jtleosala, I have only seen these responses now.
Jtleosala, you said, “So… Aidan your claim of Universal Salvation if you hold on to this remains ineffectual, and does not work because Christ did not offer His life for all humanity. He did it only for the sheep, not intended for the following :”
My Response:
I’m sorry, but what gave you the impression that I believe in “Universal Salvation.” namely, the salvation of every human being? You’ve written so much to counter an argument that I never made. Perhaps it has to do with what you are reading into 1 Timothy 2:4? Which says that God.. “desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.” It does not say that God has “determined” that all men will be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth; which is how you seem to be reading the word “desires” all men to be saved.
If only you could see that God does not “determine” what’s in men’s hearts (parable of sower), but rather, He allows man the freedom to choose between good and evil, between life and death: Then you would have no problem in understanding verses like this.
God is love (1 John 4:8,16), which means He loves “every creature” – all men – including His enemies, those who hate Him. Love is His nature, which allows all men the freedom to accept, or reject Him. I’m afraid, your view of God, truly is not the God of the Bible, a God who would condemn someone for being born dead, who, due to no fault of their own, are unable to hear and respond to His offer of eternal life. It’s all a lie propagated by the devil to deceive the many, such as yourself. And, unfortunately, you have bought into it – wholesale!
Kind regards,
Aidan
Aidan writes, “If only you could see that God does not “determine” what’s in men’s hearts (parable of sower),…”
Actually God does. God determined that all Adam’s descendants would inherit his corrupted heart. Thus, man’s heart is “is deceitful above all things, And desperately wicked;’ Consequently, no one can do good in God’s eyes. We also know that people have no faith as this comes through hearing the gospel. Without faith one cannot please God and as Paul explains, “those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh,…For to be carnally minded is death,…Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be. So then, those who are in the flesh cannot please God.” This God determined by withholding the new birth and faith.
To counter this, God does two things. In John 3, Jesus explains that one must be born again and this is the function of the Holy Spirit who thereby enables a person to see and enter the kingdom of God. So, God gives the new birth – creating the good soil JTL has argued. This then allows God to convey faith to His elect and thta faith finds a ready home in the good soil. By giving the new birth and then faith, God determines a person to believe in Christ.
Aidan posted this one:
“God is love (1 John 4:8,16), which means He loves “every creature” – all men – including His enemies, those who hate Him.”
———-Here’s My Response————
1. I argue with Aidan’s explanation in the above verse, asserting that God loves “every creature” – “all men” – including His enemies. This is false. He is again misfiring due to the following counter argument:
a. It is illogical for one to claim God loves every creature – all men, when the rest of mankind is still thrown to hell. It would be inconsistent to presume for one to be in hell as an expression of God’s love.
b. Satan is an enemy of God according to Jesus Christ in Matt. 13:39 . I say that God does not love satan and his cohorts, unless Aidan can cite scriptures to support his claim of “God loving His enemy”
Matt. 13:39 says : “The enemy who sowed them is the devil, the harvest is the end of the age, and the reapers are the angels.”
[This verse clearly says that Jesus Himself identified satan the devil as an enemy but Aidan McManus insisted that God loves including His enemies]
c. It would be inconsistent for one to claim for a “Universal Atonement of Christ” and yet the rest is still damned to hell that results to a denial of “Universal Salvation”. Aidan boldly denies “Universal Salvation” in this thread. I want to know if he also believes and endorse “Universal Atonement of Christ”. If he then believes in a “Universal Atonement done by Christ at the cross”, then He should also spouse “Universal Salvation” to become logical/Consistent of his claims.
2. Aidan McManus asserts that God is love, yet it is being dismantled in Scriptures, e.g.:
2.1 The goats which represents people are placed at the left side and are all thrown to hell according to Matt. 25:33, 41
2.2 The tares which represents people are being uprooted and bundled to be burned, while the wheat-the elect are to be brought to His barn according to Matt. 13:30
2.3 Jesus personally denied pseudo followers also claiming salvation but were denied by Jesus Christ according to Matt. 7:21-23
2.4 God loves Jacob but hated Esau according to Romans 9:13, but Aidan insisted the opposite of what Paul is telling us of Esau in the verse.
So… Aidan, claiming for a Universal Love of God is just an illusion.
Jtleosala
It is illogical for one to claim God loves every creature – all men, when the rest of mankind is still thrown to hell. It would be inconsistent to presume for one to be in hell as an expression of God’s love.
br.d
This is not a LOGICAL statement – but rather commits the FALLACY of non-sequitur.
Calvin’s god desires ALL MEN to eternal torment in a lake of fire the same way he desires ALL MEN to be saved
But this says nothing about whether or not Calvin’s god loves or does not love either of these two groups of ALL MEN.
As Calvinist D.A. Carson instructs Calvinist pastors:
-quote
“Of course you can tell unsaved people god loves them”
You just can’t tell them what TYPE of love god has for them.
We must remember that almost everything in Calvinism comes in “GOOD-EVIL” pairs.
Calvin’s god gives the gift of damnation to the MANY and he gives the gift of salvation to the FEW.
Calvin’s god holds out salvation as “greater condemnation” to MANY Calvinists
Calvin’s god holds out salvation as “not greater condemnation” to FEW Calvinists
This is the component of Gnostic Dualism which Augustine embraced from the Manicheans.
RH, writes:
“God determined that all Adam’s descendants would inherit his corrupted heart. Thus, man’s heart is “is deceitful above all things, And desperately wicked;’”
My Response: If the premise is false, then the conclusion must be false.To contend that the reason man sins today is evidence that he has “inherited” a corrupt nature from Adam — is just a wild, unfounded, assumption. To make such an assumption about God and then use it as the basis of a theory, is to twist the scriptures to your own destruction. You have assumed too much while proving nothing!
If such be true, if the reason men sin today shows that he was born with an “inherited sin nature,” does it follow that Adam inherited a corrupt nature from his Father? God was his father, Adam was a “son of God.” So far as the record reveals, Adam sinned seemingly at the first temptation to which he was subjected by Satan. Adam and Eve were tempted in the same way as men are tempted today. The appeal Satan made was to the, “lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life.” Being deceived, distrusting God, accepting the lead of Satan, Adam and Eve sinned.
Was it a depraved nature, inherited, that cause Adam and Eve to sin? Did they inherit a corrupt nature from God, their father? If not, then it does not necessarily stand to reason, that the fact that we sinned, is evidence that we have “inherited a sin nature” from our father. Not so!
Furthermore, GOD IS OUR FATHER,( Acts 17:27,28; Heb. 12:9; Gen. 1:26,27), which means that we are made in His image, not Satan’s. Just as Adam’s sin was “acquired” and not inherited from his father, so also is our sin “acquired” and not inherited from our father.
“Behold, all souls are Mine;
The soul of the father
As well as the soul of the son is Mine;
The soul who sins shall die.” ( Ezk. 18:4.)
Therefore, you will only die because of YOUR OWN SINS, and not because of Adam’s sin: Indicating initially, that we are SPIRITUALLY ALIVE when we enter into this world, BECAUSE – “The soul who sins SHALL DIE.” –
Jtleosala, writes,
a. It is illogical for one to claim God loves every creature – all men, when the rest of mankind is still thrown to hell. It would be inconsistent to presume for one to be in hell as an expression of God’s love.
My Response: If you could just get it out of your head, that God determined, even before they were born, that they would never be saved: Perhaps then, you wouldn’t have such a hateful god as yours is. It is your god who is not consistent with the true God of the Bible. God so loved the WORLD, that He gave His only begotten Son, THAT WHOEVER believes should not perish, but have everlasting life. My God’s love encompasses the WHOLE WORLD, so that WHOEVER believes should have that life.
Here’s a little rule for you: You should take words to mean what they normally mean, unless something in the context forces you to do otherwise. e.g. Jesus said, “I am the door” and called Herod a “fox.” This forces us not to interpret “door” and “fox” as we would normally use those words, otherwise it would be ridiculous to think that Jesus was a literal door, or Herod a literal fox. The context forces us not to take them literally, but as a figure of speech.
“For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.” (John 3:17). What in this context would force you to take “the world” to mean anything else, other than, the whole world? Nothing!
Jtleosala wrote:
b. Satan is an enemy of God according to Jesus Christ in Matt. 13:39 . I say that God does not love satan and his cohorts, unless Aidan can cite scriptures to support his claim of “God loving His enemy”
My Response: This is a ridiculous argument to bring up Satan and his demons when we are talking about the salvation of mankind. There is no use in arguing against the scriptures which make clear that “God is love.” So please stop making silly arguments about those angels who, in spite of His goodness and love, rebelled against God, and are now reserved for judgment.
You asked for scriptures which claim that God loves His enemies? Okay, look at (Matthew 5:44-48; Rom. 5:10; Col. 1:21).That’s why He was willing to send His Son to die for us. Jesus Himself is God, Deity. He who has seen Him has seen the Father.
Jtleosala wrote:
c. Aidan boldly denies “Universal Salvation” in this thread. I want to know if he also believes and endorse “Universal Atonement of Christ”.
My Response:
It depends what you mean by “Universal Atonement of Christ”? But man is a creature of volition (John 5:40) which fully explains why not everyone is willing to come to Jesus to have life.(c.f. Matthew 23:37; Romans 10:21).
Jtleosala wrote:
2.”Aidan McManus asserts that God is love, yet it is being dismantled in Scriptures,”
The Scriptures Respond:
“He who does not love does not know God, FOR GOD IS LOVE.”(1 John 4:8)
“And we have known and believed the love that God has for us. GOD IS LOVE, and he who abides in love abides in God, and God in him.” (1 John 4:16). Need I quote more?
As for those who go to hell? They will go to hell because THEY CHOSE to go there, in spite of God’s universal love, and goodness, and kindness.
And God loving Jacob, and hating Esau, in Romans 9:13 had nothing to do with their salvation. Esau’s salvation depended on whether or not he was willing to serve the God of Abraham.
What do you think Jesus meant in Luke 14:26, when He said, “If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and his own life also, he cannot be My disciple.”? What do you think it means here, to hate your own father, and even your own life?
Aidan posted this one:
“You asked for scriptures which claim that God loves His enemies? Okay, look at (Matthew 5:44-48; Rom. 5:10; Col. 1:21).That’s why He was willing to send His Son to die for us. Jesus Himself is God, Deity. He who has seen Him has seen the Father.”
———Here’s My Response————
1. Matt. 5:44-48 tells in itself Christ’s instructions to His disciples about their enemies, yet Aidan McManus can’t see it for himself, instead uses this verses to back up his argument concerning God’s love to His enemies.
2. Who are those identified enemies by the pronoun used “WE” in Romans 5:10, Aidan?
3. How about the identity of the pronoun used “YOU”, and “YOUR” in Col. 1:21, Who are they?
Aidan – I think you can see that JT looses his own argument
If you follow it – it concludes that the WE and the YOU in those verses concerning the church were NOT loved. Thus on this line of thinking – election is NOT an act of or a manifestation of divine love
While scripture says: But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, made us alive with Christ
Aidan posted this one:
“But, Jtleosala, does not believe that God loves His enemies.”
———-My Response———
1. How can God be able to write the names of His elect in the book of Life of the Lamb before time if He regarded them as His enemies?. The elect people of God has been originally loved already by the Creator even before He created them.
2. Aidan can only see the later part of God’s blue print plan of Salvation. Aidan seems to me that his idea of Salvation only starts at the fall of man to sin because he focuses himself to the SIN of man that made them alienated to God, so that this made him to argue with me concerning the issue of God’s enemies.
3. For, me the plan of Salvation has been done already by God as a manifestation of His love by the time He wrote the names of those people whom He loved from the foundation of the world. God had foreseen already before time that these elect people would have been alienated due to SIN, yet it does not mean that God withdraws His love for them. As a matter of fact, His ultimate plan for them as a proof of His Love to them is the last phase of the Urdo Salutis which is “Glorification”, wherein even their earthly bodies fitted to reside in heaven shall be changed into a glorified body at the coming of Jesus Christ.
4. The reprobates are still reprobates [vessels for destruction] and this does not change. How could you claim that God loves them if their destinies have been decided already before time begun? Did Christ offered His life for them? Jesus Christ declared that : “He offered His life for the sheep”, and who are the sheep? of course they are not the goats, tares, swine in scripture, not even those who claim Salvation and followers of Christ in Matt. 7:21-23. Their names has not been included in the book of Life of the Lamb before time according to:
Rev. 13:8 All who dwell on the earth will worship him [satan] , whose names have not been written in the Book of Life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.
Rev. 17:8 “… whose names are not written in the Book of Life of the Lamb from the foundation of the world …”
jtleosala
The elect people of God has been originally loved already by the Creator even before He created them.
br.d
Interesting!
Your interpretation of Romans 5:10 is then the opposite of Calvinist Jonathon Edwards
-quote
In due time Christ died for us; even while we were ungodly and sinners, enemies to God and Christ.
Edwards sees the church at Rome as once enemies – now reconciled – which means as far as Edwards is concerned – they were ENEMIES but also elect.
Perhaps you don’t believe Paul was calling the church at Rome “once enemies”.
Or perhaps you don’t believe the church of Rome was elect – and Paul was just writing that letter to a FALSE church.
JT, wrote:
1. Matt. 5:44-48 tells in itself Christ’s instructions to His disciples about their enemies, yet Aidan McManus can’t see it for himself, instead uses this verses to back up his argument concerning God’s love to His enemies.
My Response:
v.44 “But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you,”
Why so? Why must His disciples love their enemies?
ANSWER:
v.45 “that you may be sons of your Father in heaven; for He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust” v.48 “Therefore you shall be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect.”
In other words, that they may prove to be sons of their Heavenly Father who has consistently loved His enemies, sending rain and sunlight upon both good and evil (v45). They are being called upon to be like God in love.
JT wrote:
2. Who are those identified enemies by the pronoun used “WE” in Romans 5:10, Aidan?
My response:
This speaks of the time when these Christians were in the world, and had friendship of, and with the world (cf James 4:4; and John 15:19) – And thus had been enemies of God.
Go back two verses to Romans 5:8, to learn who the “WE” are; it says, “But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.” Then in (v10) “For if when we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son,..” Notice that in these verses, Paul includes himself in the pronoun “We”, telling the brethren, that It was while we were “sinners” v8, and while we were, “enemies” v10, God demonstrated His love toward us v8. Proof positive that God loves His enemies!
JT, wrote:
3. How about the identity of the pronoun used “YOU”, and “YOUR” in Col. 1:21, Who are they?
My Response:
Col. 1:21 says, “And you, who once were alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now He has reconciled”
Again, Paul has affirmed that Christians were once ” alienated and enemies” of God when they were in the world. But God demonstrated His love towards them – even while they were enemies – through the death of His Son.
