John 22-71 a case for Calvinism?

[TheSeabass]

Indeed God knew He had people who would respond to the Gospel.

God foreknew people would believe the gospel when it would be preached to them. No individual was ever unconditionally pre-chosen by God to be His apart from their free will or the word being preached to them.

 

[redleghunter]

No individual was ever unconditionally pre-chosen by God to be His apart from their free will or the word being preached to them.

Did God tell you this?

 

[TheSeabass]

Did God tell you this?

Yes, through His word.

 

[redleghunter]

Yes, through His word.

Show me.

 

[Marvin Knox]

God foreknew people would believe the gospel when it would be preached to them. No individual was ever unconditionally pre-chosen by God to be His apart from their free will or the word being preached to them.

So God saw that Paul was going to receive Jesus as his personal Savior just as soon as he had decimated the Christian population of the middle East?

Based on that foreknowledge - He just said something like, "What the heck! I'm not doing anything today. I think I'll appear on the road into Damascus, knock this guy Paul down, strike him blind, identify myself to him as the Messiah, send him one of my disciples to give him the gospel and just save him today rather than wait him out."

"Beside - Ananias is in the neighborhood and this will be a good chance for me to test his faith a little and see how good he is at preaching."

"I'll print the story in a book so other believers can see just exactly how it happened and have no doubt as to how this thing played out in the case of the man who will write a good percentage of the N.T."

"I know it will look to those in the coming Reformation like classic unconditional election. But I won't have to worry about people in the 21st century believing garbage like that. Heck - they'll be so sensitive to to how I do and don't do things by then and have such a good handle on what would be or wouldn't be fair for me to do that they will never fall for that kind of bad theology."

"It isn't predestination for Me to be thinking and planning like this and it sure won't be unconditional election - because based on my foreknowledge, I know that he will tire of killing my people after some more time passes, get into the Word a little more and realize where he's going wrong wrong. It'll be Paul's free will choice then for sure and I won't be infringing on his will. That's all important to me as it is for every person who happens to be under my well deserved curse."

Clearly that isn't how it worked. It also isn't how it works for any other child of wrath who is dragged to the Son by the Father and has his eyes opened by the Spirit of God so that he can say "Jesus is Lord" by that same Spirit.

Of course it was my choice to receive Jesus as Lord when I heard the Word preached to me. Of course it was your choice to receive Jesus as Lord when you heard the Word preached to you. Of course it was Paul's choice to receive Jesus as Lord when he heard the Word preached to him.

But if you people don't see God initiating something which effected your will as He predestined to do then you don't believe that He was the one who began the good work in you.

Quite likely, then, you don't necessarily believe that He will complete that good work in you simply because He has promised to keep that which you entrusted to Him against the day of judgement.

God's predestination of all that happens in His creation, His election of people like you and me and Paul who don't deserve salvation because of anything inherent in our wretched cursed nature, our will being effected by the Holy Spirit in order to proclaim Jesus as Lord, and His promise to finish the work which HE began in us - are some of the most clear doctrines in the Word of God.

If you people don't believe what is taught in His Word it is likely (as I see it) because you have judged what you believe would and would not be a fair thing to do by the creator of all things.

God is the one who decides what is and isn't fair and it is all for His glory that He makes those decisions.

Ours is not to judge what would and would not be fair for God to do. Ours is but to believe what He has said He did and will do in the future.

We are creatures, created in God's image, and with a will of our own. But we aren't God.

 

[bling]

Nicodemus was a learned man who seemed to be looking for further instructions on how to improve himself from the man of God. The rebirth was not a given at that time so none could understand His 'heavenly speech'. Judas differed from Nicodemus at Christ's death. One showing love at the burial and the other killing himself. The difference seems to be in their nature. That nature was what Jesus was saying to Nicodemus that needed to change to a new birth. It produced a change in all but Judas.

I think arguing for position moves away from flesh and onto intellect ... and had they the knowledge of what that kingdom entailed they would have thought about it differently, I`m sure. They were still not spiritually minded.



None. All would have been unregenerated at that time.


Running off from a band of soldiers is not the same as leading the soldiers to Him. Fear vs betrayal .. let me think ... ya I would say so.

How is that directing carried out?

What does James the brother of Christ have to do with this conversation

God taught can only mean revelation from God to mankind. I don`t know why you object to saying it as God opening spiritual eyes ... we should blame the fact of not responding to revealed heavenly things as what is blamable!

I was giving examples of fleshly pursuits on the disciples that Jesus turned away, but this is an intellectual pursuit that is an improvement from just wanting to be fed. They had aspirations for the kingdom of God. Like when Mary poured the oil for Jesus`burial Judas`mind was only on the money it could have brought in.

Judas merely held the money bag to distribute to the poor, it says nothing of him gathering revenue from any other than their own who contributed to their cause. (the women disciples fi)
I think that Jesus knew his nature and so gave him that temptation in an attempt for Judas to overcome the nature of a thief which he was unable to do.

There is a lot to address here and I do not have the time right now, but will get with you ASAP.

