Ask a Calvinist!

Ken

Well-Known Member
Aug 14, 2003
1,137
47
61
North Central Indiana
Visit site
✟1,582.00
Faith
Calvinist
I agree that God must exercise justice. But if His foremost attribute was Justice, then He must temper justice with mercy and because of pure love, he must have mercy on us all equally or the scripture is false concerning 1 Corinthians 13.
Did God create out of justice, mercy or Love. What does Jesus describe the greatest virtue to be...Love


No, does not follow. (see above for requiring God to fit into the 1 Cor. 13 model) Where does the Bible say that God must have mercy on us all equally? Where does Paul say that 1 Cor. 13 must apply to God just as it applies to humans? We cannot possibly take into account all the factors that lead God to act as He does. Even granting that 1 Cor. 13 would apply to God, who is to say that God doesn’t fulfill 1 Cor. 13 perfectly, and still operate as absolute Sovereign of the universe?

I am searching Calvinist doctrine to correspond to the nature and attributes of God and Love. Who else am I supposed to get clarity from on the Calvinist position if not Calvinist's. It seems that all questions, if not answered comprehensively right-away naturally turn into a question then anwer scenario.

I am glad for your questions. However, what it means to answer “comprehensively right-away” is going to vary, both between the questioner and the “questionee”… : )

At any rate, there is no need for a failure to answer “comprehensively right-away” to result in a “question and answer session”. This may result from any number of other reasons.

I am not saying that I do or do not believe in TULIP, or Calvinism. Im on a path to try and study and understand the scriptures fully, as we are ask to do.

Agreed.

I would say that he could choose to save us all without prejudice. Why would he not want all of his children with him in paradise? Does glory mean more to God than Love and relationship.
I am not disputing the scripture that points toward limited atonment or total depravity, I am trying to discover how they all interconnect in love with a God that is love. This is a sincere question and searching heart.


I think the best thing you could do here is to patiently and thoughtfully work your way through Jonathan Edwards’ “A Dissertation concerning the end for which God made the World”. Its at http://www.ccel.org/e/edwards/works1/htm/iv.htm

Glory--By definition is: Exalted honor. So God values this over relationships and his very nature of Love. Are you saying He would rather be glorified (and all its benefits) in his works then to be loved by his creation (us) first.

The two are not mutually exclusive; the end/telos of God’s being glorified by His works is for humans to glorify Him by loving Him for the sake of who He is, for what He has done. The creation’s (humans in particular) only true fulfillment is to glorify God by loving Him forever, e.g. Augustine’s famous prayer “Thou hast formed us for Thyself and our hearts are restless till they find their rest in thee.” God’s greatest love is to love Himself, for this is God’s moral responsibility, for He is responsible to love that which is most pure and holy, which could be none other than Himself, and to love His creatures who exemplify these same traits, realizing that even these traits found in humans find their origin in none other than the Holy One of Israel. So when God loves His creatures for their holiness etc, He is in reality still loving Himself as He is the origin and end of all good.

Even I wish that all will be with the Lord in paradise. If I could give at least the means to everyone to have the opportunity equally to attain this salvation and state, because I love humanity, as it is Gods creation, would not God love all even more than I ever possibly could and give this opportunity for Loves sake.

We must never mistake ourselves for God (not that you are doing this exactly), or think that the way “we” would do something, versus the way God does this same thing, would be the “right” thing to do, implying and then impugning God for not doing it the way we would have done it, this nothing less than blasphemy, for it is to claim that we know better than the Sovereign Lord of the universe, and that we are standing in moral judgment over Him.

Quote:Yes, but as I have repeatedly said, God wants his Glory for most, and he deserves his Glory for most.

Can you support this in scripture that glory is more important to God than his beloved creations.

First, again, these two are not contrary or mutually exclusive of one another, nor should they be set against one another. The attainment of God’s glory through His beloved creations is just as important as is His creation glorying in Him.