But, Jtleosala, does not believe that God loves His enemies. But if those “in Christ” – the “WE” and the “YOU” – of those verses were enemies , then they were NOT loved either, if it be true that God does not love His enemies! How then is “election” a manifestation of His divine love?
Aiden writes, “that they may prove to be sons of their Heavenly Father who has consistently loved His enemies, sending rain and sunlight upon both good and evil (v45). They are being called upon to be like God in love. ”
You define the love God has for His enemies as that which provides material things (rain, sunlight, food, water, etc.). I think the love to which JTL refers is that by which God saves a person from hell. I don’t think those who end up in hell will say that God loved them and would count the material things God provided them as inconsequential.
rhutchin
I think the love to which JTL refers is that by which God saves a person from hell.
br.d
JT is arguing that prior to the becoming Christians – Calvin’s god did not love them – because they were enemies and he does not love his enemies.
On that thinking – divine love is not a divine determiner in the process of a person’s salvation.
But rather it is something Calvin’s god expresses only to persons who are part of the visible church.
br.d writes, “JT is arguing that prior to the becoming Christians – Calvin’s god did not love them – because they were enemies and he does not love his enemies.”
I think JTL would say that God did not express the full extent of His love for His elect until He brought them to salvation. God did express His love to them by preserving their lives until He saved them.
Of course we know – there are two schools of thought in Calvinism concerning whether Calvin’s god loves everyone or not.
D.A. Carson enunciates the school which asserts Calvin’s god loves everybody. But he has a different KIND of love for the non-elect. The KIND of love that designs them for eternal torment in the lake of fire – for his good pleasure.
A.W. Pink enunciates the other school of thought – where he strongly asserts Calvin’s god does not love everybody.
So apparently JT aligns himself with the A.W. Pink thinking.
Interesting that each side claims to have derived itself directly from scripture – and the others not! :-]
br.d writes, “Interesting that each side claims to have derived itself directly from scripture – and the others not! ”
And each side agrees that God expresses one “love” to those He saves and a different “love” to those He does not save.
br.d
Interesting that each side claims to have derived itself directly from scripture – and the others not! :-]
rhutchin
And each side agrees that God expresses one “love” to those He saves and a different “love” to those He does not save.
br.d
That would be the side D.A. Carson enunciates
While A.W. Pink – takes the other side – quote “God does NOT love everybody”.
But I already know your next move will be to argue Pink doesn’t mean what he’s saying – but he means whatever your currently saying. How many Calvinist quote’s have I heard – don’t really say what they say? :-]
rhutchin: “And each side agrees that God expresses one “love” to those He saves and a different “love” to those He does not save.”
br.d: “While A.W. Pink – takes the other side – quote “God does NOT love everybody”.
Which is to say, God expresses one “love” to those He saves and a different “love” to those He does not save.
rhutchin
And each side agrees that God expresses one “love” to those He saves and a different “love” to those He does not save.”
br.d
That would be the side D.A. Carson enunciates
While A.W. Pink – takes the other side – quote “God does NOT love everybody”.
But I already know your next move will be to argue Pink doesn’t mean what he’s saying – but he means whatever your currently saying. How many Calvinist quote’s have I heard – don’t really say what they say? :-]
rhutchin
Which is to say, God expresses one “love” to those He saves and a different “love” to those He does not save.
br.d
Right on time! – Calvinism is all about contorting language into an IRRATIONAL pretzel.
In this case “does NOT love everybody” is contorted to mean “a different love”.
Thanks for the example rhutchin :-]
Now this is exactly what Calvinism does to the language of scripture.
rhutchin: “Which is to say, God expresses one “love” to those He saves and a different “love” to those He does not save.”
br.d: “Right on time! – Calvinism is all about contorting language into an IRRATIONAL pretzel.”
So what. The non-Calvinists don’t have a better explanation, so we are left with the Calvinists expressing their view that God extends His love to His elect in one way and a different love or hate to the Reprobate who could care less what hairs the Calvinists split.
br.d
Of course we know – there are two schools of thought in Calvinism concerning whether Calvin’s god loves everyone or not.
D.A. Carson enunciates the school which asserts Calvin’s god loves everybody. But he has a different KIND of love for the non-elect. The KIND of love that designs them for eternal torment in the lake of fire – for his good pleasure.
A.W. Pink enunciates the other school of thought – where he strongly asserts Calvin’s god does not love everybody.
rhutchin
And each side agrees that God expresses one “love” to those He saves and a different “love” to those He does not save.”
br.d
That would be the side D.A. Carson enunciates
While A.W. Pink – takes the other side – quote “God does NOT love everybody”.
But I already know your next move will be to argue Pink doesn’t mean what he’s saying – but he means whatever your currently saying. How many Calvinist quote’s have I heard – don’t really say what they say? :-]
rhutchin
Which is to say, God expresses one “love” to those He saves and a different “love” to those He does not save.”
br.d: “Right on time! – Calvinism is all about contorting language into an IRRATIONAL pretzel.”
rhutchin
So what. The non-Calvinists don’t have a better explanation
br.d
rhutchin – I’m sorry you’re not free to acknowledge – that Calvinist voices of influence can disagree on certain issues – and part of the general Calvinist population embrace the position of one – while another part of the Calvinist population disagrees and takes up the position of the other.
I can see how one Calvinist faction asserting TRUE while the other asserts FALSE is going to reveal obvious implications. Someone who claims their position is derived from scripture is obviously wrong. And acknowledging that is simply taboo and never allowed.
So I’m sorry all of those implications are at play here for you.
So I can understand why you want to insist they are both asserting the same thing.
But in the process – this just displays yet another example of the IRRATIONAL.
And I can understand why a Calvinist would never allow himself to acknowledge that also.
br.d writes, “So I can understand why you want to insist they are both asserting the same thing.”
Which is to say, Calvinists agree that God expresses one “love” to those He saves and a different “love” to those He does not save.” Pink calls God’s attitude toward the Reprobate, “hate.” Carson says God has a different love for the Reprobate. Both agree that God expresses His love for His elect by saving them. The Reprobate don’t care for the Calvinist splitting hairs – all they know is that God doesn’t save them. The non-Calvinists don’t have a better explanation preferring not to delve too deep into this issue.
rhutchin
Which is to say, Calvinists agree that God expresses one “love” to those He saves and a different “love” to those He does not save.”
br.d
A.W. Pink – article: GOD DOES NOT LOVE EVERYBODY!
-quote
“That God loves everybody is, we may say, quite a MODERN belief. The Reformers, or the Puritans will (we believe) be searched in vain for any such concept. Read the twentieth chapter of the Revelation, the Great White Throne judgment, and see if you can discover there the slightest trace of love. The New Testament where God’s love is mentioned, *LIMITS IT* it to His own people.”
-end quote
A.W. Pink – article: The Sovereignty of God
-quote
“God loves whom He chooses. He DOES NOT LOVE EVERYBODY”.
jtleosala
October 7, 2019 at 7:24 pm
“The reprobates are still reprobates [vessels for destruction] and this does not change. How could you claim that God loves them if their destinies have been decided already before time begun?”
I know – its taboo for a Calvinist to acknowledge any possible disagreement within Calvinism for the obvious reasons.
And we can understand the Calvinist wanting to make it APPEAR otherwise using that good-ol Calvinist-DOUBLE-SPEAK.
So I’m happy to let SOT1-1 readers see Pinks’ quotes and make up their own minds. :-]
BTW, thanks very much, BR.D, for your helpful thoughts here.
Aidan.
My pleasure Aidan :-]
RH, writes:
“You define the love God has for His enemies as that which provides material things (rain, sunlight, food, water, etc.). I think the love to which JTL refers is that by which God saves a person from hell. I don’t think those who end up in hell will say that God loved them and would count the material things God provided them as inconsequential.”
My Response:
JTL never made that distinction. He just said, “unless Aidan can cite scriptures to support his claim of “God loving His enemy.”
To which I responded by citing (Matthew 5:44-48; Rom. 5:10; Col. 1:21).
These verses show that God loves His enemies, both in material terms (Mt. 5:44-48) and in regard to salvation (Rom. 5:10; Col. 1:21). They confirm the truth that God’s love for His enemies extends not only to the physical, but also to their eternal welfare. Which is in perfect agreement with Jesus’ statement in (John 3:16 -17).
“For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.
“For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.”
This statement of Jesus confirms that God’s love encompasses the whole world. That He sent His Son into the world, so that the world might be saved through Him. Notice how the scope of this love involves every person in the world.
He says, For God so loved THE WORLD……that WHOEVER BELIEVES in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. Where does Jesus make the distinctions that you and JTL are making?
Calvinists – in order to make scripture conform to their doctrine – redefine words in any verse necessary to make that verse conform.
In this case they redefine the word “World” to mean “elect” in the verses you quoted.
And in any verse that indicates God wills the salvation of “all” – the Calvinist brain essentially resolves that word to mean “elect”.
They don’t change the words in the text physically. The brain is taught to change the meaning of certain words while reading specific verses.
I’m afraid they are stuck there like quick sand.
Only a divine miracle will break through that stronghold.
br.d writes, ‘In this case they redefine the word “World” to mean “elect” in the verses you quoted. ”
Pink does this, but most Calvinists define world as “Jew and gentile.” That fits the context. Pink’s problem was that God could not love the world without saving the world and since God did not appear to be saving the world, then this verse could only be speaking of those whom God was saving.
br.d
‘In this case they redefine the word “World” to mean “elect” in the verses you quoted. ”
rhutchin
Calvinists define world as “Jew and gentile.”
br.d
Here is wisdom:
In Calvinist language what the large print giveth the fine print taketh away!
Calvinism has:
1: “Jew and Gentile” who are elect = “World”
2: “Jew and Gentile” who are NOT elect = “NOT World”.
Don’t hold your breath waiting for a Calvinist to tell the *WHOLE* truth.
Calvin’s god so loved the “Jews and Gentiles” that he:
1) Designed a select group of “Jews and Gentiles” – called the “MANY” – for eternal torment in a lake of fire.
2) Designed a select group of “Jews and Gentiles” – called the “FEW” – for salvation.
John Calvin
-quote:
“All are not created on equal terms, but some are preordained to eternal life, others to eternal damnation; and, accordingly, as each has been CREATED FOR ONE OR THE OTHER OF THESE ENDS, we say that he has been predestinated to life or to death” ( Book III, Chapter 21)
Catching up on old comments:
br.d wrote, “Calvin’s god so loved the “Jews and Gentiles” that he:
1) Designed a select group of “Jews and Gentiles” – called the “MANY” – for eternal torment in a lake of fire.
2) Designed a select group of “Jews and Gentiles” – called the “FEW” – for salvation. ”
Romans 9;11 affirms- “…it is not that the word of God has taken no effect. For they are not all Israel who are of Israel, nor are they all children because they are the seed of Abraham; but, “In Isaac your seed shall be called.” That is, those who are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God; but the children of the promise are counted as the seed….Isaiah also cries out concerning Israel: “Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, The remnant will be saved…as Isaiah said before: “Unless the LORD of Sabaoth had left us a seed, We would have become like Sodom, And we would have been made like Gomorrah.”….Even so then, at this present time there is a remnant according to the election of grace.”
br.d
Calvin’s god so loved the “Jews and Gentiles” that he:
1) Designed a select group of “Jews and Gentiles” – called the “MANY” – for eternal torment in a lake of fire.
2) Designed a select group of “Jews and Gentiles” – called the “FEW” – for salvation. ”
rhutchin
Romans 9;11 affirms- …..etc
br.d
More precisely – FOR THE CALVINIST – (insert scripture verse here) affirms :-]
Dr. William Lane Craig explains:
-quote
“It needs to be kept in mind that Universal Divine Causal Determinism is an *INTERPRETATION* of Scripture.
An interpretation that some Reformed divines themselves regard as irreconcilable with other clear teachings of Scripture.
When one’s INTERPRETATION leads one into this sort of Cul-de-sac (i.e. A LOGICAL DEAD END), it is a good idea to reassess whether one has indeed rightly interpreted scripture.” -end quote
(Four Views on Divine Providence)
br.d writes, “More precisely – FOR THE CALVINIST – (insert scripture verse here) affirms :-]”
Thank you for affirming the Calvinist use of Scripture to affirm its doctrines. Scripture is truth and truth should underlie all theological doctrine.
br.d
More precisely – FOR THE CALVINIST – (insert scripture verse here) affirms :-]
rhutchin
Thank you for affirming the Calvinist use of Scripture to affirm its doctrines. Scripture is truth and truth should underlie all theological doctrine.
br.d
Sure – and it can just as easily be affirmed that Jehovah Witnesses and Seventh Day Adventists also assert they use scripture to affirm their doctrines. And just like the Calvinist – they assert scripture underlies their theology.
And William Lane Craig notes concerning that:
-quote
“It needs to be kept in mind that Universal Divine Causal Determinism is an *INTERPRETATION* of Scripture.
An interpretation that some Reformed divines themselves regard as irreconcilable with other clear teachings of Scripture.
When one’s INTERPRETATION of leads one into this sort of Cul-de-sac (i.e. A LOGICAL DEAD END), it is a good idea to reasses whether one has indeed rightly interpreted scripture. -end quote
– Four Views on Divine Providence –
br.d writes, “Sure – and it can just as easily be affirmed that Jehovah Witnesses and Seventh Day Adventists also assert they use scripture to affirm their doctrines. And just like the Calvinist – they assert scripture underlies their theology.”
So!! That just means that the hard work of validation follows. It does not mean that we reject the need to use Scripture. At least both JW’s and SDA’s affirm the importance of Scripture as truth. Now, if we could get br.d to affirm that Scripture is truth, we might make progress.
br.d
“Sure – and it can just as easily be affirmed that Jehovah Witnesses and Seventh Day Adventists also assert they use scripture to affirm their doctrines. And just like the Calvinist – they assert scripture underlies their theology.
And that’s why William Lane Craig’s note on the problems with Universal Divine Causal Determinism as an INTERPRET ION of scripture
rhutchin
So!! That just means that the hard work of validation follows.
br.d
Exactly why I provided William Lane Craig’s comments which you seemed to have ignored for some strange reason :-]
rhutchin
It does not mean that we reject the need to use Scripture.
br.d
It highlights the fact that IRRATIONAL thinking will eventually produce an IRRATIONAL interpretation of *ANY* data.
