The Witness of the Apostles Refutes Calvinism, Predestinationism

[gmm4j]

Janx, I'm not going to explain this further to you as I've done it several times before and you just don't seem capable of understanding. Work through my statements, tell me which of them you disagree with and why, and then we can discuss things.

However, because it's so frustrating that you can't grasp the simplest of concepts I'm going to try one of them one last time:

• If God knows that a non-believer is a non-believer before he is created, then there is no possible action the non-believer can take to change that.

I'll try this by asking a simple question: What action can a non-believer take to prove God's foreknowledge false? Don't side-step; don't change the question; don't evade it in any way.

Real simple version: Foreknowledge based on action. Action not based on foreknowledge.

 

[JackSparrow]

progmonk and crimsonleaf

You are good at slagging people of and belittling them despite the article posted by cygnusx1 on another thread that shoots down the things you allege. E.g "God ordains sin". Progmonk - your Isaiah 45:7 miss representation a few posts back is dealt in the article.

Lesson 4 – The Decrees of God

What a coincidence ! Don't side step, have a read about Reformed Theology. See if you can grasp the basics even.

 

[Keachian]

progmonk and crimsonleaf

You are good at slagging people of and belittling them despite the article posted by cygnusx1 on another thread that shoots down the things you allege. E.g "God ordains sin". Progmonk - your Isaiah 45:7 miss representation a few posts back is dealt in the article.

Lesson 4 – The Decrees of God

What a coincidence ! Don't side step, have a read about Reformed Theology. See if you can grasp the basics even.

I didn't find that article particularly convincing, especially considering the staunch monotheistic argument that Is 45 is making in the face of Zoroastrian duotheism. But back on the topic of God ordaining sin, I believe he does so for specific reasons, if it were reasonless then it would be meaningless, after all he works all things after the counsel of his own will.

 

[Keachian]

Now is there a synergist in the thread that wants to love God because he is God and not because they believe he's taking them to heaven?

 

[JackSparrow]

I didn't find that article particularly convincing, especially considering the staunch monotheistic argument that Is 45 is making in the face of Zoroastrian duotheism. But back on the topic of God ordaining sin, I believe he does so for specific reasons, if it were reasonless then it would be meaningless, after all he works all things after the counsel of his own will.

You must be joking !

Beside you are in a diddly squat minority in your system. Did you not see the list of theologians who were in agreement.

Biggest problem though is leading sheep away from the truth with ones own system. Don't do it.

 

[Keachian]

You must be joking !

Beside you are in a diddly squat minority in your system. Did you not see the list of theologians who were in agreement.

Biggest problem though is leading sheep away from the truth with ones own system. Don't do it.

Since when was I not in a minority?

 

[vette 10]

Since we do not live in Jesus' time, is it now permitted to look upon a woman to lust after her? Is it permitted we can now root up the tares and not wait until the harvest? Are we not to love our enemies now? Are we not to turn the other cheek now?

Please explain how the laws and commands of Jesus did not matter in Calvin's time.

the laws of the time were different obviously than today .you are trying to turn what happend burning at the stake beheading ect into our day, who said any thing about lust ect? times were what they were, who are we who live today to pass judgement on that time or people ?btw i know a little about burns and fire as i had a gas can blow up and cause 2 degree burns let me tell you if i had a choice fire or beheading i would chose the latter

 

[JackSparrow]

Now is there a synergist in the thread that wants to love God because he is God and not because they believe he's taking them to heaven?

All of them. I feel sure you neither understand Calvinism nor Arminianism.

 

[Keachian]

All of them. I feel sure you neither understand Calvinism nor Arminianism.

Go argue with janxharris they seem to think that it is only because God has provided salvation that he is worthy to be served

 

[Keachian]

Oh and I expect my more mature brothers would tell me to pull my head in if I wasn't toeing Calvinist lines, so far all I've gotten is encouragement.

 

[crimsonleaf]

We are both side-stepping crimsonleaf

If the opportunity is real (whether an entity outside of time knows the final outcome or not) then responsibility lies with the man not God. Under Reformed Theology God decides and if Total Depravity is indeed total then the man is not responsible. As I have said, 'unable' is the word Calvin used.

As I suspected you can make no attempt to answer the question.

Until you do please don't address me directly. It's not that I don't like you - it's just that intellectual cowardice leaves a nasty taste...

 

[crimsonleaf]

progmonk and crimsonleaf

You are good at slagging people of and belittling them despite the article posted by cygnusx1 on another thread that shoots down the things you allege. E.g "God ordains sin". Progmonk - your Isaiah 45:7 miss representation a few posts back is dealt in the article.