However;
Rom 9:17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth."


Isa 43:6 I will say to the north, Give up,
and to the south, Do not withhold;
bring my sons from afar
and my daughters from the end of the earth,

Isa 43:7 everyone who is called by my name,
whom I created for my glory,
whom I formed and made."

Isa 46:13 I bring near my righteousness; it is not far off,
and my salvation will not delay;
I will put salvation in Zion,
for Israel my glory."

Isa 48:9-11 "For my name's sake I defer my anger,
for the sake of my praise I restrain it for you,
that I may not cut you off.

Behold, I have refined you, but not as silver;
I have tried you in the furnace of affliction.
For my own sake, for my own sake, I do it,
for how should my name be profaned?

My glory I will not give to another."


cont.
 
  • Like
Reactions: theseed
Upvote 0

Ken

Well-Known Member
Aug 14, 2003
1,137
47
61
North Central Indiana
Visit site
✟1,582.00
Faith
Calvinist
Quote: it says that we were created simply for God's pleasure.

Are you sure about this

I know I am. At any rate, this is a perfect example of you doing more then simply questioning the "what" of calvinistic belief, and moving to the "I disagree" stage... as the following "expositions" of yours apparently seek to dispute and refute calvinistic theology;

God created man for good works. Ephesian 2: 10 Man is not here to do his own thing, but to do the work that God gives him to do.

Exactly, man is not here to do his own thing, but to do the work that God gives him, and it is this work that must always and everywhere seek to glorify God. 1Co 10:31 So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God."

God created man for fellowship.

No. Act 17:24-25 ESV The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in temples made by man, (25) nor is he served by human hands, as though he needed anything, since he himself gives to all mankind life and breath and everything.”


He created man, male and female, in His own image. Genesis 1:27


Yep.


Each person is created for fellowship with God. 1 Corinthians 1:9

Yep. The question is how it is that this takes place. But no matter the answer, each person’s acting out their fellowship with God is to seek to glorify God in all that they do.

This fellowship was to be based on obedience. Genesis 2:15

Partly. And partly on God’s mercy and grace, eg Rom 5:6-11 ESV For while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. (7) For one will scarcely die for a righteous person--though perhaps for a good person one would dare even to die-- (8) but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. (9) Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God. (10) For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life. (11) More than that, we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation.” …. and many other passages which seek to describe God’s relationship to His creatures.


God created man for eternal life. Ecclesiates 3:11

Among other things…


When man rebelled against God, he lost both his fellowship with God, and his eternal life. Genesis 3:4

Yep.

Jesus came to restore us to life and fellowship. John 10:10

Yep, provided you understand who the “us” is.

In God's presence alone can you find the joy and fillment you were created to experience. He alone can make you whole. Psalm 16:11

Yep

From our perspective yes, we give all glory and honor to the Lord, but did God create man to his glory or for his glory?

Yep. Both.

[snip]

If this were a debate, I would formulate my position.

But its not, and your list of Scriptures which you claim to teach certain things while normally a good thing to discuss, is not appropriate in this thread, as has been repeatedly pointed out. This thread is for the explanation as to why it is that Calvinists believe as they do. Questions as to the “why’s and wherefores” are good until and unless they began to do more than question, which you have done, namely to begin to assert error in the Calvinists thinking. Again, that is normally well and good, but, as you have correctly noted, this is no debate. Seek clarification for understanding, but do not seek to correct here, its not the place for it.

Im not sure that I understand this issue completely so I need to ask many indepth questions.

That would be fine, if that were all you are doing. As mentioned, you are going well beyond this in your stating that Calvinism is mistaken by saying certain verses point away for Calvinistic doctrine, eg your list of statements above, all ending with a Scriptural quotation which is meant to prove a certain understanding which you feel is contrary to Calvinism.

There are many doctrines abroad and they all dont agree with each other.