That data doesn’t have to be scripture.
rhutchin
At least both JW’s and SDA’s affirm the importance of Scripture as truth.
br.d
That is of course what they will claim of themselves – but is it more truthful to say they are USING scripture for their ends.
rhutchin
Now, if we could get br.d to affirm that Scripture is truth, we might make progress.
br.d
AH! Calvin’s god has given you another FALSE perception
That will make it FALSE perception #14
Mr. Spoke is still keeping track of the count – and will soon derive a tend analysis from it.
We can at least reasonably predict – Calvin’s god is going to continue giving you FALSE perceptions! :-]
Oops! I spelled Mr. Spock wrong! Sorry Leonard! I’ll get it right the next time! :-]
Aidan writes, “For God so loved THE WORLD……that WHOEVER BELIEVES in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. Where does Jesus make the distinctions that you and JTL are making?”
“whosoever believes” is a participle and means “the one believing.” So the whosoever believes has eternal life. So, what happens to whosoever doesn’t believe – what does he get?
RH wrote: “whosoever believes” is a participle and means “the one believing.” So the whosoever believes has eternal life. So, what happens to whosoever doesn’t believe – what does he get?
My Response:
I would refer to [Young’s Literal Translation] as giving the proper sense here, which says, “that every one who is believing” in him may not perish,”
I just want to make clear that Jesus’ ‘First Coming’ was not to judge the world but to save it (v17). But His “Second Coming” will not be to save the world but to Judge it. But Rhutchin, your question, “what happens to whosoever doesn’t believe – what does he get?” suggests that Jesus came to the “whole world,” and not just to a select few among the Jews and Gentiles. Otherwise, why ask the question “what happens to whosoever doesn’t believe?”…. Condemnation, by the way (v18).
The question we have at hand here, is, ‘did Jesus come to save the “whole world,” or, did He only come to save an “elect few” from among the Jews and Gentiles? Let’s look to a similar passage in (John 12:46-48).
NOTICE HOW JESUS DEFINES THE “WORLD” TO INCLUDE NON-BELIEVERS
(v46) “I have come as a light into the world, that whoever believes in Me should not abide in darkness.
(v47) “And if anyone hears My words and does not believe, I do not judge him; for I did not come to judge the world but to save the world.
(v48) “He who rejects Me, and does not receive My words, has that which judges him—the word that I have spoken will judge him in the last day.
“I have come as a light into the world” – Whoever believes v46 – and then – Whoever does not believe v47 – onwards. But what does Jesus say about him who hears and does not believe? He says, “I do not judge him; for I did not come to judge the world but to save the world.” In other words, Jesus came into the world to save this man not to condemn him. Time enough for that on the last day v48.
Therefore, in all of this, the term “world” was meant to include this man who would not believe. Jesus came as a light into the world,
some would believe, and some would not believe. For those who do not believe, He does not judge, because He came not to judge the world but to save it — But the word He has spoken will judge him on the last day, when Jesus comes to judge the “world” (Acts 17:30,31).
“For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men,” (Titus 2:11).
Aidan writes, “your question, “what happens to whosoever doesn’t believe – what does he get?” suggests that Jesus came to the “whole world,” and not just to a select few among the Jews and Gentiles. Otherwise, why ask the question “what happens to whosoever doesn’t believe?”…. Condemnation, by the way (v18).”
No, it suggests exactly what the verse said, “God sent His son…” with the purpose of giving “every one who is believing” eternal life. If God so loved the world, doesn’t He also love every one who is not believing. So, “what happens to whosoever doesn’t believe?” whom God also loved as much as He loved “whosoever believeth”?
rhutchin
If God so loved the world, doesn’t He also love every one who is not believing. So, “what happens to whosoever doesn’t believe?” whom God also loved as much as He loved “whosoever believeth”?
br.d
John MacArthur
-quote
“God is angry with the wicked every day. It seems reasonable to assume that if God loved everyone, He would have chosen everyone unto salvation. Therefore, God DOES NOT LOVE the non-elect.”
A.W. Pink
-quote
“Again; is it not plain from the words ‘Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated’ that God DOES NOT LOVE everybody?”
br.d quotes John MacArthur
-quote
“God is angry with the wicked every day. It seems reasonable to assume that if God loved everyone, He would have chosen everyone unto salvation. Therefore, God DOES NOT LOVE the non-elect.”
A.W. Pink
-quote
“Again; is it not plain from the words ‘Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated’ that God DOES NOT LOVE everybody?”
Good quotes.
br.d quotes John MacArthur and A.W. Pink
John MacArthur
-quote
“God is angry with the wicked every day. It seems reasonable to assume that if God loved everyone, He would have chosen everyone unto salvation. Therefore, God DOES NOT LOVE the non-elect.”
A.W. Pink
-quote
“Again; is it not plain from the words ‘Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated’ that God DOES NOT LOVE everybody?”
rhutchin
Good quotes.
br.d
There you go Aidan – you can see by rhutchin’s response here – what I mentioned in terms of Calvinist DOUBLE-SPEAK.
This is why none of us here expect RATIONAL dialog with 99% of the Calvinist population.
Expecting a Calvinist to be RATIONAL is a form of self-abuse. :-]
br.d writes, “There you go Aidan – you can see by rhutchin’s response here – what I mentioned in terms of Calvinist DOUBLE-SPEAK.”
Again they were good quotes. Again br.d cannot explain the DOUBLE-SPEAK he alleges to be there.
br.d writes to Aidan
There you go Aidan – you can see by rhutchin’s response here – what I mentioned in terms of Calvinist DOUBLE-SPEAK.”
rhutchin
Again they were good quotes. Again br.d cannot explain the DOUBLE-SPEAK he alleges to be there.
br.d
Aidan will connect the dots! :-]
RH, wrote: So, “what happens to whosoever doesn’t believe?” whom God also loved as much as He loved “whosoever believeth”?
My Response:
They fall under condemnation for foolishly not believing in the one whom God gave, so that they would not perish, but have eternal life .
“He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.” (John 3:18).
Aidan writes, “They fall under condemnation for foolishly not believing in the one whom God gave,”
So, God loves whosoever believeth who use the faith God gave them to believe and God loves whosoever doesn’t believe who don’t believe because God did not give them faith.
rhutchin
So, God loves whosoever believeth who use the faith God gave them to believe and God loves whosoever doesn’t believe who don’t believe because God did not give them faith.
br.d
“use the faith Calvin’s god gives them” is IRRATIONAL language within Theological Determinism.
In Theological Determinism it is a misnomer to say the creature “uses” an attribute Calvin’s god DECREES the creature have. That language INFERS IN-determinism – which is mutually excluded by Theological Determinism.
More precisely the creature irresistibly “manifests” whatever attribute Calvin’s god DECREES.
br.d writes, ““use the faith Calvin’s god gives them” is IRRATIONAL language within Theological Determinism.”
Completely rational. God, by decree, gives a person faith and this faith, by decree, is the means by which a person believes.
Then, ‘In Theological Determinism it is a misnomer to say the creature “uses” an attribute Calvin’s god DECREES the creature have.”
No it isn’t. God decrees that people are born with a sin nature and without faith. This explains what Paul wrote in Romans, “Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be. So then, those who are in the flesh cannot please God.’ As you say, “More precisely the creature irresistibly “manifests” whatever attribute Calvin’s god DECREES.”
Then, “That language INFERS IN-determinism – which is mutually excluded by Theological Determinism.”
If only you could explain yourself and not just proclaim whatever seems right in your eyes.
br.d
use the faith Calvin’s god gives them” is IRRATIONAL language within Theological Determinism.”
rhutchin
Completely rational. God, by decree, gives a person faith and this faith, by decree, is the means by which a person believes.
br.d
Lets watch for your next statement – and see how it blows away this very argument :-]
In Theological Determinism it is a misnomer to say the creature “uses” an attribute Calvin’s god DECREES the creature have It is more accurate to say the creature “Manifests” those attributes Calvin’s god DESIGNS into the creature.
rhutchin
No it isn’t. God decrees that people are born with a sin nature and without faith.
br.d
BINGO!
Hence the creature simply “manifests” those attributes which Calvin’s god DESIGNED them to have.
It is a LOGICAL impossibility to “use” something that one CANNOT determine anything about.
Calvin’s god “uses” creaturely attributes as ways and means to accomplish his purposes.
He has the power to “use” them because he DETERMINES everything concerning them.
But Calvin’s god leaves NOTHING for the creature to determine about anything.
And it is a misnomer to say people “use” things they have no control over.
rhutchin
This explains what Paul wrote in Romans…..etc
br.d
I never make the silly mistake of conflating Theological Determinism with scripture.
It will always turn scripture into a contorted IRRATIONAL pretzel
rhutchin
If only you could explain yourself and not just proclaim whatever seems right in your eyes.
br.d
Firstly: Without realizing it you contradicted yourself – by first denying one of my statements and then later using it as an affirmation. Self-contradictions come in so many forms in Calvinism! :-]
Secondly
You also claim William Lane Craig and Dr. Alvin Plantinga can’t explain themselves.
So its not to difficult for SOT101 readers to see what’s going on here! :-]
br.d writes, “Hence the creature simply “manifests” those attributes which Calvin’s god DESIGNED them to have.”
In other words, God decrees that people are born with a sin nature and without faith.
Then, “It is a LOGICAL impossibility to “use” something that one CANNOT determine anything about.”
Why is that. A person is born with a mind and a certain IQ. Those with higher IQ’s accomplish more than those with lower IQs.
Then, “Calvin’s god “uses” creaturely attributes as ways and means to accomplish his purposes…And it is a misnomer to say people “use” things they have no control over.”
Why a misnomer? In the garden, Eve used the knowledge, wisdom, understanding, desires that were built in when God created her and then changed as she interacted with Adam and then Satan. Eve used that which God created in her to increase in knowledge, understanding, wisdom and desire and these changes were not forced on her by God but were the product of the mind that God gave her.
Then, ‘Firstly: Without realizing it you contradicted yourself – by first denying one of my statements and then later using it as an affirmation.”
If only you could explain that contradiction.
Then, “You also claim William Lane Craig and Dr. Alvin Plantinga can’t explain themselves.”
OK. br.d never provides Craig and Plantinga’s explanations and br.s never gives explanations for his claims.
br.d
In Theological Determinism – the creature simply “manifests” those attributes which Calvin’s god DESIGNED them to have.”
rhutchin
In other words, God decrees that people are born with a sin nature and without faith.
br.d
Well – we’re talking also about Adam here as well.
So per the LOGICAL implications of Theological Determinism – Adam “manifested” those attributes Calvin’s god DESIGNED him to have also.
Calvin’s god is the divine potter and can DESIGN creatures any way he wants to – with any attributes he wants them to have.
Now per LOGIC – any attribute Calvin’s god DESIGNS people to be born with are NOT LOGICALLY NECESSARY for Calvin’s god’s purpose for that creature.
In other words – Calvin’s god can DESIGN the vast majority of his creatures for eternal torment for the lake of fire with or without DESIGNING them with any particular attribute such as a sin nature.
However on the statement that people -quote “use” things which Calvin’s god gives them – this is a misnomer because it is a LOGICAL impossibility to “use” something that one CANNOT determine anything about.
rhutchin
Why is that. A person is born with a mind and a certain IQ. Those with higher IQ’s accomplish more than those with lower IQs.
br.d
Now rhutchin – once again you’re thinking like an IN-determinist.
In Theological Determinism – IQ is also an attribute Calvin’s god DESIGNS into the creature.
But the creature can’t DETERMINE anything with or without IQ because determining things is EXCLUSIVELY done by Calvin’s god who determines *ALL*
So in this scheme creatures don’t actually “use” information because doing so requires being able to DETERMINE something from or something about that information.
So Calvin’s god who determines things can “use” creaturely attributes as ways and means to accomplish his purposes because he has the power to DETERMINE how to “use” them. But it is a misnomer to say one can “use” something one has no control over.
rhutchin
Why a misnomer? In the garden, Eve used the knowledge, wisdom, understanding, desires that were built in when God created her and then changed as she interacted with Adam and then Satan. Eve used that which God created in her to increase in knowledge, understanding, wisdom and desire and these changes were not forced on her by God but were the product of the mind that God gave her.
br.d
You’re thinking like an IN-determinist again.
Follow the LOGIC:
To “use” [X] requires one have the power to “determine” something concerning [X].
In Theological Determinism – Calvin’s god is the only one who can determine anything about anything.
So because Calvin’s god has the power to determine something concerning [X] then it LOGICALLY follows Calvin’s god can “use” [X].
And lastly – you also claim William Lane Craig and Dr. Alvin Plantinga can’t explain themselves.
rhutchin
OK. br.d never provides Craig and Plantinga’s explanations and br.s never gives explanations for his claims.
br.d
Sorry that won’t work – you have stated Craig and Plantinga can’t explain xyz.
And so to say br.d can’t explain something is simply following that mode.
And SOT101 readers are smart enough to see what’s going on there. :-]
RH, wrote:
So, God loves whosoever believeth who use the faith God gave them to believe and God loves whosoever doesn’t believe who don’t believe because God did not give them faith.
My Response: So, you believe that the explanation as to why some are saved, and why some are lost, is because God chooses to give one faith, and not to the other? I’d like you to present a scripture to back that up.
THEY FREELY CHOSE NOT TO BELIEVE
““I have come as Light into the world.” (John 12:46).
“This is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds were evil.
“For everyone who does evil hates the Light, and does not come to the Light for fear that his deeds will be exposed.
“But he who practices the truth comes to the Light, so that his deeds may be manifested as having been wrought in God.” (John 3:19-21).
THE CHOICE WAS THEIR OWN!
Aidan
THEY FREELY CHOSE NOT TO BELIEVE
THE CHOICE WAS THEIR OWN!
br.d
Aidan – just in case you may not know – be prepared to see a lot of DOUBLE-SPEAK and duplicitous language tricks on that particular topic.
Calvinists want to say people have their own choices in Calvinism – but they must use deceptive language or hide certain things in order to promote that idea.
People exercising their own choice is LOGICALLY impossible in Calvinism.
Calvin’s god determines *ALL* things exclusively – and as such does not PERMIT humans to determine anything.
So in Calvinism the only choice the creature has is the choice Calvin’s god determined the creature to have.
Nothing more – nothing less is permitted.
And freedom in Calvinism is limited to the freedom to be/do only what Calvin’s god determines.
Nothing more – and nothing less is permitted.
Thus in Calvinism Adam was not permitted to obey.
But if you already know these things – I apologize for reiterating something you already know.
Aidan writes, “THEY FREELY CHOSE NOT TO BELIEVE…THE CHOICE WAS THEIR OWN!”
Exactly what Calvinism says. All people freely choose not to believe because they are born without faith that would enable them to choose otherwise.
Then, “So, you believe that the explanation as to why some are saved, and why some are lost, is because God chooses to give one faith, and not to the other? I’d like you to present a scripture to back that up.”
