• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Status
Not open for further replies.

supersoldier71

Sinner, saved by Grace
Jan 19, 2011
676
184
Far, far away from home
✟25,260.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
Fault indicates error.

I'm familiar with the Westminster Confession and agree with it, but when someone arrives in hell, it is on God's authority and by His sovereign will, but there is no error.
 
Reactions: redleghunter
Upvote 0

supersoldier71

Sinner, saved by Grace
Jan 19, 2011
676
184
Far, far away from home
✟25,260.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
From last to first:
You love God BY keeping His commandments, sure...
You love God BECAUSE He loved you first.

Your middle three points all address sanctification. Correct. It's hard work. And only available after rebirth and salvation, which are the work of the Lord.

The Holy Spirit of God only indwells believers, or how else could we ever hope to please God? By your own efforts? Right. No future in that according to scripture. (Romans 8:8)

Your first point requires the utmost clarity and the most precise language that I can muster:
I am only blameless before the Father because of the work of the Son on my behalf. Because of His perfect and complete work on the cross of Calvary, I have faith, my faith is counted as righteousness (Romans 4:22).

Here is where I must be especially clear: Jesus Christ, Son of God, Second Person of the Trinity took MY place on the cross, and bore the full weight of the Father's wrath for MY sins. He is my personal savior. And because of His work, I am a new creature.

Do I still struggle with the world and the flesh? Yep. Every day!

But each day I work to be more like Him, empowered by the power of the Holy Spirit that only the redeemed children of God--all of US--have been given.

"Reached the pinnacle..." Brother, if I were an unbeliever or even someone that you knew personally who was visibly struggling with some theological question, would your words be as laced with sarcasm and ill-will?

I have attempted as best I can to explain with scriptural evidence every aspect of Reformed theology, and in return, you twist concepts to create straw-men, belittle and accuse, and justify it by saying that you seek the truth.

You don't, friend.

You seek to be "right".
 
Reactions: redleghunter
Upvote 0

EmSw

White Horse Rider
Apr 26, 2014
6,434
718
✟74,044.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
From last to first:
You love God BY keeping His commandments, sure...
You love God BECAUSE He loved you first.

How do you love God? Just by lip service?


How do you say after salvation, when no one will see the Lord without holiness? (Hebrews 12:14)

Whose effort do you use? Is someone else casting away your transgressions? Of course it is by your own effort.

Why is sanctification frowned upon as salvation? Paul said you should no longer walk as the Gentiles do. If you walk that way, your understanding is darkened, and you are alienated from the life of God. Your heart is also blind.

Is there salvation if one is alienated from the life of God?



What do you mean He took your place on the cross? Jesus said to take up your own cross and follow Him. Because of His work, you are now able to be a new creature. The choice is ours. You can either walk as the old man (unsaved), or you can put off the old man, and put on the new man (created in true righteousness and holiness).


Better to present the truth, than a half-truth. If Paul's words are sarcasm and ill-will, then why would not present them? People only want the good things he mentions, but have no use for the harsh, bitter words concerning the old man.

I have attempted as best I can to explain with scriptural evidence every aspect of Reformed theology, and in return, you twist concepts to create straw-men, belittle and accuse, and justify it by saying that you seek the truth.

Sounds like Paul twisted them your theology's words. If you haven't put off the old man, your understanding is darkened, your heart is blinded, and you are separated from the life of God. If you have put off the old man, and also put on the new man, then you are in Christ, and a new creation.
 
Upvote 0

supersoldier71

Sinner, saved by Grace
Jan 19, 2011
676
184
Far, far away from home
✟25,260.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
How do you love God? Just by lip service?

Answered that and gave the reason WHY we love God.






Your example is yet another sermon to believers. He's preaching sanctification.

I use my effort made possible ONLY by the Holy Spirit.

Is there alienation after God has made you a new creature?


Substitutionary atonement. Or do you not believe that Christ died to pay the penalty for sin?




You clearly cannot be reading anything that I post.

I said YOU are sarcastic and bear ill-will.

Your examples fail. Your logic is NOT logical. Your theology is unsound and boastful.

I do not only accept the "good" things that Paul mentions, speak of the hard work of sanctification while you boast of your works based righteousness, which Paul (and everyone else in both Testaments) condemns!

Every word uttered by every saint, all the prophets and Lord Jesus Himself declare your theology to be a lie.

God bless.
 
Upvote 0

EmSw

White Horse Rider
Apr 26, 2014
6,434
718
✟74,044.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Answered that and gave the reason WHY we love God.

I know why; how do you show you love God?

Your example is yet another sermon to believers. He's preaching sanctification.

I use my effort made possible ONLY by the Holy Spirit.

Is there alienation after God has made you a new creature?

Is anyone alienated if he walks in the old man?