Lesson 4 – The Decrees of God

What a coincidence ! Don't side step, have a read about Reformed Theology. See if you can grasp the basics even.

While you're slashing out at everybody with a Calvinist hat on, please take the time to show me where I've said God is the author of sin. And while you're at it, show me where else my views differ with Calvinism.

 

[MuffinTheMan]

If it were true that scripture taught that salvation was predetermined then I would consider scripture to be bunk. I would become an atheist or an agnostic.

Janx, I beg you to repent of the above. I am not trying to be mean or divisive, but what you have just said seems to indicate that you are only willing to serve/believe in God if He meets your standards. It indicates that you have some standard outside of the Bible by which you judge the Bible. This is wrong! I am not saying your aren't saved, but please think about the implications of what you have said!

 

[JackSparrow]

While you're slashing out at everybody with a Calvinist hat on, please take the time to show me where I've said God is the author of sin. And while you're at it, show me where else my views differ with Calvinism.

1. I am not slashing.
2. I posted answers to some of your question THREE times yet you still claimed I was dodging or whatever.

So you are now on my ignore list.

Bye

 

[MuffinTheMan]

I accept that there are difficult passages.

Are you comfortable with the fact that you yourself may not be among the elect?

Matthew 7:21-24
“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?’ Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’

Please don't be offended - I am not saying that you are not a true Christian.

I understand, Janx, and I am not "comfortable" with it in the general sense of the word. However, if any of us are in Christ, it would be unjust for God to damn us to hell; for the penalty has already been paid, and we have been justified; and God promises that those whom He justifies He will also glorify. God also promises in John 3:16 that all believing in Christ will be saved. As I said a few posts back,

No one will ever repent and place their trust in Christ and be turned away.

It is possible to deceive oneself regarding salvation, but it is not possible for one who has true faith in Christ to be damned. God's promises remain true.

 

[crimsonleaf]

Real simple version: Foreknowledge based on action. Action not based on foreknowledge.

Now you've entered the fray perhaps you could actually address the real question. The question is not one of causality either way. I'm not referring to action based on foreknowledge or foreknowledge based on action. I'm making four points, reaching a conclusion and asking a question. Please tell me which of these premises is wrong:

• It is true biblically, that man is ultimately divided into the saved and the unsaved.

• It is also true that an omnipotent God could save them all.

• An omniscient God knows before he created them who is, and who is not saved.

• If God knows that a non-believer is a non-believer before he is created, then there is no possible action the non-believer can take to change that.

Conclusion: God creates some people in the certain knowledge that they will go to hell and that there is no remedy for them.

The question is:

Why does God create the unsaved when He knows for certain they will be condemned?

I then asked Janx, and he avoided answering because the implications are too great for his own beliefs,

if God knows (using His precognition) that a man will die a sinner, then what can a man do to change that outcome and prove God's advance knowledge of his outcome false?

So far the only person to attempt a real answer was Jack, who said he didn't know and was prepared to leave it at that. Everyone else, for as long as I've been asking the question, has avoided answering by posting links or changing the question.

 

[Arcoe]

I understand, Janx, and I am not "comfortable" with it in the general sense of the word. However, if any of us are in Christ, it would be unjust for God to damn us to hell; for the penalty has already been paid, and we have been justified;

I'm curious, what do you believe to be the penalty which has been paid?

Please be as specific as possible.

 

[Arcoe]

the laws of the time were different obviously than today .you are trying to turn what happend burning at the stake beheading ect into our day, who said any thing about lust ect? times were what they were, who are we who live today to pass judgement on that time or people ?btw i know a little about burns and fire as i had a gas can blow up and cause 2 degree burns let me tell you if i had a choice fire or beheading i would chose the latter

I'm not talking about men's laws of Calvin's day. I'm talking about God's laws which cannot be suspended by man.

Jesus said to let the tares grow with the wheat, and at the harvest they will be dealt with. What gives any 'Christian' man the right to root up the tares as he pleases?

 

[crimsonleaf]

1. I am not slashing.
2. I posted answers to some of your question THREE times yet you still claimed I was dodging or whatever.

So you are now on my ignore list.

Bye

Shame you won't read this then.

I could compile a list of people who haven't answered the questions I put. Interestingly, I agreed that Jack Sparrow HAD answered the question with a "I don't know", but people avoiding the question so far are Janx, Arcoe, and I'm sure GM will come back, so no pressure.

Readers may also note that Jack flounced off without pointing out how my answers differ from Calvinist belief as requested. Pot. Kettle.

 

[ChrisBot]

This thread was split automatically after 1000 replies and this thread has been automatically closed.
The new thread automatically created is here: "The Witness of the Apostles Refutes Calvinism, Predestinationism (2)"