We know from Romans 10 that saving] faith comes form hearing the gospel. Ephesians 2 tells us that [saving] faith is a gift from God. In John 6, we learn that, “All that the Father gives Christ will come to Christ,…” and that “No one can come to Christ unless the Father who sent Christ draws him;” and then “everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Christ.”
So, we have
1. Those that God has given to Christ come to Christ.
2. Those hearing God come to Christ.
Thus, those that God has given to Christ will hear God
3. Faith comes by hearing God and is a gift of God.
Therefore, Those that God has given to Christ will hear God through the medium of faith.
For by grace you have been saved through faith,
Thanks Br.d, I still appreciated your input here, but only saw it just now. It’s after 12 midnight over here, hopefully tomorrow I will tackle these other responses.
Aidan
Aidan posted these ones:
“JTL never made that distinction. He just said, “unless Aidan can cite scriptures to support his claim of “God loving His enemy.”
“To which I responded by citing (Matthew 5:44-48; Rom. 5:10; Col. 1:21).”
These verses show that God loves His enemies, both in material terms (Mt. 5:44-48) and in regard to salvation (Rom. 5:10; Col. 1:21). They confirm the truth that God’s love for His enemies extends not only to the physical, but also to their eternal welfare. Which is in perfect agreement with Jesus’ statement in (John 3:16 -17).
“For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.
“For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.”
This statement of Jesus confirms that God’s love encompasses the whole world. That He sent His Son into the world, so that the world might be saved through Him. Notice how the scope of this love involves every person in the world.
He says, For God so loved THE WORLD……that WHOEVER BELIEVES in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. Where does Jesus make the distinctions that you and JTL are making?
——–Here’s My Response below this Line———–
1. God’s Elect People has never been considered enemies by God even though they rebelled and sinned. They had been elected from the foundation of the world. God does not withdraw His love towards them.
2. The enemies includes satan and his co-horts and the reprobates who has been decided from the foundation of the world to be in hell as their destiny which Aidan refuse to see and accept.
3. Aidan Mcmanus is in great trouble figuring out the term “World” used in John 3:16 insisting that God loves the entire humanity on this planet earth, yet he cannot explain why the rest are still thrown to hell. This position is illogical claiming that God loves all people yet God does not love all people and are still thrown to hell-the reprobates.
Aidan might take refuge on the reasoning like : “the reprobates go to hell because of unbelief to Christ”. Well, if Christ really offered His life for all people’s sin, then this includes their unbelief, so… why is it that they are still thrown to hell if they were already paid or atoned for? I don’t see any amount of efficacy on Aidan’s view if we will talk about the atonement provided for by Christ on the cross.
4. Limited Atonement to the elect is logical and clearly shows it’s congruency/compatibility to the doctrine of salvation. To this view, my opponent Aidan is in grave protest against God’s decision why He did not pick them [all humanity] all.
JTL wrote:
1. God’s Elect People has never been considered enemies by God even though they rebelled and sinned. They had been elected from the foundation of the world. God does not withdraw His love towards them.”
My Response:
That’s right, God still loved His enemies, who had made themselves so because of their sin and rebellion. Proof of this is that He reconciled them through His Son (Rom. 5:10; Col.1:21).
JTL wrote:
2. The enemies includes satan and his co-horts and the reprobates who has been decided from the foundation of the world to be in hell as their destiny which Aidan refuse to see and accept.
My Response:
Where is the scripture that teaches God NEVER wanted to save these people?
JTL wrote:
3. Aidan Mcmanus is in great trouble figuring out the term “World” used in John 3:16 insisting that God loves the entire humanity on this planet earth, yet he cannot explain why the rest are still thrown to hell. This position is illogical claiming that God loves all people yet God does not love all people and are still thrown to hell-the reprobates.
My Response:
If anyone is thrown into hell, it’s because they chose not to believe. They chose not to come to the Light, but to remain in the darkness because they hated the light and loved the darkness where their evil deeds would not be exposed. In short – they freely chose to reject Christ.
“I HAVE COME AS LIGHT INTO THE WORLD (John 12:46).
“This is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds were evil.
“For everyone who does evil hates the Light, and does not come to the Light for fear that his deeds will be exposed.
“But he who practices the truth comes to the Light, so that his deeds may be manifested as having been wrought in God.” (John 3:19-21). THE CHOICE WAS THEIR OWN!
JTL wrote:
Aidan might take refuge on the reasoning like : “the reprobates go to hell because of unbelief to Christ”. Well, if Christ really offered His life for all people’s sin, then this includes their unbelief, so… why is it that they are still thrown to hell if they were already paid or atoned for? I don’t see any amount of efficacy on Aidan’s view if we will talk about the atonement provided for by Christ on the cross.
My response:
Christ really did die for all people’s sin (John 1:29; 3:16). But, not all men are saved because their salvation is conditional, not unconditional as some seem to think.
Jesus gave some very clear commands as conditions upon which men could avail of the forgiveness of their sins, through His sacrifice on the cross. Under the Great commission He said that men must Believe ( Mark 16:15-16;), Repent ( Luke 24:46-49;) and be Baptized for the forgiveness of sins (Matthew 18:18-20; Acts 2:36-39). Of course, somebody is unlikely to do these things if they are ashamed of Him, and unwilling to openly confess Him before men (Matthew 10:32,33; Acts 8:35-38; Rom. 10:9-10).Therefore, one must also be ready and willing to confess Him too.
Again, Jesus made salvation conditional upon submitting to these commands, not me. If you have a problem with what He said in those passages, it has nothing to do with me, for you will have to answer to the Lord for ignoring what He has commanded (John 12:48).
Aidan writes, “That’s right, God still loved His enemies, who had made themselves so because of their sin and rebellion. Proof of this is that He reconciled them through His Son (Rom. 5:10; Col.1:21).”
By “reconciled” do you mean “saved”” So, saved all or just those that He drew to Christ?
RH, wrote:
By “reconciled” do you mean “saved”” So, saved all or just those that He drew to Christ?
My Response:
“And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to Myself.” If Christ draws all men to Himself, why are not all men saved? (Jn. 12:32)
RH: “By “reconciled” do you mean “saved”” So, saved all or just those that He drew to Christ?”
Aidan: “And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to Myself.” If Christ draws all men to Himself, why are not all men saved? (Jn. 12:32)
Jesus also said, ““Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’” We can conclude that Christ drawing all men to Himself is not the same as Christ saving all men.
Earlier, you said, ““That’s right, God still loved His enemies, who had made themselves so because of their sin and rebellion. Proof of this is that He reconciled them through His Son (Rom. 5:10; Col.1:21).” So, apparently, by “reconciled” you didn’t mean “saved.” Yet, in the verse you cited, “reconciled” does mean “saved.” What are you trying to say?
RH, you wrote:
So, saved all or just those that He drew to Christ?” Indicating that you believe that all who are drawn to Christ are saved. But then later you wrote, “We can conclude that Christ drawing all men to Himself is not the same as Christ saving all men.” Apparently contradicting what you said earlier. What are YOU trying to say?
BTW, where did I indicate that being reconciled to God, through the death of His Son, didn’t mean “saved”? How ridiculous!
Aiden writers, “So, saved all or just those that He drew to Christ?” Indicating that you believe that all who are drawn to Christ are saved. But then later you wrote, “We can conclude that Christ drawing all men to Himself is not the same as Christ saving all men.” Apparently contradicting what you said earlier. What are YOU trying to say?”
John 12 refers to Christ drawing all men to Himself. John 6 refers to God drawing a person to Christ. Two different contexts. Christ draws all peoples (NKJV) meaning generally both Jew and gentile to Himself. The Greek says “all” and does not have “men” – that is an insertion by the translators. However, it is still true that no one can come to (believe in) Christ without God also drawing them. Of those God draws to Christ, He says, “I will raise him up at the last day,” thereby guaranteeing salvation to those drawn by God to Him. No such guarantee of salvation is indicated or implied in John 12.
Then, “…where did I indicate that being reconciled to God, through the death of His Son, didn’t mean “saved”?”
You said, “God still loved His enemies, who had made themselves so because of their sin and rebellion. Proof of this is that He reconciled them through His Son (Rom. 5:10; Col.1:21).” where reconciled means “saved” but in those verses, Paul’s audience consists only of believers. Paul is encouraging believers assuring them that God has reconciled (saved) them who were formerly enemies.
When I asked if you equated “reconciled” with “saved,” you quoted John 12, “And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to Myself.” and asked, If Christ draws all men to Himself, why are not all men saved? (Jn. 12:32) Here you seem to equate Christ’s drawing of all to Himself with salvation when there is nothing in John 12 to suggest that conclusion. Certainly, “reconciled” in Romans 5 and Colossians 1 means “saved. However, “draw” in John 12 doe not mean “saved” but equating it to John 6 would tie it to salvation and indicate that all would be saved (or Universalism).
So, are you an Universalist?
Aidan McManus to RH, posted these ones :
RH, wrote:
By “reconciled” do you mean “saved”” So, saved all or just those that He drew to Christ?
My Response:
“And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to Myself.” If Christ draws all men to Himself, why are not all men saved? (Jn. 12:32)
———-Here’s My counter argument with Aidan McManus————–
1.Aidan quoted Jn. 12:32 to counter RH but failed to defend his claim of God’s love for all mankind including enemies.
2. In his post, he even asked himself : “If Christ draws all men to Himself, why are not all men saved? – then he did not provide an answer to his own question which contradicts his own claim.
3. He will again probably answer that by saying : “Because of their unbelief to Christ that is why they perish” –
I argue with him by saying: If Christ offered His life for ALL and had paid ALL sins including “Unbelief”, then why they are still damned to hell? – then Aidan will answer again, “because of their free will to choose not to believe”.
Re-post quote of Aidan’s statement: My Response:
“If anyone is thrown into hell, it’s because they chose not to believe. They chose not to come to the Light, but to remain in the darkness because they hated the light and loved the darkness where their evil deeds would not be exposed. In short – they freely chose to reject Christ.”
Aidan, isn’t it that the reprobates’ manifestation of hating the light and loved darkness are certain proofs to reveal of what they are really meant to be?
A totally depraved person have NO hope except when God the Father will draw them to Christ ; to regenerate those persons in order for them not to hate the light.
4. Aidan cannot afford to explain here, Why is it that Christ’s provision of atonement for ALL becomes futile, NO effect at all? It works only to the elect but not to the reprobates.
5. If Christ have already been punished for the sin of unbelief of the reprobates, then why there is still a need for them to be punished in hell if their sin of unbelief had been paid already?
6. Aidan had espoused a doctrine that bears conflict in itself that he cannot afford to reconcile.
Aidan posted this one:
“Where is the scripture that teaches God NEVER wanted to save these people?”
———-Here’s My Response———–
Just 2 scripture passages is enough even though there are several passages in scriptures
1. Matt. 25:32, 41 “All the nations will be gathered before Him, and He will separate them from one another, as a shepherd divides His sheep from the goats.” v. 32. “Then He will also say on the left hand, depart from Me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels.” v. 41
1.1 According to the verse cited above, How did the King described the identity or natural status of the goats? = Answer is : “Cursed”
1.2 Where is the destiny of these goats ? Answer is : “everlasting fire”
1.3 Why they were thrown to hell? Answer is: They were “cursed” . Who cursed them Aidan? – What is your answer?
while in verse 34 it says: “Then the King will say to those in His right hand, Come, you blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you FROM THE FOUNDATION OF THE WORLD”
How did the King described the sheep found in His right hand? = Answer is : “Blessed of My Father” – the elect
When did God prepare their destiny? – Answer is: the Kingdom for them was prepared already from the foundation of the world
2. Matt 7:21, 23 “Not everyone who says to Me, Lord, Lord shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My father in heaven.” “And then I will declare to them, I never knew you, depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness”
2.1 These people are also claimants of Salvation and gave themselves to do service like: casting out demons in the name of the King and have done many wonders in the name of the King, but they were all denied. If Christ really offered His life and has atoned for them, then Why is it that the King himself denied and disowned them from entering heaven?
2.2 What is the will of the Father that caused them to perish? Answer is: John 6:40 and 44
v. 40 “And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him may have everlasting life; and I will raise him up at the last day.”
[How can they see and look to the Son if the Father does not draw them to come to the Son? How can they be able to see if the veil preventing them to behold spiritual things is not removed? Can they remove it by themselves alone?]
v.44 “No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day.
So… Aidan, can you ever dispute with Christ in that verses that God did not intend to save them even if they claim Salvation for themselves?
Can they draw themselves to the Son by themselves alone without the act of Divine intervention from the Father? Jesus says: “No one can come unless…” but you argue with Christ by claiming and teaching that ALL can come through the use of their own free will”
jtleosala
1.1 According to the verse cited above, How did the King described the identity or natural status of the goats? = Answer is : “Cursed”
br.d
And this INTERPRETATION is why Calvinits won’t speak the WHOLE TRUTH about their system. And why they have evolved a library of DOUBLE-SPEAK strategically crafted to mislead.
Calvin’s god DESIGNS the vast majority of his creatures for eternal torment in a lake of fire for his good pleasure. And he DOES NOT PERMIT people to be/do otherwise than what he DESIGNS them to be/do.
The fact that Calvinists can’t speak the WHOLE TRUTH about their system becomes a RED-FLAG that they internally know something is wrong with it – which they need to HIDE.
QUESTION:
Why must the *TRUE* Gospel be enuciated with deceptive language?
jtleosala: “1.1 According to the verse cited above, How did the King described the identity or natural status of the goats? = Answer is : “Cursed””
br.d: “And this INTERPRETATION is why Calvinits won’t speak the WHOLE TRUTH about their system. And why they have evolved a library of DOUBLE-SPEAK strategically crafted to mislead.”
What does this have to do with JTL’s comment???
jtleosala:
1.1 According to the verse cited above, How did the King described the identity or natural status of the goats? = Answer is : “Cursed””
br.d:
And this INTERPRETATION is why Calvinists won’t speak the WHOLE TRUTH about their system. And why they have evolved a library of DOUBLE-SPEAK strategically crafted to mislead.”
rhutchin
What does this have to do with JTL’s comment???
br.d
How many Calvinists here at SOT101 have ever made the statement – Calvin’s god DESIGNS the vast majority of his creatures for eternal torment in a lake of fire? That answers your question.