Absolutely. But that is not under discussion here. What is, is the question: "What do Calvinists believe?"

I am not saying you are right at I am right.

Actually you were.


I do have my own thoughts and opinions on it, but I do not claim to have the conclusive answers.

That isn’t the way you are coming across in places.

I do thank you for helping me through this though.

I truly hope I have helped, and not brought confusion or misrepresentation for my Calvinistic brothers and sisters.

Quote: If God is in fellowship with himself, then he does not need to fellowship with us.

Did not say he needed, simply that he was, and is as witnessed throughout the entire Bible.

Do you see now why your statements “I am not saying you are right at I am right” and “I do have my own thoughts and opinions on it, but I do not claim to have the conclusive answers.” … seem to be disingenuous?

Quote: And you can debate without having a position.

Well, okay. Still, I am trying to understand so that I will fully appreciate the words of my God and savior.

A noble mission to be sure.

Sorry, I didnt know that this would become hostile. You make a very valid point. How on earth am I supposed to find out more of the Calvinist position if I cant ask direct questions about things that confuse me.

I didn’t see it getting that way, unless you mean that persons were being hostile by simply pointing out that this is not the proper place to do anything other than present Calvinistic belief. If you take that as hostility, I hate to see how you are going to react in other threads!! : )

I am not saying your wrong, please,

As a matter of fact, you were.


Im saying that I am uncomfortable with the free will approach yet I need to clear a few issues up.

All well and good….

Also, "Why is God saving anyone", well for me and ITS JUST FOR ME. It would seem absolutely illogical and fruitless and unreasonable with no intent or thought to create a world that would fall and not have a plan to bring some back (some way) to the fold. Thats why he saves any...To me.

Calvinism addresses this question very well. First, Calvinism does not teach that God has no thought or intent towards bringing some into the fold. Indeed, we believe that there is nothing illogical, fruitless or unreasonable about the way He has apparently chosen to do it. God has a plan, and His plan does not fail. And in Arminianism, it appears that His plan fails in most cases. In Calvinism God has a plan, and guess what…? Mission Accomplished. Those whom He died for, He did in fact save. His death does not make salvation merely possible, it guarantees it for those of whom for which it was intended.

blessings
 
Upvote 0

Bulldog

Don't Tread on Me
Jan 19, 2004
7,122
176
22 Acacia Avenue
✟8,212.00
Faith
Protestant
Politics
US-Libertarian
BT said:
Nope they weren't. Though alot of calvinists think as you do, the writings of calvin show otherwise.

Quoting from Augustine does not count as denying sola scriptura.

Chapter nine of the Institues of the Christian Religion







Institutes of the Christian Religion Book One, Chapter Nine
All the Principles of Piety Subverted By Fananatics, Who Substitute Revelations For Scripture

1.The fanatics wrongly appeal to the Holy Spirit
Those who, rejecting Scripture, imagine that they have some peculiar way of penetrating to God, are to be deemed not so much under the influence of error as madness. For certain giddy men have lately appeared, who, while they make a great display of the superiority of the Spirit, reject all reading of the Scriptures themselves, and deride the simplicity of those who only delight in what they call the dead and deadly letter. But I wish they would tell me what spirit it is whose inspiration raises them to such a sublime height that they dare despise the doctrine of Scripture as mean and childish. If they answer that it is the Spirit of Christ, their confidence is exceedingly ridiculous; since they will, I presume, admit that the apostles and other believers in the primitive Church were not illuminated by any other Spirit. None of these thereby learned to despise the word of God, but every one was imbued with greater reverence for it, as their writings most clearly testify. And, indeed, it had been so foretold by the mouth of Isaiah. For when he says, "My Spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed's seed, saith the Lord, from henceforth and for ever," he does not tie down the ancient Church to external doctrine, as he were a mere teacher of elements; he rather shows that, under the reign of Christ, the true and full felicity of the new Church will consist in their being ruled not less by the Word than by the Spirit of God. Hence we infer that these miscreants are guilty of fearful sacrilege in tearing asunder what the prophet joins in indissoluble union. Add to this, that Paul, though carried up even to the third heaven, ceased not to profit by the doctrine of the law and the prophets, while, in like manner, he exhorts Timothy, a teacher of singular excellence, to give attention to reading, (1 Tim. 4: 13.) And the eulogium which he pronounces on Scripture well deserves to be remembered, viz., that "it is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, and for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfect," (2 Tim. 3: 16.) What an infatuation of the devil, therefore, to fancy that Scripture, which conducts the sons of God to the final goal, is of transient and temporary use?