Substitutionary atonement. Or do you not believe that Christ died to pay the penalty for sin?

What is the penalty of sin, and show me where Jesus paid that penalty.

You clearly cannot be reading anything that I post.

I said YOU are sarcastic and bear ill-will.

Your examples fail. Your logic is NOT logical. Your theology is unsound and boastful.

Personal attacks do not substantiate your beliefs. But I understand why you have to attack me personally; you cannot for a second attack the truth of the word. The word is a sword, and as such, will cut to the heart of the matter. Those who suffer cuts are those who are in a corner, and will attack anything close to them. Cut me all you want; it doesn't change the truth which will be the victor in the fight.


Where have I boasted?

Ephesians 4
17 This I say, therefore, and testify in the Lord, that you should no longer walk as the rest of the Gentiles walk, in the futility of their mind,
18 having their understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God, because of the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart;
19 who, being past feeling, have given themselves over to lewdness, to work all uncleanness with greediness.
20 But you have not so learned Christ,
21 if indeed you have heard Him and have been taught by Him, as the truth is in Jesus:
22 that you put off, concerning your former conduct, the old man which grows corrupt according to the deceitful lusts,
23 and be renewed in the spirit of your mind,
24 and that you put on the new man which was created according to God, in true righteousness and holiness.


It's a lie to say you can walk in your old man, and still have the life of God. If you have heard Jesus, and have been taught by Him, THAT YOU PUT OFF THE OLD MAN, that is, your former conduct. This is what Jesus teaches. To walk in the old man is to walk in the futility of your mind, having your understanding darkened, having your heart blinded, to give yourself to lewdness, to grow corrupt according to your lusts, and most importantly, separated from the life of God. Is this the salvation of which you speak?

If this is a lie, then it's because your understanding is darkened, having not put off the old man.
 
Upvote 0

supersoldier71

Sinner, saved by Grace
Jan 19, 2011
676
184
Far, far away from home
✟25,260.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian

Not a lie, friend, another straw-man.

No one here has said that we are not changed. How many times have we referenced being born again? Sanctified? Remade in the image of Christ?

You argue against a position that no one here holds.

Which tells me that you are literally out of cogent arguments.

But hold up...you DON'T believe that Christ died for our sins?

See, if you'd led with that, you could've saved us both a lot of time!

Later.
 
Reactions: civilwarbuff
Upvote 0

jimmyjimmy

Pardoned Rebel
Site Supporter
Jan 2, 2015
11,556
5,727
USA
✟257,503.00
Country
United States
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
We could look at it that way, but we do generally think of the afterlife when we speak of "life eternal" I think. to be sure, eternity does not start there (or else it wouldn't be eternal), but I think that's the usual way of thinking of the term.

I'm not so sure. Imperishable seed comes to mind. . .
 
Upvote 0

EmSw

White Horse Rider
Apr 26, 2014
6,434
718
✟74,044.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married

I asked you what the penalty is for sin, and you didn't answer.

If you'll provide that, then we can go on from there.
 
Upvote 0

rakovsky

Newbie
Apr 8, 2004
2,552
558
Pennsylvania
✟75,185.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
"Substitutionary atonement. Or do you not believe that Christ died to pay the penalty for sin?"
What is the penalty of sin, and show me where Jesus paid that penalty.
The possible source of confusion could be that there are different compatible "theories" about salvation.
One of them is substitutionary atonement, like in Isaiah 53.
This is an orthodox (correct) theory. The lamb Christ took on the sins of the multitudes in that chapter.

But there are other theories also correct, like Ransom theory. The believers were being held "hostage" by death. This is in Isaiah 51-52, where God's People are "ransomed", as the chapter says. In Ransom theory, Christ died to pay the "ransom" to let the "captives" go from sin and death. Isaiah says that the captives are ransomed, but not for metals (IIRC). This implies that the ransom was not paid with coins, and is a mystical way of putting it.
Another one is where we put off the old man with his sins and faults and put on the new man, Christ, which is a theory that EmSW mentioned and is stated by Paul in the Epistles.
Another one is "covenant theory"- God makes a "covenant" with his people. The old "covenants"' creation literally meant to "cut" a covenant, whereby an animal was killed and used to seal the agreement. People fulfill their side of the bargain with loyalty and observances and God saves them and fulfills His side. God makes a promise of salvation and fulfills it.
There are lots of images and explanations for salvation in the Bible, some of them more mystical than others.