Aidan posted this one:
“Jesus gave some very clear commands as conditions upon which men could avail of the forgiveness of their sins, through His sacrifice on the cross. Under the Great commission He said that men must Believe ( Mark 16:15-16;), Repent ( Luke 24:46-49;) and be Baptized for the forgiveness of sins (Matthew 18:18-20; Acts 2:36-39). Of course, somebody is unlikely to do these things if they are ashamed of Him, and unwilling to openly confess Him before men (Matthew 10:32,33; Acts 8:35-38; Rom. 10:9-10).Therefore, one must also be ready and willing to confess Him too.”
“Again, Jesus made salvation conditional upon submitting to these commands, not me. If you have a problem with what He said in those passages, it has nothing to do with me, for you will have to answer to the Lord for ignoring what He has commanded (John 12:48).”
———Here’s My Response———-
Aidan, why you did not include John 6:44 and 65 to your lists of those conditions?
Jtl,
YOU KEEP IGNORING WHAT JESUS TAUGHT IN FAVOR OF WHAT CALVIN TAUGHT!
Don’t you know? Do you not care that Jesus condemns such things (Mark 7:1-13)? He says, ” “Rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written:
‘THIS PEOPLE HONORS ME WITH THEIR LIPS,
BUT THEIR HEART IS FAR AWAY FROM ME.
‘BUT IN VAIN DO THEY WORSHIP ME,
TEACHING AS DOCTRINES THE PRECEPTS OF MEN.’
“Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men.” “You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition. thus invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that.” THIS IS CALVINISM AT IT’S CORE!
Yes, you quote scripture, but then, as Jesus said, “You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition. thus invalidating the word of God..”
1. Jesus taught, “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.”
But instead, you choose to believe what Calvin taught, namely, ‘that God only loved the few, that He gave His only begotten Son, for them alone, so that they alone shall not perish, but have eternal life.’
2. Jesus taught, “And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.”
But you say, no; but rather, Calvin teaches that their “condemnation” here, is that they were made “totally depraved reprobates”. In Calvinism, such reprobates are sinners who are born totally depraved, not of the elect, and are predestined to damnation. Yet, Jesus makes no mention of these as to the reason for their “condemnation” in John 3:19, or anywhere else for that matter.
Again, like Calvin, it seems, “You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition. thus invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down..”
3. Jesus taught, that salvation is conditional upon a free will response from us. He says that we must believe (John 8:24), Repent (Luke 24:47), and be baptized for the forgiveness of sins (Acts 2:38). Christians then must co-operate with God by setting their minds on the things of the Spirit (Rom. 8: 5-7) for eternal life. Through repentance, God then continues to forgive us our sins and count us as righteous, if we remain faithful in our walk with Him (1Jn. 1:5-10).
But you say, “No! but Calvin teaches that salvation is through “Unconditional Election” due to what Jesus did on the cross”. These are words that Jesus never spoke, nor did He ever imply it by what He said. Who should we to believe, Jesus or Calvin? You have decided to put your faith in Calvin! As for me, I’m going to continue to take Jesus at His word, and put my faith in Him alone.
“My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me (John 10:27). But Calvin’s sheep hear Calvin’s voice, and they follow him.
Aidan writes, “JTL: 1. Jesus taught, “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.”
But instead, you choose to believe what Calvin taught, namely, ‘that God only loved the few, that He gave His only begotten Son, for them alone, so that they alone shall not perish, but have eternal life.’”
I think JTL defines “world” as “Jew and gentile,” so that God generally loves both Jew and gentile but only gives eternal life to those He chooses from among Jews and gentiles – these God has a particular love those He saves that he does not have for those not given eternal life. Thus, we read, ““Jacob [a child of promise] I have loved, but Esau [not a child of promise] I have hated.”
Then, “JTL: 2. Jesus taught, “And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.”
But you say, no; but rather, Calvin teaches that their “condemnation” here, is that they were made “totally depraved reprobates”. In Calvinism, such reprobates are sinners who are born totally depraved, not of the elect, and are predestined to damnation. Yet, Jesus makes no mention of these as to the reason for their “condemnation” in John 3:19, or anywhere else for that matter.”
To say that “men loved darkness rather than light” is to say that they were “totally depraved reprobates.” The reason for their condemnation: ” their deeds were evil.”
Then, “Again, like Calvin, it seems, “You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition. thus invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down..””
How does JTL, supposedly like Calvin, do this??
Aidan writes, “But you say, “No! but Calvin teaches that salvation is through “Unconditional Election” due to what Jesus did on the cross”. These are words that Jesus never spoke, nor did He ever imply it by what He said”.”
Jesus said, “All that the Father gives Me will come to Me,..” This is election to JTL. What do you call it?
Then, “As for me, I’m going to continue to take Jesus at His word, and put my faith in Him alone.”
Great!! So what did Jesus mean when He said, “All that the Father gives Me will come to Me,..”?
RH wrote:
Jesus said, “All that the Father gives Me will come to Me,..” This is election to JTL. What do you call it?
My Response:
Answer: I call it coming to Christ!
Also, I have no problem with those who are “in Christ” being referred to as elect, or chosen “in Him” (Eph 1). But as you are well aware, it is not “Unconditional” if you have to believe, repent and be baptized INTO Christ.
Hence, Jesus makes these terms “conditions” for salvation, while in the name of Calvin, you and Jtl proclaim “Unconditional” election.
Again, you say – unconditional – Jesus says “conditional”. Who should we put our trust in?
And I have already answered your last question in great detail in a previous post. If you want to refer back to that, you can.
RH: “Jesus said, “All that the Father gives Me will come to Me,..” This is election to JTL. What do you call it?”
Aidan: “Answer: I call it coming to Christ!”
LOL!!! Nice try at avoiding the elephant. What about, “All that the Father gives Me…” What do you call that?”
Then, “Again, you say – unconditional – Jesus says “conditional”. Who should we put our trust in?”
Jesus said:
– “All that the Father gives Me will come to Me,…”
– “No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him;…”
– “…everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Me.”
– “you do not believe, because you are not of My sheep,…My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me.”
– “My Father, who has given [my sheep] to Me, is greater than all;…”
Let’s put our trust in Jesus.
RH, you wrote:
LOL!!! Nice try at avoiding the elephant. What about, “All that the Father gives Me…” What do you call that?”
My Response:
Finish the sentence ” will come to Me” Therefore I call that “Coming to Christ” No mention of “Unconditional Election”.
RH, you wrote:
Jesus said:
– “All that the Father gives Me will come to Me,…”
– “No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him;…”
– “…everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Me.”
– “you do not believe, because you are not of My sheep,…My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me.”
– “My Father, who has given [my sheep] to Me, is greater than all;…”
Let’s put our trust in Jesus.
My Response:
Notice how “Conditional” it is, based on those who are willing to obey God’s word. Of course, if we truly hear it we will obey, but if we turn a deaf ear to it, then we disobey the word. How does the Father draw men? Through His word, there’s no other way. Therefore, “everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Me.” But again, it’s purely conditional on man’s total free will to accept it or reject it.
John 7:17 – “If anyone wills to do His will, he shall know concerning the doctrine, whether it is from God or whether I speak on My own authority.”
Jesus has said it Himself, all you need is, ‘to be willing to do His will’ and you shall know concerning the doctrine. That completely refutes your “regeneration theory” doesn’t it?
RH: “LOL!!! Nice try at avoiding the elephant. What about, “All that the Father gives Me…” What do you call that?”
Aidan: Finish the sentence ” will come to Me” Therefore I call that “Coming to Christ” No mention of “Unconditional Election”.”
We both agree on the end of the sentence. We now need you to explain what you think the beginning of the sentence means. You seem to be going to great lengths to avoid telling us what you think it means. Calvinists say it refers to election. What say you?
Then, “Notice how “Conditional” it is, based on those who are willing to obey God’s word.”
How about explaining how you tease that conclusion out of those verses?
Then, “Of course, if we truly hear it we will obey, but if we turn a deaf ear to it,…”
If one only hears, he can disobey; if one “truly” hears, he will obey. As Jesus said, “He who has ears to hear, let him hear!”
Then, “Therefore, “everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Me.” But again, it’s purely conditional on man’s total free will to accept it or reject it.”
This is an IF-Then statement: IF one has heard and learned from the Father THEN he comes to Me.” There is no rejection stated or implied – “everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Me.” If “everyone” comes to Christ, how many reject Christ?
Then, “Jesus has said it Himself, all you need is, ‘to be willing to do His will’ and you shall know concerning the doctrine. That completely refutes your “regeneration theory” doesn’t it?
Those who are willing to do God’s will are believers. This verse says nothing about how one comes to believe or to be willing to do His will.” Nothing here about regeneration and nothing to negate regeneration.
RH, you wrote:
“You seem to be going to great lengths to avoid telling us what you think it means. Calvinists say it refers to election. What say you?”
My Response:
As I said before, I answered these verses already, refuting the false doctrines of “Limited Atonement” and “Unconditional Election” and “Irresistible Grace.” Here is a modified version below:
John 6:37a – NKJV – “ALL THAT THE FATHER GIVES ME WILL COME TO ME,..”
Who comes to Jesus? – None other than those who have heard and learned from the Father comes to Him. (Jno. 6:44-46)
(1) How do we hear and learn? We hear and learn through the word of God – 2 Timothy 3:15,16 – “and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;”
“So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.” (Rom. 10:17).
(2) God wants all men to hear and learn and be saved: – 1 Timothy 2:4 – “who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.”
(3) But the Gospel is the only means by which we can come to Him and be saved:
– Romans 1:16 – “For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.”
(4) Since the gospel was to be preached to all men, i.e. (every creature), it is therefore evident, that He wants “all men(every creature)” to “hear and learn” and be saved: Jesus said that the gospel was to be preached to – all the world – to every creature – to all nations – (Matt. 28:19; Mark 16:15-16; Luke 24:45-49; Acts 1:8).
(5) The time for all men everywhere to repent is now:
“Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent,
“because He has appointed a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness by the Man whom He has ordained. He has given assurance of this to all by raising Him from the dead.”(Acts 17:30-31)
So, we hear and learn through the word of God (2 Timothy 3:15,16):
God wants all men to hear and learn and be saved (1 Timothy 2:4):
But obedience to the Gospel is the only means by which we can come to Him and be saved (Romans 1:16,17):
The fact that the Gospel was to be preached to all men (every creature), is proof positive that God – desires all men to hear and learn and be saved (Matt. 28:19; Mark 16:15-16; Luke 24:45-49; Acts 1:8):
Through that Gospel message He is now commanding “all men everywhere to repent” ( Acts 17:30): That is therefore a command we must all obey!
(6) And, that the scriptures show that God does not “draw” men irresistibly, but allows men to freely come to, or to reject Christ (Matt. 23:37; John 5:40; Rom 10:21).
TRULY THE GOSPEL IS THE POWER OF GOD TO SAVE “EVERYONE” WHO IS WILLING TO BELIEVE.
TRULY CALVINISM IS A FALSE DOCTRINE NOT FOUND ANYWHERE IN THE WORD OF GOD!
RH: “You seem to be going to great lengths to avoid telling us what you think it means. Calvinists say it refers to election. What say you?”
Aidan: As I said before, I answered these verses already, refuting the false doctrines of “Limited Atonement” and “Unconditional Election” and “Irresistible Grace.” Here is a modified version below:
John 6:37a – NKJV – “ALL THAT THE FATHER GIVES ME WILL COME TO ME,..”
Who comes to Jesus? – None other than those who have heard and learned from the Father comes to Him. (Jno. 6:44-46)”
LOL!!! Poor Aiden. He has no response to this verse. That’s OK because no non-Calvinist has a response to it. Aiden talks about everything except that part of the verse that says, “…THE FATHER GIVES ME…” This is one of the “gotha” verses that have stymied non-Calvinists from the beginning.
rhutchin
LOL!!! Poor Aiden. He has no response to this verse.
br.d
The fact that a Calvinist will claim “someone has no response” when that someone has been responding – paints its own picture :-]
rhutchin: “LOL!!! Poor Aiden. He has no response to this verse.”
br.d: “The fact that a Calvinist will claim “someone has no response” when that someone has been responding…”
LOL!!! How about cutting and pasting that response Aiden made to “…all that God gives Christ…”
rhutchin
LOL!!! Poor Aiden. He has NO RESPONSE to this verse.”
br.d
The fact that a Calvinist will claim “someone has NO RESPONSE” when that someone has been RESPONDING – paints its own picture :-]
rhutchin
LOL!!! How about cutting and pasting that RESPONSE Aiden made to “…all that God gives Christ…”
br.d
Thanks for acknowledging the fact that Aiden made a RESPONSE.
Now the picture painted is even more obvious! :-]
From my perspective – you’re dialog with Aidan on that topic represent the typical DEAD-END.
One person’s Interpretation apposes another person’s Interpretation.
You simply choose to invalidate another person’s interpretation – while ASSUMING yours unquestionable – in the face of it eventually becoming IRRATIONAL DOUBLE-SPEAK – which you will eventually claim doesn’t exist.
The whole venture becomes sophomoric and a total waste.
Better to let scholars who are intellectually honest enough to admit they can be wrong go about it.
What is however very fruitful is learning the principles of LOGIC which empower anyone who can think clearly to discern falsehoods.
With LOGIC – anyone who can think clearly – will be able to discern the degree to which Calvinism is DOUBLE-SPEAK.
br.d writes, ‘From my perspective – you’re dialog with Aidan on that topic represent the typical DEAD-END.
One person’s Interpretation apposes another person’s Interpretation.”
What else could we expect from br.d?
rhutchin
What else could we expect from br.d?
br.d
SOT101 readers know what to expect from br.d – i.e. LOGIC – simply by reading his posts
And they know what to expect from a certain Calvinist – i.e. DOUBLE-SPEAK – simply by reading his.
And that’s a win-win situation for everyone! :-]
br.d writes, ‘SOT101 readers know what to expect from br.d – i.e. LOGIC – simply by reading his posts”
Maybe br.d could apply his knowledge of logic and explain John 6:37. So far, he is going to extreme efforts to avoid doing that.
br.d
SOT101 readers know what to expect from br.d – i.e. LOGIC – simply by reading his posts”
rhutchin
Maybe br.d could apply his knowledge of logic and explain John 6:37. So far, he is going to extreme efforts to avoid doing that.
br,d
Firstly;:
You apparently didn’t read my post above where I detailed why doing so would be nothing but a DEAD-END.
Secondly:
With all of the LOGICAL fallacies – magical thinking – and DOUBLE-SPEAK, and in so many Calvinist posts here – and quite frankly childish antics – what would one expect a Calvinist do with LOGIC?