Again, I should like those people to tell me whether they have imbibed any other Spirit than that which Christ promised to his disciples. Though their madness is extreme, it will scarcely carry them the length of making this their boast. But what kind of Spirit did our Savior promise to send? One who should not speak of himself, (John 16: 13,) but suggest and instill the truths which he himself had delivered through the word. Hence the office of the Spirit promised to us, is not to form new and unheard-of revelations, or to coin a new form of doctrine, by which we may be led away from the received doctrine of the gospel, but to seal on our minds the very doctrine which the gospel recommends.

2. The Holy Spirit is recognized in his agreement with Scripture
Hence it is easy to understand that we must give diligent heed both to the reading and hearing of Scripture, if we would obtain any benefit from the Spirit of God, (just as Peter praises those who attentively study the doctrine of the prophets, (2 Pet. 1: 19,) though it might have been thought to be superseded after the gospel light arose,) and, on the contrary, that any spirit which passes by the wisdom of God's Word, and suggests any other doctrine, is deservedly suspected of vanity and falsehood. Since Satan transforms himself into an angel of light, what authority can the Spirit have with us if he be not ascertained by an infallible mark? And assuredly he is pointed out to us by the Lord with sufficient clearness; but these miserable men err as if bent on their own destruction, while they seek the Spirit from themselves rather than from Him. But they say that it is insulting to subject the Spirit, to whom all things are to be subject, to the Scripture: as if it were disgraceful to the Holy Spirit to maintain a perfect resemblance throughout, and be in all respects without variation consistent with himself. True, if he were subjected to a human, an angelical, or to any foreign standard, it might be thought that he was rendered subordinate, or, if you will, brought into bondage, but so long as he is compared with himself, and considered in himself, how can it be said that he is thereby injured? I admit that he is brought to a test, but the very test by which it has pleased him that his majesty should be confirmed. It ought to be enough for us when once we hear his voice; but lest Satan should insinuate himself under his name, he wishes us to recognize him by the image which he has stamped on the Scriptures. The author of the Scriptures cannot vary, and change his likeness. Such as he there appeared at first, such he will perpetually remain. There is nothing contumelious to him in this, unless we are to think it would be honorable for him to degenerate, and revolt against himself.

3. Word and Spirit belong inseparably together
Their cavil about our cleaving to the dead letter carries with it the punishment which they deserve for despising Scripture. It is clear that Paul is there arguing against false apostles, (2 Cor. 3: 6,) who, by recommending the law without Christ, deprived the people of the benefit of the New Covenant, by which the Lord engages that he will write his law on the hearts of believers, and engrave it on their inward parts. The letter therefore is dead, and the law of the Lord kills its readers when it is dissevered from the grace of Christ, and only sounds in the ear without touching the heart. But if it is effectually impressed on the heart by the Spirit; if it exhibits Christ, it is the word of life converting the soul, and making wise the simple. Nay, in the very same passage, the apostle calls his own preaching the ministration of the Spirit, (2 Cor. 3: 8,) intimating that the Holy Spirit so cleaves to his own truth, as he has expressed it in Scripture, that he then only exerts and puts forth his strength when the word is received with due honor and respect.