 

[Monk Brendan]

Of course, since you put tradition on the same level or above the scriptures we likely have nothing more to argue which will avail anything.

Believe it or not, You are the one that puts traditions above the Scriptures. You see, I do honor the plain, clear text of the Bible, but you seem to follow the traditions of Calvin and Zwingli much easier. And The Scriptures don't always interpret the Scriptures. There are a lot of things in the Bible you have to take on faith, which has nothing at all to do with Calvin, Luther, or any of the other Reformers.

 

[Monk Brendan]

It seems to be obvious that Jesus was not handing them a finger and telling the disciples that it was somehow mystically now a bread stick.

We say that the bread stick becomes the finger, not the other way around. The bread mystically becomes the Body of Christ, and the wine becomes the Blood. Get it? The way you had phrased it, the Body becomes bread, which it doesn't. That's what I was pointing out.

But Calvin and the other Reformers, including Cramner, (Johnnie come latelys, declare that the bread and wine DO NOT become the Body and Blood of Christ, which Catholics, Orthodox, and all of the other Pre-Reformation Churches have believed for the past 2000 years.

 

[Monk Brendan]

Have you asked God to give you living water? If you drink of this water you shall never thirst, and the water should become in you a well of water springing up to eternal life. They are clear words of the Bible:

Ma'am, I have been drinking the living water that keeps me from thirsting for the past 40 years. Just because I am a Catholic, don't even pretend to label me as someone bound to hell. The label won't stick to me. I went to Roman Catholic Schools, and I learned a lot. But it didn't TAKE until I was an adult (26 years old) before I began cooperating with Him.

From then on, I have been getting drunk on that living water. Never thirsting, but always thirsty for more of Jesus.

 

[Monk Brendan]

But first I want to tell you why. I was watching a documentary movie abt priests who were missionaries to some far away land. The priests were being killed off and the Christians left had no priest so were living in fear of damnation. When a priest arrived they flocked around to confess and all but ..... they just had to call on Christ. Anyway the priest died a horrible death and all I could think of was that it could have been prevented. End of rant.

That unnamed priest died a martyr to the faith, not the same thing at all as something that might have been avoided. Haven't you read that the Church sometimes needs to be watered with the blood of martyrs? I don't know where this story happened, or when, but martyrdom is still happening today, and it strengthens the faithful when it happens.

Two true stories about martyrs that lived in my lifetime. A bishop I knew, a dear friend, went to Peru to preach the Gospel. He was murdered during Mass by Shining Path.

The other story is about a priest named Jacques, who after celebrating Mass, was murdered by Radical Islamic Terrorists, in front of his congregation.

These two men went to be with God, and their witness is a strength to all Christians that know about it.

BTW, where, exactly, in the Bible does it state that you are to confess your sins ONLY to God? Rather, I seem to remember a quote, “Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much.”

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

That unnamed priest died a martyr to the faith, not the same thing at all as something that might have been avoided. Haven't you read that the Church sometimes needs to be watered with the blood of martyrs? I don't know where this story happened, or when, but martyrdom is still happening today, and it strengthens the faithful when it happens.

Two true stories about martyrs that lived in my lifetime. A bishop I knew, a dear friend, went to Peru to preach the Gospel. He was murdered during Mass by Shining Path.

The other story is about a priest named Jacques, who after celebrating Mass, was murdered by Radical Islamic Terrorists, in front of his congregation.

These two men went to be with God, and their witness is a strength to all Christians that know about it.

BTW, where, exactly, in the Bible does it state that you are to confess your sins ONLY to God? Rather, I seem to remember a quote, “Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much.”

That point was that the believers in Christ thought they were damned to hell if a priest did not take their confession routinely.

 

[Monk Brendan]

Wouldn't the real thing be Jesus' actual presence in spirit form rather than what some call actual bread and wine? It seems that the type of thinking that substitutes Jesus' presence with the substance of bread and wine is forgoing the actual substance of God with us. When it really is symbolic of Him...

And where, Book, Chapter and Verse does He ever say that it is a symbol? For that matter, where does the Bible ever use "symbol" when it means spiritual? At the Second Coming, is Jesus going to show just symbolically? or spiritually? No! He is going to be there, His full physical body, as well as spiritually.

 

[Monk Brendan]

That point was that the believers in Christ thought they were damned to hell if a priest did not take their confession routinely.

And that is wrong too. If you would take time to LEARN something about what The Catholic Church is ACTUALLY teaching, you would find that your assumptions are wrong.

 

[Monk Brendan]

Again - so long as your trust for ultimate salvation is in the finished work of Christ at Calvary, once and for all, we have no issue. If not - then it is not me you have issue with but it is the Lord Himself at the judgment with whom you can debate whether you were in the faith or not the practice of your religion.

I notice that you did not address the meat of my post.

You either believe you are saved and seated with Christ in Heaven or you only have a religious hope that you will be someday.