You might consider how much complaining you’ve been doing against what Calvin’s god has DECREED come to pass. :-]
br.d writes, “The fact that a Calvinist will claim “someone has NO RESPONSE” when that someone has been RESPONDING – paints its own picture…Thanks for acknowledging the fact that Aiden made a RESPONSE.”
br.d is being deceptive here. We both know that Aiden wrote a response. My challenge was, “How about cutting and pasting that RESPONSE Aiden made to “…all that God gives Christ…”” We both know that Aiden did not respond to this part of the verse. br/. could not find a response to this challenge, so rather than state that his buddy, Aiden, did not respond to that part of the verse, he crafts a response to make the reader think that Aiden did respond to that part of the verse. Aiden’s response is available for all to see. Would anyone else like to take up the challenge and cut and paste that RESPONSE Aiden made to “…all that God gives Christ…” If you cannot find that response, then maybe you could admit it and not try to hide this and make people think that Aiden did respond to this challenge.
Aiden’s response to my challenge was, “Be careful what you ask for,…you might not be one of the recipients!” He does make a weak effort to address my challenge, saying, “It is only those who believe are given to Him by the Father. (John 6:64,65, 26-40). ” So, Aiden says that a person first believes, and is then given to Christ by God whereupon the person then comes to Christ. Given that Jesus said, ““No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him;” Aiden wants us to believe that a person must first believe in Christ in order to be given to Christ and then be drawn by God to Christ whereupon the person can come to Christ.
Does anyone think Aiden knows what he is talking about?
br.d
rhutchin – I’m being deceptive?
Below is the thread – and your post which you strategically removed.
You’re simply continuing to paint your own picture here :-]
rhutchin
LOL!!! Poor Aiden. He has NO RESPONSE to this verse.”
br.d
The fact that a Calvinist will claim “someone has NO RESPONSE” when that someone has been RESPONDING – paints its own picture :-]
rhutchin
LOL!!! How about cutting and pasting that RESPONSE Aiden made to “…all that God gives Christ…”
br.d
Thanks for acknowledging the fact that Aiden made a RESPONSE.
Now the picture painted is even more obvious! :-]
br.d: “”rhutchin – I’m being deceptive?
Below is the thread – and your post which you strategically removed.
You’re simply continuing to paint your own picture here :-]
rhutchin: “LOL!!! Poor Aiden. He has NO RESPONSE to this verse.”
Let’s go back to the challenge, “How about cutting and pasting that RESPONSE Aiden made to “…all that God gives Christ…” br.d still refuses to do that. Why? Because he knows that Aiden did not respond to this but he wants people to think that Aiden did respond. That is being deceptive. br.d understands the issue with v37 – he could admit that non-Calvinists have no response to the verse. Yet, he crafts comments that suggest Aiden did respond to the verse. Aiden responded to everything except the verse as br.d knows. It is br.d who is painting the picture here – a deceptive picture. Maybe br.d could respond to the verse and explain the part that says, “…all that God gives Christ…”
rhutchin
Let’s go back to the challenge br.d still refuses to do that. Why? Because he knows that Aiden DID NOT RESPOND to this but he wants people to think that Aiden DID RESPOND. That is being deceptive
rhutchin
October 11, 2019 at 6:57 pm
Aiden’s RESPONSE to my challenge was, “Be careful what you ask for,…you might not be one of the recipients!” He does make a weak effort to address my challenge,
br.d
rhutchin – I think you need to get your story straight – in one post you assert one thing and in another you assert the opposite.
And you want to claim someone else is being dishonest?
How am I not surprised.
rhutchin: “[br.d] knows that Aiden DID NOT RESPOND to this but he wants people to think that Aiden DID RESPOND. That is being deceptive
rhutchin” “October 11, 2019 at 6:57 pm
Aiden’s RESPONSE to my challenge was, “Be careful what you ask for,…you might not be one of the recipients!” He does make a weak effort to address my challenge,”
br.d: “rhutchin – I think you need to get your story straight – in one post you assert one thing and in another you assert the opposite.
And you want to claim someone else is being dishonest?’
Let’s look at br.d’s dishonesty. Aiden made a response to John 6:37 that purposely ignored the main point of the verse, “…All that the Father gives Me…” I then responded that Aiden had ignored this. After this, Aiden made a second response, what I called a weak response. br.d knows all this. He has joined both responses by Aiden into one response in order to say, “in one post you assert one thing and in another you assert the opposite.” I did this because I was responding to two separate responses by Aiden. So, br.d knows that Aiden did not address the issue I raised in v37 and that led to my challenge to both Aiden and then br.d have ignored.
br.d appears to want people to think that Aiden can, and had, responded to the key, and highly, contested point of v37 – “…All that the Father gives Me…” Non-Calvinists have yet to provide a coherent response to this – a point both Aiden and br.d know given their claims to understand Calvinism – and now neither Aiden nor br.d is able to offer a non-Calvinist explanation. Yet, br.d makes what I think are snide comments suggesting the opposite. If br.d has a non-Calvinist response to v37, let him provide it and stop arguing, somewhat deviously, I think, as if it had been provided.
rhutchin:
br.d knows that Aiden DID NOT RESPOND to this but he wants people to think that Aiden DID RESPOND. That is being deceptive
rhutchin” “October 11, 2019 at 6:57 pm
Aiden’s RESPONSE to my challenge was, “Be careful what you ask for,…you might not be one of the recipients!” He does make a weak effort to address my challenge,”
br.d
rhutchin – I think you need to get your story straight – in one post you assert one thing and in another you assert the opposite.
And you want to claim someone else is being dishonest?
Why am I not surprised
rhutchin
Let’s look at br.d’s dishonesty. Aiden MADE A RESPONSE to John 6:37 that purposely ignored the main point of the verse,
br.d
I think you’re still trying to kick the baby-sitter hoping to get your way.
Who here isn’t going to see through all of that?
You could easily acknowledge Aidan MADE A RESPONSE which you disagreed with
And simply lay out your case why you disagree.
And keep your posts within proper boundaries.
br.d writes, “You could easily acknowledge Aidan MADE A RESPONSE which you disagreed with”
Aiden made a response that was not responsive to the issue. He added his own language to the verse, saying that those God gives to Christ are those that believe – something the verse does not say. Even you cannot provide a non-Calvinist explanation of John 6:37, so even you, with all your logic abilities, should have recognized that Aiden’s response was made to get out of a difficult situation for which he knows there is no non-Calvinist response. Just because a person writes a “response” to a comment does not mean that he “responds” to the comment. Even you should recognize this as even you have avoided proving a non-calvinist explanation of John 6:37 preferring instead to spend a lot of energy on false representation claims and imaginary dead-ends.
rhutchin
Just because a person writes a “response” to a comment does not mean that he “responds” to the comment.
br.d
Go figure! :-]
rhutchin
Aiden wants us to believe that a person must first believe in Christ in order to be given to Christ and then be drawn by God to Christ whereupon the person can come to Christ.
br.d
rhutchin – you have a history of making false representations of others. Did Aidan say he -quote “wants people to believe” anything?
As I’ve warned you before – you’re free to post what you think logically follows with a certain position. But misrepresenting another person is not a manifestation of intellectual honesty.
As I have cautioned you before – try to make your points within proper boundaries.
rhutchin: “Aiden wants us to believe that a person must first believe in Christ in order to be given to Christ and then be drawn by God to Christ whereupon the person can come to Christ.”
br.d; “rhutchin – you have a history of making false representations of others. Did Aidan say he -quote “wants people to believe” anything?”
Aiden said, “It is only those who believe [who] are given to Him by the Father. (John 6:64,65, 26-40).” Why don’t you apply your knowledge of logic and put it together for us. Your “false representation” argument is an example of your attempt to deceive (whether you are aware of it or not.) You make false representations of Calvinism all the time but that seems to be OK. Here, I just take what Aiden said and apply it to the verse under consideration and I did it accurately – you don’t see Aiden challenging what I said. Yet, apparently wanting to protect Aiden, you are making false statements about my alleged “false representation” when you cannot even figure out what Aiden said and seem to assume that I also could not figure it out. You are the logic king, so here is a good opportunity for you to prove that you actually understand logic and can frame a logical argument.
rhutchin
Aiden said, “It is only those who believe [who] are given to Him by the Father.
br.d
Where did Aidan state he -quote “wants people to believe” what he himself personally believes?
Again you are free to post what you believe logically follows from a person’s position
But not free to make false representations of a person.
At this point – I think you’re simply kicking the baby-sitter hoping to get your way.
br.d writes, “Where did Aidan state he -quote “wants people to believe” what he himself personally believes?”
Why would anyone argue a point they believe to be true if they did not want to convince others of the truth of what they belief. Aiden said, ““It is only those who believe [who] are given to Him by the Father.” in response to my challenge for him to explain John 6:37. Why would he respond if he did not want me to believe him?? What is br’d arguing here?
rhutchin
Why would he respond if he did not want me to believe him?? What is br’d arguing here?
br.d
rhutchin – again – you’re free to represent yourself – but not free to misrepresent others.
How many times does this need to be reiterated?
If you disagree with a position – lay out your case on how you disagree.
Its just that simple!
br.d writes, ‘rhutchin – again – you’re free to represent yourself – but not free to misrepresent others.”
Until Aiden explains his rationale in providing his response, you are essentially misrepresenting him. Why is it OK for you to do that and not me, if indeed, I actually did what you claim – because you offered no proof of your claim.
rhutchin
Until Aiden explains his rationale in providing his response, you are essentially misrepresenting him.
br.d
Ok – here you are acknowledging once again that Aidan gave a RESPONSE
I hope that puts that question to rest!
And you disagreed with that RESPONSE – that is obvious.
Again – you are free to lay out why you disagree.
On this last statement – it would follow – I am misrepresenting the very thing both of us acknowledge.
RH, mockingly writes;
LOL!!! How about cutting and pasting that response Aiden made to “…all that God gives Christ…”
My Response:
Be careful what you ask for,…you might not be one of the recipients!
And the gift in Ephesians 2 is not faith, but salvation!
And if anyone cares to read through John 6, it is only those who believe can come to Jesus (v.64,65). It is only those who believe are given to Him by the Father. (John 6:64,65, 26-40).
Go figure!
RH wrote:
I think JTL defines “world” as “Jew and gentile,” so that God generally loves both Jew and gentile but only gives eternal life to those He chooses from among Jews and gentiles – these God has a particular love those He saves that he does not have for those not given eternal life. Thus, we read, ““Jacob [a child of promise] I have loved, but Esau [not a child of promise] I have hated.”
My Response:
Your view about the meaning of John 3:16 comes from Calvin, and not from you or Jtl, which is why you refuse to believe in Jesus. If you were to simply stating that the world is made up of Jews and Gentiles, then we’d have no problem. It would simply be stating the obvious, namely, that God loves the world which is comprised of Jews and Gentiles, because He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.”
Where in John 3:16 did Jesus say, or imply, that God loved one group and hated another, as you have just indicated with your Jacob and Esau analogy? Let’s stick to what Jesus actually said, instead referring to what Calvin taught.
Jesus made no distinction in the love that God had for the World. The extent and depth of that love for the Jews and Gentiles – (The World) – is what Jesus is emphasizing here. In other words, God loved the world so much – that He gave His only begotten Son for it. This was the ultimate expression of God’s love for the whole world – made up of Jews and Gentiles. And so, Jesus expressed no limit to the scope of God’s saving love. This was God’s part: – In that His Son made the ultimate sacrifice for the world.
But then there’s man’s part: “that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.” Remember who He gave His life for here. He made the ultimate sacrifice for the WORLD. That’s who it was for: His Son was given for the world. Why so? – so that, “WHOEVER” believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life. It is very simple when you are prepared to actually listen to what Jesus is saying here without any pre-conceived ideas.
RH wrote:
To say that “men loved darkness rather than light” is to say that they were “totally depraved reprobates.” The reason for their condemnation: ” their deeds were evil.”
My response:
That’s not what Jtl said, nor is it what you truly believe!
Here’s what followers of Calvin believe;
JTL wrote:
This position is illogical claiming that God loves all people yet God does not love all people and are still thrown to hell-the reprobates.
“the reprobates who has been decided from the foundation of the world to be in hell as their destiny which Aidan refuse to see and accept.”
“that God did not intend to save them even if they claim Salvation for themselves”
According to Calvin, the reason that these people are lost is because God does not love all people – He had determined from before the foundation of the world that hell would be their destiny – He never intended to save them.
Isn’t this what you truly proclaim?
Aidan asks, “Where in John 3:16 did Jesus say, or imply, that God loved one group and hated another, as you have just indicated with your Jacob and Esau analogy?”
John 3:16 tells us that God gave his son so that those who believe will have eternal life. We can easily conclude that God loves this group of people. What about those who don’t believe? v18 says “he who does not believe is condemned already.” One group receives eternal life and the other group is condemned. Does God love each group equally? If you ask those who are condemned, they would say, No. The non-Calvinist need only explain how they see God loving those to whom He gives eternal life equally with those whom He condemns when God has both the power and the authority to give eternal life to both groups and does not.
Then, “The extent and depth of that love for the Jews and Gentiles – (The World) – is what Jesus is emphasizing here.”
the key word here is “extent” and both Calvinists and non-calvinists agree on the extent of God’s love. However, as John Owen explained in “Death of Death…” the real issue is “intent.” God’s intent in giving His son is to save those who believe and not those who do not believe. Here is the distinction made in the love of God for His elect (Jacob have I loved) and His hatred for the reprobate (Esau have I hated).
Then, ‘But then there’s man’s part: “that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.””
A person cannot believe without faith and faith is a gift of God. When God gives a person the assurance and conviction that characterizes faith, a person believes. Without the gift of faith, a person cannot believe and is condemned – not for his lack of faith but for his sin.
Then, “According to Calvin, the reason that these people are lost is because God does not love all people – He had determined from before the foundation of the world that hell would be their destiny – He never intended to save them.”
In Ephesians 1, Paul, speaking to the believers, says, “He chose us in Christ before the foundation of the world…having predestined us to adoption as sons…according to the good pleasure of His will,…In Him also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestined according to the purpose of Him who works all things according to the counsel of His will,…”
People are saved according to the good pleasure of God’s will and according to His purpose. If a person is not saved, then that decision is also according to the good pleasure of God’s will and according to His purpose.
rhutchin
The non-Calvinist need only explain how they see God loving those to whom He gives eternal life equally with those whom He condemns when God has both the power and the authority to give eternal life to both groups and does not.
br.d
As a Non-Calvinist I can easily explain how the Calvinist has a THEOS whose TYPE of love for the MANY is to DESIGN them for eternal torment in a lake of fire for his good pleasure.
Mixing 1 part Gnosticism – with 1 part NeoPlatonism – with 1 part Christianity – results in a GOOD-EVIL THEOS.
Gnosticism contains a GOOD-EVIL DUALISM – where “good” and “evil” are Co-equal, Co-necessary, and Co-complimentary.