There is nothing repugnant here to what was lately said, (chap. 7) that we have no great certainty of the word itself, until it be confirmed by the testimony of the Spirit. For the Lord has so knit together the certainty of his word and his Spirit, that our minds are duly imbued with reverence for the word when the Spirit shining upon it enables us there to behold the face of God; and, on the other hand, we embrace the Spirit with no danger of delusion when we recognize him in his image, that is, in his word. Thus, indeed, it is. God did not produce his word before men for the sake of sudden display, intending to abolish it the moment the Spirit should arrive; but he employed the same Spirit, by whose agency he had administered the word, to complete his work by the efficacious confirmation of the word.

In this way Christ explained to the two disciples, (Luke 24: 27,) not that they were to reject the Scriptures and trust to their own wisdom, but that they were to understand the Scriptures. In like manner, when Paul says to the Thessalonians, "Quench not the Spirit," he does not carry them aloft to empty speculation apart from the word; he immediately adds, "Despise not prophesying," (1 Thess. 5: 19, 20.) By this, doubtless, he intimates that the light of the Spirit is quenched the moment prophesying fall into contempt. How is this answered by those swelling enthusiasts, in whose idea the only true illumination consists, in carelessly laying aside, and bidding adieu to the Word of God, while, with no less confidence than folly, they fasten upon any dreaming notion which may have casually sprung up in their minds? Surely a very different sobriety becomes the children of God. As they feel that without the Spirit of God they are utterly devoid of the light of truth, so they are not ignorant that the word is the instrument by which the illumination of the Spirit is dispensed. They know of no other Spirit than the one who dwelt and spake in the apostles--the Spirit by whose oracles they are daily invited to the hearing of the word.

 
Upvote 0

BT

Fanatic
Jan 29, 2003
2,320
221
50
Canada
Visit site
✟3,880.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Bulldog said:
Quoting from Augustine does not count as denying sola scriptura.
Ack! Thanks for typing all that out!

Quoting from Augustine does count as denying sola scriptura in that Augustine was not sola scriptura and his (Augustine) doctrines were not formed sola scriptura. Therefore Calvin was not sola scriptura.

I'm going to go back over everything you typed. I'm too tired to process it at the moment....
 
Upvote 0

Bulldog

Don't Tread on Me
Jan 19, 2004
7,122
176
22 Acacia Avenue
✟8,212.00
Faith
Protestant
Politics
US-Libertarian
BT said:
Quoting from Augustine does count as denying sola scriptura in that Augustine was not sola scriptura and his (Augustine) doctrines were not formed sola scriptura. Therefore Calvin was not sola scriptura.

1. Quoting wone that deniessomethign does not mean one denies the same thing. I might be able to scratch come good quotes from Hitler, that does not mean Iagree with Hitler.
2. Augustine believed in the suffiencey of scripture.

"In order to leave room for such profitable discussions of difficult questions, there is a distinct boundary line separating all productions subsequent to apostolic times from the authoritative canonical books of the Old and New Testaments. The authority of these books has come down to us from the apostles through the successions of bishops and the extension of the Church, and, from a position of lofty supremacy, claims the submission of every faithful and pious mind....In the innumerable books that have been written latterly we may sometimes find the same truth as in Scripture, but there is not the same authority. Scripture has a sacredness peculiar to itself." (Reply to Faustus the Manichaean, 11:5)

"Every sickness of the soul hath in Scripture its proper remedy." (Expositions on the Psalms, 37:2)​
 
Upvote 0

BT

Fanatic
Jan 29, 2003
2,320
221
50
Canada
Visit site
✟3,880.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Bulldog said:
1. Quoting wone that deniessomethign does not mean one denies the same thing. I might be able to scratch come good quotes from Hitler, that does not mean Iagree with Hitler.
2. Augustine believed in the suffiencey of scripture.