I think there is even a sense in which death is NOT a punishment, but rather a relief from hardships of the world. I have seen a Reformed on CF.com quote an Orthodox user to that affect and make it look like he doesn't get soteriology. But this is not necessarily true. In Reformed circles there is a larger emphasis on penal theology and penal substutition.
However, Paul says at one point as I remember it that when sin entered the world, so did death. And Paul says in Romans 6: "For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus".
So in some sense substitutionary atonement is correct and death is a penalty. But in some other sense, I think that it is not necessarily one by its own nature. When God brought Elijah to heaven or took away Enoch, perhaps this has some similarity to death, a removal from the world and/or taking to heaven? Yet in those cases it SOUNDS like God is actually rewarding people who he loved - God walked with Enoch and took him away. Was he punishing his beloved? i think not! It sounds like God is in another place and not strictly in earth and so being like and with God, this gives part of the explanation.



So this is why in the end I think that there are different correct theories.
But substitutionary atonement is also correct.
 
Upvote 0

rakovsky

Newbie
Apr 8, 2004
2,552
558
Pennsylvania
✟75,185.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
Hello, GillDouglas!

Calvin had studied the Greek pagan stoic philosophers in depth and it had a major aura of fatalism. So in a sense to study Calvinism is to see Christianity through a fatalistic lens.


Were I to make a critique:
So far none of this is scripture but one's own theological speculation.
Maybe God in his infinite wisdom wanted to play in a sandbox and didn't have a plan with a detail for each tiny thing?
What sounds strange to one person sounds OK to another.
I am not saying that the above must be wrong, but I am reluctant because I know where Calvin goes with this stuff. it's not like the Bible doesn't give any basis for the ideas, but he brought together a stronger theory than what was stated clearly at length. It's Calvin's interpretation of the Bible and especially of Paul, not Paul's take on Paul and on the Bible.

The Scriptures teach that God's providential [potential] control extends to everything, therefore His [hypothetical all-encompassing] plan too must [in Calvin's view] be equally comprehensive.
Fixed it.

Methodists/Arminians and Calvinists have been debating intensely for the last 400 years, but the Catholics and Orthodox have been putting out theories that are less fatalistic in tone than Calvin's for the last 1900+.

When I was confirmed in PCUSA as a teenager I didn't even realize there was such a major difference between Calvinists on one hand and Lutherans and Arminians on the other on this kind of topic. Maybe it was Calvin's own theory, i thought, but I didn't realize how entrenched Calvinism was in Calvinism, so to speak. My attitude was more like Calvin has his own theories and other people have other theories. Maybe I am exaggerating, but that was my attitude.

Here is a big mistake. I get the idea that God pre-destined and fore-knew events.
HOWEVER, this does not FORBID us ("never think") from perceiving God as changing something in reaction to men's will, EVEN IF it's also true that God pre-planned his action.

A great example is the Book of Jonah. God tells Jonah to tell Nineveh that God is going to destroy Nineveh. Jonah goes and tells them that. Was God LYING? Is God a Deceiver?
Nineveh repented and then God did not destroy Nineveh.

I OBJECT to the Calvinist fatalistic, mindlocking idea that "we should never think" that God reacted to man's will.
There needs to be an allowance for competing, compatible ideas. God is not a two dimensional object that we see and know everything about.

What God "wills" include the actions of men? How about their bad actions? Are those God's will?
The problem in making this a foundational dogma is the risk that it is implying God as the author of sin.
Yet we do see the Crucifixion as God's Will in some sense in the Bible. Not thy will but thine, Christ says.
So you are talking about a philosophical issue of will v freedom, that has gone on for maybe 400 years (Arminians) or even thousands of years. There may be an INHERENT paradox here - the THEODICY.

Calvin's pronouncements sound absolutist though, as he repeats them over and over, which is what makes them one sided, even though there is probably a grain of truth in his ideas, ie. that God has will that can include things we don't want and he pre-knows things.

The problem is Calvinism's one sided emphasis that created a void that the Arminians filled.

The tendency is to set aside God's sovereignty in order to make room for the autocracy of the human will.
Because there is a sense in which that tendency is correct.
Did Jesus not have a choice as a human to deny or accept Satan's offer? he had a choice, but being God, he WOULD DEFINITELY only choose to reject Satan.
But Jesus' choice still had to be considered a real one for Jesus to be considered human.

Maybe I will come back to this, but it's enough of this for now. it's too bad how locked people get into a locked mentality and philosophy of being locked!
 
Upvote 0

civilwarbuff

Constitutionalist
Site Supporter
May 28, 2015
15,873
7,590
Columbus
✟755,957.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Constitution
What do you mean by dying for our sins? It has been mentioned He paid the penalty for sins. Is this what you mean?
Did he die? Was it for our sins? These aren't tough questions; please don't respond with a question just an answer.....then I will answer yours.
 
Upvote 0

civilwarbuff

Constitutionalist
Site Supporter
May 28, 2015
15,873
7,590
Columbus
✟755,957.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Constitution
Do you mean the wages of sin is temporal or eternal death?
Never an answer, only another question....must be how you were taught to respond when your beliefs are challenged......
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.