As Jon Edwards would expresses it:
The glory of GOOD can scarce shine forth without the glory of EVIL
Both the Gnostics and the NeoPlatonists called EVIL beautiful
As Augustine expressed it:
This is Antithesis – and is beautiful in contemplation.
rhutchin: “The non-Calvinist need only explain…”
br.d: “As a Non-Calvinist I can easily explain how the Calvinist …”
LOL!!! Poor br.d. As a non-Calvinist, br.d cannot explain non-Calvinism.
rhutchin
LOL!!! Poor br.d. As a non-Calvinist, br.d cannot explain non-Calvinism.
br.d
AH! Now here Calvin’s god has given you FALSE perception #9.
I’m still counting all of these FALSE perceptions Calvin’s god determines you to have rhutchin.
It is entertaining to watch :-]
Aidan McManus, you failed to counter argue with me in the verses below. instead of arguing with Christ in the verse, you say so many ad hominem to Calvin but cannot present your counter argument against Jesus Christ in the verse and the question addressed for you. Why?
1. Matt. 25:32, 41 “All the nations will be gathered before Him, and He will separate them from one another, as a shepherd divides His sheep from the goats.” v. 32. “Then He will also say on the left hand, depart from Me, YE CURSED, into EVERLASTING FIRE prepared for the devil and his angels.” v. 41
1.1 According to the verse cited above, How did the King described the identity or natural status of the goats? = Answer is : “Cursed”
1.2 Where is the destiny of these goats ? Answer is : “everlasting fire”
1.3 Why they were thrown to hell? Answer is: They were “cursed” .
Who cursed them Aidan? – What is your answer?
Jtleosala
Who cursed them Aidan? – What is your answer?
br.d
In Theological Determinism (aka Calvinism) – who cursed Adam?
Br.D is misfiring again even though the question was not addressed to him. Br.D is afraid to answer his own question:, i.e.: Who cursed Adam? – without using verses in scriptures to support his answer. He knows that there is a passage for that in the book of Genesis. I don’t know why he is afraid to write here the correct answer.
Here is the second question : Who cursed Cain Br.D.? – What is your answer Br.D from the Bible? __________ ?
jtleosala
Br.D …..knows there is a passage for that in the book of Genesis…..etc
br.d
First things first
Representing Calvinism – you have a verse in Genesis you assert explicitly states who cursed Adam?
Please provide that verse – and please provide the Calvinist INTERPRETATION of that verse – on who cursed Adam.
You would have it that God cursed them since before the foundation of the world, because He never loved them, nor did He ever intend to save them – EVER.
I’m afraid, you do not represent the God of the Bible. God is love – your god is hate.
So… Aidan finally … you have said it, and yet it seems you are not happy with your answer. You still hold on with your previous assertion even though it has been knocked out already.
That’s okay, Jtl, you keep holding onto the traditions of men, and you’ll get your reward. I’m quite happy to build my house on the rock.
“Therefore everyone who hears these words of Mine and acts on them, may be compared to a wise man who built his house on the rock.
“And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and slammed against that house; and yet it did not fall, for it had been founded on the rock.
“Everyone who hears these words of Mine and does not act on them, will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand.
“The rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and slammed against that house; and it fell—and great was its fall.” (Mathew 7:24-27).
Self declared as “Wise”, what if not?. The asserted doctrine of the opponent has collapsed already that he purposely built on the sand.
No, I don’t consider myself particularly wise in this world. But for those who believe and teach that God is not love, but is the Author of the eternal destruction of millions upon millions of souls, are certainly not wise, but foolish beyond belief. I hope and pray that you will see the light one day, and come out of this ungodly thing before it’s too late.
Kind regards,
Aidan.
Aidan McManus posted this one:
“No, I don’t consider myself particularly wise in this world. But for those who believe and teach that God is not love, but is the Author of the eternal destruction of millions upon millions of souls, are certainly not wise, but foolish beyond belief. I hope and pray that you will see the light one day, and come out of this ungodly thing before it’s too late.”
———Here’s My Response———–
Actually I did not say “God is not love” – Aidan McManus is the one who said that ; rather what I said was that : “God does not Love all people”
Prayer is being abused when you used it in accordance to your own wants. True prayer must be always in accordance with the will of God. And what is the will of God? Jesus had answered already that question and I will again type it below:
Jesus taught His disciples on how to pray i.e.: “… Thy will be done in earth as it is in heaven” – Matt, 6:10
“And this is the Father’s will which hath sent Me, that of all He hath given Me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day” – John 6:39-40
God surely loves those that the Father has given to the Son, but Aidan McManus wants to insist that ALL must come to the Son using their OWN FREE WILL despising the Father’s act of drawing people to the Son. Jesus Christ says: “No one can come to Me except the Father Draws them to the Son, but Aidan McManus argues with Christ by saying that ALL can come using their own free will. It seems that Aidan McManus is no longer in his right mind arguing with Jesus Christ.
What about those people who have not been drawn by the Father to the Son? Aidan says “God loves them”, What? Aidan can’t even hear himself, but those people are still thrown to hell. Why thrown to hell? Aidan McManus answers back by saying: “because of their unbelief that they are in hell”. I counter argue by saying: “If Christ paid for all the sins including sin of unbelief”, then why they are still thrown to hell if they had been paid already for that sin of unbelief? – which Aidan McManus cannot explain.
Then in verse 40, Jesus Christ said: “And this is the will of Him that sent Me that seeth the Son, and believeth on Him may have everlasting life and I will raise him up at the last day”
How can they see or look to the Son if they are spiritually blind, except when God will unblind them and give them the faith so they may be able to see the truth and be able to trust Jesus Christ.
Aidan McManus has no capacity to tamper the will of God even though how much he will become abusive in praying for all people to Come and be saved. The rest will still be thrown to hell. God’s decree will surely come to pass.
jtleosala
using their OWN FREE WILL despising the Father’s act of drawing people to the Son
br.d
The scripture teaches the Christian to eschew graven images.
Jtleosala
Aidan McManus has no capacity to tamper the will of God
br.d
Now in Theological Determinism (aka Calvinism) that is a LOGICAL impossibility – since Calvin’s god DOES NOT PERMIT the creature do be/do anything other than what Calvin’s god DECREES.
So in Calvinism even mentioning it as a possibility is DOUBLE-MINDEDNESS
Jtleosala
even though how much he will become abusive in praying for all people to Come and be saved.
br.d
If that comes to pass – then doctrine of the DECREES stipulates – Calvin’s god DECREED it.
And Calvin’s god DOES NOT PERMIT Aidan from refraining from what is DECREED.
Jtleosala
The rest will still be thrown to hell. God’s decree will surely come to pass.
br.d
Yes – we already know Calvin’s god – DESIGNS/CREATES the vast majority of his creatures for eternal torment in a lake of fire – for his good pleasure.
And yes – in Theological Determinism (aka Calvinism) all things – including sin and evil – have their SOURCE/ORIGIN in the DECREE.
Jtleosala: “Aidan McManus has no capacity to tamper the will of God”
br.d: “Now in Theological Determinism (aka Calvinism) that is a LOGICAL impossibility – since Calvin’s god DOES NOT PERMIT the creature do be/do anything other than what Calvin’s god DECREES.”
When JTL says, “…has no capacity…” he means that God did not enable (your permit). God made that decision before He created the universe. So, not a possibility.
Then, “Yes – we already know Calvin’s god – DESIGNS/CREATES the vast majority of his creatures for eternal torment in a lake of fire – for his good pleasure.”
You agree with Jesus who said, ““Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it.”
Jtleosala: “Aidan McManus has no capacity to tamper the will of God”
br.d: “Now in Theological Determinism (aka Calvinism) that is a LOGICAL impossibility – since Calvin’s god DOES NOT PERMIT the creature do be/do anything other than what Calvin’s god DECREES.”
rhutchin
When JTL says, “…has no capacity…” he means that God did not enable (your permit). God made that decision before He created the universe. So, not a possibility.
br,d
Firstly – I can guess JT will allow you to massage his words also – I’m guessing that is an agreement between Calvinists.
Now on the terms “permit” and “enable” – you argue they are one and the same.
It should be clear NOT “enable” LOGICALLY follows – from NOT “permit”
If Calvin’s god doesn’t permit [X] – he’s not going to enable [X] – unless Calvin’s god is a house divided against itself.
And I can see how Calvin’s god is the “enabler” of sin and evil by virtue of him “permitting” sin and evil – because Calvin’s god only “permits” what he DECREES.
rhutchin
You agree with Jesus who said, ““Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it.”
br.d
I am very much blessed that I don’t lower the words of Jesus – to be conflated with Theological Determinism (aka Calvinism).
The is a wonderful keeper – He kept me from getting ensnared in that.
Hi BR.D,
It seems my posts have been the topic of much conversation over the last number of days. I’m sorry that I was busy over the weekend and am only getting back to the site now. I just want to say thank you for all your help and the way you were able to handle RH, and JTL over these past few days.
What a merry-go-round it is with them. You are much more aware of their game playing than I am. I love your last post here, excellent logic, where you say:
BR.D
“Now on the terms “permit” and “enable” – you argue they are one and the same.
It should be clear NOT “enable” LOGICALLY follows – from NOT “permit”
If Calvin’s god doesn’t permit [X] – he’s not going to enable [X] – unless Calvin’s god is a house divided against itself.
And I can see how Calvin’s god is the “enabler” of sin and evil by virtue of him “permitting” sin and evil – because Calvin’s god only “permits” what he DECREES.”
Aidan:
In my circles that’s what we call a “necessary inference” which is one of the ways the Bible directs/teaches us, e.g., (Matt. 16:5-12; 22:23-33, 41-46). Sadly, not something that many are aware of, it would seem.
Thanks again,
Aidan
Great post – thank you Aidan!
Yes – I can thank the Lord he helps me to discern the games that are inherent in the Calvinist system.
Unfortunate – for the Calvinist though – he’s forced to live with them!
br.d writes, ‘Exactly why I provided William Lane Craig’s comments which you seemed to have ignored for some strange reason :-]”
You cited Craig’s opinion and given Craig’s biases, his opinion is worthless. If you had cited Craig’s argument that led to his opinion, that would have been better. However, Craig only allows for a determinism caused by external actors. Even though Calvinism allows for internal factors (a depraved nature) to determine what a person does, Craig seems to arbitrarily dismiss this and insist that Calvinism can only allow external factors to determine a person’s actions. If you could find out where Craig gets this idea, that would be nice. Craig is silent on some of his key presuppositions.
Then, “That is of course what they will claim of themselves – but is it more truthful to say they are USING scripture for their ends.”
It is easy for people to cross over from affirming Scripture as the foundation for truth and using Scripture to devise personal opinion. The JWs have to use their own use their own unique translation of the scriptures (thereby changing the set of truths their get from Scriptures) in order to develop their philosophy. SDAs are just stuck on a Saturday sabbath.
Then, “AH! Calvin’s god has given you another FALSE perception That will make it FALSE perception #14”
Perhaps, God has given you the false perception. Why should we think that you are right since you offer no argument as proof of the truth of your statement?
br.d
‘Exactly why I provided William Lane Craig’s comments which you seemed to have ignored for some strange reason :-]”
rhutchin
You cited Craig’s opinion and given Craig’s biases, his opinion is worthless.
br.d
Well of course that is a manifestation of “Black & White” thinking – which is inherently fallacious.
And of course it works both ways.
His opinion vs yours.
And since his opinion is consistently LOGICAL while yours isn’t – we can see that “worthless” comes in degrees. :-]
rhutchin
Craig only allows for a determinism caused by external actors.
br.d
Right – because that is LOGICALLY consistent with Determinism.
rhutchin
Calvinism allows for internal factors (a depraved nature) to determine what a person does,
br.d
DUH!
Which are themselves determined by Calvin’s god.
Oh but I already know where your mind will go from here
An attribute of the creature caused an attribute of the creature caused an attribute of the creature – and on into infinite regress.
*AS-IF* that is RATIONAL
rhutchin
Craig is silent on some of his key presuppositions.
br.d
Anything you can name?
rhutchin
It is easy for people to cross over from affirming Scripture as the foundation for truth and using Scripture to devise personal opinion. The JWs have to use their own use their own unique translation of the scriptures (thereby changing the set of truths their get from Scriptures) in order to develop their philosophy. SDAs are just stuck on a Saturday sabbath.
br.d
Before the JWS thought about PHYSICALLY changing a text – they would have had to have done so MENTALLY
The Calvinist doesn’t have to PHYSICALLY alter the text – as long as he can condition the mind to alter it MENTALLY.
And one can observe the byproduct of this process – for example – by watching a Calvinist remove the word “world” from a text and replace it with the word “elect”.
rhutchin
November 11, 2019 at 6:42 am
Now, if we could get br.d to affirm that Scripture is truth, we might make progress.
br.d
AH! Calvin’s god has given you another FALSE perception That will make it FALSE perception #14”
Mr. Spock is still keeping track – and will be able to derive a trend analysis.
rhutchin
Perhaps, God has given you the false perception. Why should we think that you are right since you offer no argument as proof of the truth of your statement?
br.d
I see you removed your statement (“get br.d to affirm scripture is truth”) which was the actual FALSE perception.
And replaced it with – “why should we think you are right…etc”.
And that works well in this post – because it serves as a good example of altering a text for one’s own benefit :-]
br.d writes, “his opinion is consistently LOGICAL while yours isn’t – we can see that “worthless” comes in degrees. :-]”
By opinion, I/ll take you to mean argument. Maybe, you could provide his argument, so we can determine this ourselves. Or perhaps God has given you a false perception.
Then, “rhutchin: Craig is silent on some of his key presuppositions.”
br.d: “Anything you can name?”
We have the one here, Calvinism depends on external factors for it’s determinism. Then, there is Craig’s view on God’s omniscience. Craig claims to believe that God is omniscient, but then conditions God’s omniscience on His knowledge of what people would choose to do – but doesn’t really explain that – so no one really knows what he thinks.
Then, “The Calvinist doesn’t have to PHYSICALLY alter the text – as long as he can condition the mind to alter it MENTALLY.”
A bold claim. Got any examples.
Then, ‘I see you removed your statement (“get br.d to affirm scripture is truth”) which was the actual FALSE perception.
And replaced it with – “why should we think you are right…etc”.”
Just trying to straighten out your false perception of the actual false perception..
br.d
his opinion is consistently LOGICAL while yours isn’t – we can see that “worthless” comes in degrees. :-]
rhutchin
By opinion, I/ll take you to mean argument.
br.d
Isn’t it interesting that Dr. Craig – who is internationally recognized for his precision in LOGIC (according to you) expresses nothing but “opinions”. While (according to you) what you express are not “opinions” but “arguments.