"In order to leave room for such profitable discussions of difficult questions, there is a distinct boundary line separating all productions subsequent to apostolic times from the authoritative canonical books of the Old and New Testaments. The authority of these books has come down to us from the apostles through the successions of bishops and the extension of the Church, and, from a position of lofty supremacy, claims the submission of every faithful and pious mind....In the innumerable books that have been written latterly we may sometimes find the same truth as in Scripture, but there is not the same authority. Scripture has a sacredness peculiar to itself." (Reply to Faustus the Manichaean, 11:5)


"Every sickness of the soul hath in Scripture its proper remedy." (Expositions on the Psalms, 37:2)
Aye but you have to go into Augustines doctrine and beliefs...(which pass into Calvin's ideas)

Augustine is known as the "Father of Roman Catholicism" and was HEAVILY HEAVILY influenced by Aristotle (you probably know where I'm going with this). Augustine felt that the logical syllogism was a good thing to apply to doctrinal concepts. Here is perhaps the greatest heresy that Augustine came up with:

Jesus is God
Mary is the Mother of Jesus
Therefore Mary is the Mother of God

Ack!

The syllogism is therefore proven to be insufficient to the development of doctrine, and Augustine is proven to be a promoter of false doctrine and most definately not sola scriptura.

Calvin was very influenced by Augustine, as no doubt were many theologians at that time. It is from this logical type of reasoning that he came up with the syllogisms that form TULIP (which I know is not a term invented by Calvin himself).

Calvinism and reform theology are way closer to RCC than most will admit. However there are even calvinistic scholars who admit this link.

Now if you come up with a couple of quotes from Hitler that does not make you a nazi, but if you start to buy into Hitlers ideas..that does make you a nazi or at least put you on the path.
 
Upvote 0

Bulldog

Don't Tread on Me
Jan 19, 2004
7,122
176
22 Acacia Avenue
✟8,212.00
Faith
Protestant
Politics
US-Libertarian
BT said:
Aye but you have to go into Augustines doctrine and beliefs...(which pass into Calvin's ideas)

Augustine is known as the "Father of Roman Catholicism" and was HEAVILY HEAVILY influenced by Aristotle (you probably know where I'm going with this). Augustine felt that the logical syllogism was a good thing to apply to doctrinal concepts. Here is perhaps the greatest heresy that Augustine came up with:

Jesus is God
Mary is the Mother of Jesus
Therefore Mary is the Mother of God

Ack!

The syllogism is therefore proven to be insufficient to the development of doctrine, and Augustine is proven to be a promoter of false doctrine and most definately not sola scriptura.

Mary as the Mother of God is something thatI and many other Refrmed Christians believe, it does not require a deniel of sola scriptura.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

BT

Fanatic
Jan 29, 2003
2,320
221
50
Canada
Visit site
✟3,880.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Bulldog said:
Mary as the Mother of God is something thatI and many other Refrmed Christians believe, it does not require a deniel of sola scriptura.
Oops sorry. I didn't realize that you believed that. I did not mean to offend you. This is where we part ways you and I. I could no more continue this discussion with you than I could with a Catholic (because it will only lead to debate). If your stance is as you've stated then you and I are further apart than I at first thought. Thank you very much for answering my questions and all of the detailed information that you took the time to type out. It is much appreciated.
 
Upvote 0

Bulldog

Don't Tread on Me
Jan 19, 2004
7,122
176
22 Acacia Avenue
✟8,212.00
Faith
Protestant
Politics
US-Libertarian
BT said:
Oops sorry. I didn't realize that you believed that. I did not mean to offend you.


No offense taken.

This is where we part ways you and I. I could no more continue this discussion with you than I could with a Catholic (because it will only lead to debate). If your stance is as you've stated then you and I are further apart than I at first thought. Thank you very much for answering my questions and all of the detailed information that you took the time to type out. It is much appreciated.