Why is it the standard line of thought that Catholics don't think they have any chance of heaven unless they are attended by a priest? Remember, if you will, that it was the Roman Catholic Church during the Dark Ages that kept the Bible alive in Europe. It was the Church that educated Martin Luther, Calvin, Henry VIII, Zwingli, and all of the other Reformers? NOBODY seems to remember that if it were not for monks more pious that I that you would not have even had a Bible until the Greeks and Arabs translated it into European languages, which, based on the history of the world might not have happened until the 20th century. For that matter, Europe might not even have had a Christian culture (and therefore neither would America, Australia, etc.) at ALL. Islam almost conquered Europe, remember, and would have except for the Crusades (another Roman Catholic invention!)

The world view of most English speaking Protestants seems to be that the Bible floated down from heaven, bound in black leather, with a red ribbon, with the words of Jesus in red, and the edges of the paper gilt in gold, and fell into King James lap in Kingeth Jameseth Englisheth.

To answer you directly, I am saved. I was "saved" (meaning that I began cooperating with Christ, a term I believe much better works than "saved") during a prayer meeting in a Roman Catholic Church on October 12, 1977. I received the Baptism of the Holy Spirit that same night. I knew it, although I did not immediately start speaking in tongues.

I have been cooperating with Christ ever since, forty years. I WAS saved at that first Good Friday, when Jesus hung upon a Cross. And I will BE saved when I stand before Jesus on the day of my death.

Don't EVER dare to presume that I am not, nor any other Catholic is not saved. If you do it again on these fora, I will report you, as it is a violation of the CF rules.

 

[Marvin Knox]

We say that the bread stick becomes the finger, not the other way around. The bread mystically becomes the Body of Christ, and the wine becomes the Blood. Get it? The way you had phrased it, the Body becomes bread, which it doesn't. That's what I was pointing out.

Since you are insisting that Jesus words are to be taken literally and Jesus said clearly "this is my body" then He was handing them His body. Get it?

If you are building doctrine on what you claim to be a statement which has to be taken completely literally - then do so and don't waffle.

You can't have things both ways.

But then every analogy falls apart somewhere along the line doesn't it? You and I both know the point of what I am saying.

By the way - what He definitely did not say was, "take and eat of it and it will turn into my body before it hits your stomach. He also did not say taken and eat of it and do this as a church after I leave and when you do the bread will turn into my body.

Literal is literal. Either you base your doctrine on what He said and nothing more or you base it on what you want it to mean.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Don't EVER dare to presume that I am not, nor any other Catholic is not saved. If you do it again on these fora, I will report you, as it is a violation of the CF rules.

I won't. Nor have I ever.

If you can produce a post where I said that you or any other Catholic were not saved - then you won't have to report me. I'll gladly report myself.

 

[redleghunter]

And where, Book, Chapter and Verse does He ever say that it is a symbol? For that matter, where does the Bible ever use "symbol" when it means spiritual? At the Second Coming, is Jesus going to show just symbolically? or spiritually? No! He is going to be there, His full physical body, as well as spiritually.

Jesus did use direct metaphors which depicted spiritual truths.

It was His main teaching technique.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

There is a lot to address here and I do not have the time right now, but will get with you ASAP.

Take your time, I'm quite busy with kids right now anyway. My oldest is getting ready to take a 6 month sailing trip from Canada along the Pacific to Mexico and if I can talk her into stowing me away .... if not I'll still be here.

 

[Lily of Valleys]

Ma'am, I have been drinking the living water that keeps me from thirsting for the past 40 years. Just because I am a Catholic, don't even pretend to label me as someone bound to hell. The label won't stick to me. I went to Roman Catholic Schools, and I learned a lot. But it didn't TAKE until I was an adult (26 years old) before I began cooperating with Him.

From then on, I have been getting drunk on that living water. Never thirsting, but always thirsty for more of Jesus.

If you don't take the living water and being thirsty literally, why do you take the bread and wine literally as Jesus' body and blood? They are both clear words from Jesus.

Jesus answered and said to her, “If you knew the gift of God, and who it is who says to you, ‘Give Me a drink,’ you would have asked Him, and He would have given you living water.” She said to Him, “Sir, You have nothing to draw with and the well is deep; where then do You get that living water? You are not greater than our father Jacob, are You, who gave us the well, and drank of it himself and his sons and his cattle?” Jesus answered and said to her, “Everyone who drinks of this water will thirst again; but whoever drinks of the water that I will give him shall never thirst; but the water that I will give him will become in him a well of water springing up to eternal life.” (John 4:10-14 NASB)

 

[Monk Brendan]

Since you are insisting that Jesus words are to be taken literally and Jesus said clearly "this is my body" then He was handing them His body. Get it?

YES! He was handing them His mystical body. Catholics and Orthodox believe that the bread and wine TRULY ARE the Body and Blood of Christ. This is obvious that you (and most Protestants reject this belief, but it is one of the core beliefs, and it IS clearly in the Bible, so there's no way you can say, "That's not Scriptural."

 

[Monk Brendan]

Jesus did use direct metaphors which depicted spiritual truths.

I did not say "direct metaphors" I asked for Book, Chapter and Verse where He said "symbol" (or the Greek, Latin, Hebrew or Aramaic equivalent)