While consistently lamenting you can’t understand his statements.
Not to difficult to see through that one! :-]
rhutchin
Maybe, you could provide his argument, so we can determine this ourselves. Or perhaps God has given you a false perception.
br.d
Been there – done that – already know how your strategy of evasion works – but thanks anyway.
You’ve consistently stated Dr. Craig, Alvin Plantinga, and Peter Van Inwagen never explain themselves.
And all they have is “opinions” while what you have is “arguments”
Not to difficult to see through that either. :-]
rhutchin:
Craig is silent on some of his key presuppositions.”
We have the one here, Calvinism depends on external factors for it’s determinism.
br.d
Well your terminology is sloppy again on this statement
But perhaps what you tried to say was – “within the thesis of determinism all things are determined by factors external to persons”
That is not only acknowledged by Dr. Craig – but is well established for centuries by all Christian Philosophers
And it makes perfect sense to a RATIONAL thinker.
The fact that a Theological Determinist who believes that ALL THINGS are determined by a THEOS – would then refuse to acknowledge that ALL THINGS includes attributes internal to a person – reflects either an inability to connect simple dots or a refusal to do so.
rhutchin:
Then, there is Craig’s view on God’s omniscience. Craig claims to believe that God is omniscient, but then conditions God’s omniscience on His knowledge of what people would choose to do – but doesn’t really explain that – so no one really knows what he thinks.
br.d
Again – your terminology is way to sloppy – but I think I can decipher what your actual thought is.
I don’t think you’ll find Dr. Craig stating anything about omniscience being “conditioned” on any certain knowledge.
All humans have the ability to make accurate projections or predictions of future events based upon conditions, constraints, etc.
That is called “middle knowledge” – and stock investors who have it in sufficient form become billionaires.
LOGIC should tell you that if humans can have that type of knowledge – then an infallible being can have an infallible form of it.
Thus there is nothing to prevent a divine being from having infallible knowledge of how a creature will exercise Libertarian functionality – given that creature’s attributes, external conditions and constraints etc.
BTW – the Calvinist doesn’t have to PHYSICALLY alter the text – as long as he can condition the mind to alter it MENTALLY.
rhutchin:
A bold claim. Got any examples.
br.d
There you go again – removing the very example I gave you – MAKING-BELIEVE it isn’t an example.
rhutchin:
Just trying to straighten out your false perception of the actual false perception..
br.d
And you don’t think anyone can see through that!
I do get a good laugh here some times. :-]
br.d writes, “Isn’t it interesting that Dr. Craig – who is internationally recognized for his precision in LOGIC (according to you) expresses nothing but “opinions”. ”
What I said was that you cite Craig’s opinions and do not include his arguments, Without a supporting argument, we are left with opinions.
Then, “While (according to you) what you express are not “opinions” but “arguments.”
I don’t label my comments as either opinion or argument. When I cite specific Scriptures, then you can know that I am presenting an argument from Scripture (if only partially so). For example, when I cite John 5, “All that the Father gives to Christ will come to Christ,…,” that is an argument for the truth that “All that the Father gives to Christ will come to Christ,…”
Then, “You’ve consistently stated Dr. Craig, Alvin Plantinga, and Peter Van Inwagen never explain themselves.”
My complaint is that you never provide their arguments therby allowing them to explain themselevs.
Then, “The fact that a Theological Determinist who believes that ALL THINGS are determined by a THEOS – would then refuse to acknowledge that ALL THINGS includes attributes internal to a person – reflects either an inability to connect simple dots or a refusal to do so.”
I guess Craig has misrepresents Calvinism then.
Then, “LOGIC should tell you that if humans can have that type of knowledge – then an infallible being can have an infallible form of it.
Thus there is nothing to prevent a divine being from having infallible knowledge of how a creature will exercise Libertarian functionality – given that creature’s attributes, external conditions and constraints etc.”
That’s a third problem with Craig. He advocates Middle Knowledge and then denounces Calvinism for being deterministic.
br.d
Isn’t it interesting that Dr. Craig – who is internationally recognized for his precision in LOGIC (according to you) expresses nothing but “opinions”. ”
rhutchin
What I said was that you cite Craig’s opinions and do not include his arguments, Without a supporting argument, we are left with opinions
br.d
rhutchin – all anyone who can recognize fallacies has to do is read your posts to know what quality there are in those “supposed” arguments.
And all any RATIONAL thinker need to do – is go to Dr. Craig’s web-site and read his articles – which I reiterate again – are internationally recognized for precision in LOGIC.
So the fact that you consistently claim to always be right and everyone else who disagrees always wrong – just shows that that is your gig. That is pretty simple to see.
rhutchin
I don’t label my comments as either opinion or argument.
br.d
I think we can read enough of your posts to see you claim and thus perceive yourself as presenting arguments.
You even perceive them to be RATIONAL – which is consistently humerus and sometimes a real hoot!
rhutchin
When I cite specific Scriptures, then you can know that I am presenting an argument from Scripture (if only partially so)…..etc
br.d
What you are in fact presenting is an INTERPRETATION which requires navigating around IRRATIONAL landmines.
And I already know the strategy for doing that results in some form of DOUBLE-SPEAK.
Also you’ve consistently stated Dr. Craig, Alvin Plantinga, and Peter Van Inwagen never explain themselves.”
rhutchin
My complaint is that you never provide their arguments therby allowing them to explain themselevs.
br.d
You’ve made you’re own bed on this one.
Leading people to believe your requests for explanations etc are made in sincerity.
It didn’t take long to see that was not the case.
I therefore made great sense to simply wait and let the Calvinist provide the examples
I can then highlight them and show them for what they are.
At that point when the Calvinist tries to talk his way out of it – the gig becomes pretty obvious.
That has worked wonderfully! :-]
Now
The fact that a Theological Determinist who believes that ALL THINGS are determined by a THEOS – would then refuse to acknowledge that ALL THINGS includes attributes internal to a person – reflects either an inability to connect simple dots or a refusal to do so.
rhutchin
I guess Craig has misrepresents Calvinism then.
br.d
And again you don’t think anyone can see through that?
Makes it pretty clear – the whole business of asking for examples and explanations is all just a ruse.
rhutchin
That’s a third problem with Craig. He advocates Middle Knowledge and then denounces Calvinism for being deterministic.
br.d
Certainly – no one can accuse Calvinists of falling short on hubris! :-]
br.d writes, “And all any RATIONAL thinker need to do – is go to Dr. Craig’s web-site and read his articles – which I reiterate again – are internationally recognized for precision in LOGIC.”
Then, you should be able to read those arguments, even understand them, and summarize them or if not able to do that, provide an accurate citation so others can read those arguments. My suspicion is that you are no more than a quote miner. If you have read much of Craig, you know that he does not always provide arguments for his beliefs and presuppositions. You also know that it does not bother Craig to advocate for Middle Knowledge and then turn around and reject a deterministic view of the world God chooses to create through Middle Knowledge.
Then, “So the fact that you consistently claim to always be right and everyone else who disagrees always wrong – just shows that that is your gig. That is pretty simple to see.”
I will provide Scriptural support for the positions I take and challenge those who disagree to address those Scriptures. Other than phillip and Brian, and rare instances TS00, no one ever does that. Certainly, you have not shown yourself sufficiently acquainted with the Scriptures to do this. It is the principle of Proverbs, “As iron sharpens iron, So a man sharpens the countenance of his friend.” Nothing to do with ego.
Then, “You even perceive them to be RATIONAL – which is consistently humerus and sometimes a real hoot!”
the Scriptures I cite are direct and rational. If you don’t think so, you can argue otherwise (by giving an alternative way to understand them). You don’t do that, nor do many others with the exceptions already noted.
Then, “What you are in fact presenting is an INTERPRETATION which requires navigating around IRRATIONAL landmines.”
If you actually read my comments, you know that I cite Scripture without interpretation letting the Scripture speak directly to an issue. Apparently, you don’t read my comments.
Then, ‘Makes it pretty clear – the whole business of asking for examples and explanations is all just a ruse.”
You cite Craig without Craig’s supporting documentation and then claim that my asking for an explanation is a ruse. What is the real ruse here? Perhaps, you.
Then, rhutchin: That’s a third problem with Craig. He advocates Middle Knowledge and then denounces Calvinism for being deterministic.
br.d: Certainly – no one can accuse Calvinists of falling short on hubris!
What else could you say to something you know to be true?
rhutchin
Then, you should be able to read those arguments, even understand them, and summarize them or if not able to do that, provide an accurate citation so others can read those arguments. …etc
br.d
rhutchin – told you a number of times – you’ve made you’re own bed on that issue
Your requests are not made in sincerity.
Additionally you set yourself up as the imaginary judge of what is explained – as an additional tactic.
Once people discover what your game is – they simply learn to ignore it.
rhutchin
I will provide Scriptural support for the positions I take and challenge those who disagree
br.d
More precisely – what you provide is an INTERPRETATION of some data that your mind has been conditioned to perceive as affirmation of what you’ve been taught.
IRRATIONAL thinking will always result in an IRRATIONAL interpretation of any data – whether that data is scripture or not.
Once it is discovered the thinking pattern behind that INTERPRETATION is IRRATIONAL – then it becomes obvious (to everyone but you because of your psychological investment) that that INTERPRETATION is IRRATIONAL.
You even perceive your arguments to be RATIONAL – which is consistently humorous and sometimes a real hoot!”
rhutchin
the Scriptures I cite are direct and rational. If you don’t think so, you can argue otherwise (by giving an alternative way to understand them). You don’t do that, nor do many others with the exceptions already noted.
br.d
Here is another example of a statement you perceive as RATIONAL – how humorous
rhutchin
If you actually read my comments, you know that I cite Scripture without interpretation letting the Scripture speak directly to an issue. Apparently, you don’t read my comments.
br.d
Anyone with any knowledge in Biblical studies knows how juvenile that statement is
br.d writes, “Your requests are not made in sincerity.”
In other words, you basically quote mine and don’t have anything.
Then, “what you provide is an INTERPRETATION of some data that your mind has been conditioned to perceive as affirmation of what you’ve been taught.”
Many of the verses I cite are straightforward and require no “interpretation.” Even you understand them.
Then, “Here is another example of a statement you perceive as RATIONAL – how humorous”
You prove my point. Even you understand the verses I cite and have no argument against them.
Then, ‘Anyone with any knowledge in Biblical studies knows how juvenile that statement is”
All your comments above said nothing substantively. So, my claims stand.
br.d
Your requests are not made in sincerity.
rhutchin
In other words, you basically quote mine and don’t have anything.
br.d
In other words – you’ve made your own bed.
What you provide is an INTERPRETATION of some data that your mind has been conditioned to perceive as affirmation of what you’ve been taught.
rhutchin
Many of the verses I cite are straightforward and require no “interpretation.” Even you understand them.
br.d
Again – anyone who knows anything about Bible studies knows how juvenile that statement is.
I’ve seen scholars laughing together about statements just like that one.
rhutchin
You prove my point. Even you understand the verses I cite and have no argument against them.
br.d
To conflate scripture with the interpretation of scripture reveals the real problem – you don’t appear to know the difference.
I suggest you take a class on the subject.
rhutchin
All your comments above said nothing substantively. So, my claims stand.
br.d
For you – others have nothing substantive – they are just claims and opinions!
In your vastly superior mind you know better than Alvin Plantinga, William Lane Craig and Peter Van Inwagen.
Its no wonder when someone finds your interpretations on some topic IRRATIONAL – your brain interprets that as them not understanding that topic.
I’m afraid – all of that reveals much more about your condition than anything else.
br.d writes, “And where did you do that?”
Where I commented, “LOL!!! This from the man who then advocates Middle knowledge” Did I need to spell it out for you?.
Then, “If however what you mean is – all advocates of Middle-knowledge assert that Universal Divine Causal Determinism is LOGICALLY consistent with Determinism”
You cited William Craig. He advocates Middle Knowledge and then denies Universal Divine Causal Determinism. Those positions are inconsistent.
rhutchin
I pointed out the inconsistency of Craig advocating for Middle Knowledge and then denouncing Universal Divine Causal Determinism.
br.d
And where did you do that?
rhutchin
Where I commented, “LOL!!! This from the man who then advocates Middle knowledge” Did I need to spell it out for you?.
br.d
And in your mind when you make a statement like that – it is to be AUTO-MAGICALLY received as conclusive evidence?
I’m starting to wonder if I should be empathetic to a possible mental condition at work here.
On William Lane Craig and Middle-Knowledge
If however what you mean is – all advocates of Middle-knowledge assert that Universal Divine Causal Determinism is LOGICALLY consistent with Determinism and NOT LOGICALLY consistent with Libertarian Fee will – then you are obligated to provide citations from official advocates of Middle-knowledge.
rhutchin
William Craig…..advocates Middle Knowledge and then denies Universal Divine Causal Determinism. Those positions are inconsistent.
br.d
Firstly:
I don’t think you know what you’re talking about on this topic – and you’re simply blowing smoke.
Secondly:
I noticed you removed the part of my last post that stated you needed to provide evidence.
And its pretty obvious to me that isn’t going to happen and – why you strategically removed that.
Thank you for the book, Dr Flowers. I have bought it and really enjoying it. I just want to ask you two things: I appreciate the idea of election being something corporate and something done ‘in Christ’ as opposed to something individualized whereby we are chosen ‘to be’ in Christ. I understand that. However one verse that comes to mind is that found in 1 Corinthians 1vs26-27: 26 For you see your calling, brethren, that not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called. 27 But God has chosen the foolish things of the world to put to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to put to shame the things which are mighty…
What do you make then of these verses. It seems to read that not many are called in an active sense from the point of God. The verse doesn’t read that the foolish etc respond but rather that the foolish are called. Surely this is to mean that God’s call and choice is to some extent the basis of who is saved. The context would seem to be speaking of salvation. I just wondered what you would make of this.
Secondly. You mentioned in your book that when you realized the idea of foreknowledge or predestination did not have to be the explicit Arminian idea of god looking through the channels of time and then selecting those who believed, you were able to entertain the more traditional idea of soteriology more comfortably. Sorry I can’t find the exact page now where you mentioned this. My question is then what is your alternative to this idea of foreknow? I know you mention that foreknow is to know the saints in the past in connection to Romans 8 etc but is there a blog you have written which identifies your alternative? I would love to have a look where you explain this in more depth.
Thanks always – loving the book.
Hello Greg and welcome
Dr. Flowers – due to his schedule – is not here to interact.
But if you are a Face- Book user – you may more readily find him there.
In the mean time – blessings to you!
br.d