Then we'll have to agree to disagree :wave:
 
Upvote 0

Ryft

Nihil sine Deo.
Jan 6, 2004
418
95
Kelowna, BC
Visit site
✟16,078.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
CA-Conservatives
Qoheleth said:
Well, Im confused. If we as Christians define God as pure Love first (yes he demonstrates justice and mercy) then why wouldnt God choose (as pure love would) to save everybody not just a few or even a large number but all.
I understand from your icon and your posts that you (1) are a Christian, (2) believe that God is love, and (3) reject universal salvation. Consequently, you are asking a question which you ought to already have an answer to yourself, and therefore how is this supposed to be some sort of challenge to Reformed theology in particular? The dilemma you stated above either presents a problem to both of you or neither of you. Do you reject that God is love? Or do you affirm universal salvation?

Or do you affirm — as the Calvinist does — that this is a false dilemma?

Qoheleth said:
Likewise, if my three children were lost, would I, out of our limited human love only try to find (save) one and not the others. Of course not, my children are equals in my heart and I would save them all. Isnt Gods love far more pure and complete than mine??
Are you suggesting that your love is greater than God's?

Do you see how such questions and dilemmas, as you have framed them, turn around to bite you also?
 
Upvote 0

Truly Blessed

Well-Known Member
Jul 5, 2004
6,044
288
✟15,212.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Private
Hello,



Another topic, actually a couple. I dont know where to put these questions other then here. You can chuckle all you want, but not to much on the board please.



Went to RCC as kid, never Saved - Joined Army – Chosen/Accepted Jesus Christ - Rejected RCC doctrine - went to Protestant Army Chapel by default Overseas - went to PCA by recommendation - Accepted beliefs in PCA (doctrine) while going through church membership classes. Have not study church doctrine much since. I am starting to again. Based on accepting PCA beliefs (doctrine) by default does this make me a Deist or Calvinist?



I am living in Leavenworth, KS. There is no PCA church around. I have no clue as to which churches come closest to PCA beliefs (doctrine). I have the following available - less the ones I have automatically rejected.



Alphabetical order:

Assemblies of God, Baptist (American)(Independent)(Independent Fundamental)(Southern), Disciples Of Christ, Methodist Episcopal, Episcopal, PCUSA.



O.K. laugh.
Thank You
 
Upvote 0

JM

Augsburg Catholic
Site Supporter
Jun 26, 2004
17,361
3,628
Canada
✟748,324.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Others
BT said:
If I can start a sub-thread in here...

From where did Calvin come up with this doctrine? (of grace naturally)

That now falls into TULIP
BROTHER!

Hey BT, Calvin defined Grace according to the Bible. I think I may have mentioned this before in a pm to you, after I was saved (by GRACE) I could see the Bible drip with these doctrines. Every page, every word called to me...I didn't know I was a 'calvinist' until I started talking with others about my faith and they gave me the name. I was so upset I even tried not to believe, the name Calvinist causes many Christians to avoid and shun you. A very close (saved) friend of mine still calls me 'John Calvin' to this day, he means it as a knock, but it doesn't bother me anymore. :hug: My point, I think I have one, oh ya, I couldn't help but believe in what was called 'Calvinism' it's in the Bible.

SP
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Qoheleth

Byzantine Catholic
Jul 8, 2004
2,702
142
✟11,372.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Firstly, taking any one aspect of God's nature, or His moral attributes, and trying to say that it is central or prior in any way to His other attributes, is probably not possible.
I think AW Pink would disagree, so would I on this point

quot-top-left.gif
Quote:
quot-top-right.gif
quot-top-right-10.gif
Third, "God is love" (1 John 4:8). It is not simply that God "loves," but that He is Love itself. Love is not merely one of His attributes, but His very nature." ...The better we are acquainted with His love—its character, fulness, blessedness—the more will our hearts be drawn out in love to Him. Arthur W. Pink
quot-bot-left.gif
quot-bot-right.gif


Secondly, all people are not equals in God’s mind. There are His children, and there are His enemies.
Doent scripture tell us that there is not one who is "righteous" and all have fallen short of the glory of God. This is all so difficult to understand

"Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."
"The elder shall serve the younger." The first born serves younger. The greater shall serve the lesser. God set to one side the elder or the first and chose the second, or the younger through whom the blessing would come.

I thought that this was a verse about whom the blessings were to be bestowed upon for a reason in time and not in reference to which were destined for heaven or the other for hell since the subject here is not about salvation in Christ.

If we look at just one of these descriptions of what love is, and try to apply it to God, instead of for what Paul meant, ie that this is a model for humans to love, we run into immediate problems. Again, looking at just one of these descriptions, for instance “keeps no record of wrongs”, what are we to say of a God that “remembers” person’s unrepentant sin, and as a result casts them into Hell? He has apparently “violated” 1 Cor. 13 no matter if one is an Arminian or a Calvinist.
"keeps no record of wrongs..." Well, I dont know. Isnt the meaning here self-centered record keeping that has no purpose except to harm?? Hell is a consequence, the sins "remembered" speak to a judgement not to useless other record keeping.

If God has effectively reversed the sin for all of mankind by the atonement, then why do some still sin?
So what has Jesus conquered on the cross? Was it not the idea that sin is death and now the faithful can rest assured that their sins have been forgiven and the ultimate effects of sin are now destoyed to the greater glory of God. It is the ultimate reversal of sin...Life
 
Upvote 0

Qoheleth

Byzantine Catholic
Jul 8, 2004
2,702
142
✟11,372.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
The creation’s (humans in particular) only true fulfillment is to glorify God by loving Him forever
Yes I agree, this is a relationship of love and this relationship glorifies the Lord and Gods purpose was for humans to love him (and he them) to his greater glory.

If you take that as hostility, I hate to see how you are going to react in other threads!! : )
Yep, I may be a little more sensitive or fragile than others, as I try not to offend while also attempting to be assertive.


As a matter of fact, you were.
Actually, I am only looking for inconsistencies in my thinking or the thoughts offered to me.

God has a plan, and guess what…? Mission Accomplished.
Amen Amen indeed
 
Upvote 0

JM

Augsburg Catholic
Site Supporter
Jun 26, 2004
17,361
3,628
Canada
✟748,324.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Others
BT said:
Oops sorry. I didn't realize that you believed that. I did not mean to offend you. This is where we part ways you and I. I could no more continue this discussion with you than I could with a Catholic (because it will only lead to debate). If your stance is as you've stated then you and I are further apart than I at first thought. Thank you very much for answering my questions and all of the detailed information that you took the time to type out. It is much appreciated.
I don't agree or disagree with that statment, Mary is the mother of Jesus and Jesus is God. For me, it doesn't affect my understanding at all. Some call Mary the mother of God...I don't, but I'm not sure we should disreguard a persons theology based on the above.

If I'm cornered I'd have to say Mary is the mother of the human side of Jesus.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Qoheleth

Byzantine Catholic
Jul 8, 2004
2,702
142
✟11,372.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Consequently, you are asking a question which you ought to already have an answer to yourself, and therefore how is this supposed to be some sort of challenge to Reformed theology in particular? The dilemma you stated above either presents a problem to both of you or neither of you. Do you reject that God is love? Or do you affirm universal salvation?
God is love, I deny that all will be universally saved.


Are you suggesting that your love is greater than God's?
Do my references to love make me seem to be above the Lord and greater? I believe you know that I am saying Gods love is always far greater than any love I can express or do. He is not held to my standard, He is what He is...Love

Do you see how such questions and dilemmas, as you have framed them, turn around to bite you also?
Love is a driven action by its quality in and of itself. I do not believe that I have misrepresented the quality of Love that I have for my children, neither do I think this of the Almighty. I dont see how that would "turn around to bite you also" as you say.
 
Upvote 0