Calvinism has its own philosophy langguage that makes things complicated and unnecessary

[J3thekingofking]

Show your logic. To me, that does not follow.

How are they necessarily linked, if TULIP makes sense? (Or maybe I should say, What does TULIP have to do with the question of them being linked?) You need to show your work more. I'm not a mind reader.

Ask the arminian logic for their TULIP and debate with them

I'm either arminian or calvinist, you may ask how does that work? Well, read more

 

[com7fy8]

And you throw few verses to me? What's the for? Even if the verses are true I don't see how you're avoiding my question.

As far as I know, I have not intentionally avoided your question. I was trying to give you better than what you are asking for, too.

So . . . possibly, it would help if you clearly state what the question is. I actually have not been clear what you really are asking; so I have tried to give you something, in case it is good for you. I have given things which I would say have been very good for me.

 

[John Mullally]

SHOW me where he said that they precede Regeneration. I do not see it.

The Grace Community Church's (John MacArthur) doctrinal statement (Doctrinal Statement | Grace Community Church) says that regeneration requires action on the individual as it occurs:

when the repentant sinner, as enabled by the Holy Spirit, responds in faith to the divine provision of salvation.​

Repentance and response are actions taken by the individual. The Holy Spirit does not do the repenting or responding.

Analogy: If I say that I hit a home run when the ball makes contact with the bat at 110 MPH, what happens first the home run or bat to ball contact?

If MacArthur believes and/or teaches repentance and response follow regeneration, the doctrinal statement is misleading - and perhaps deceptive.

You were there to help him choose you, before the foundation of the world when he chose you? --even predestined your existence and salvation?

This is an example of assuming a premise (God exclusively chooses saved and lost) and then asking a different question (Were you there?). Used car salesman technique. Maybe your joking!

 

[Mark Quayle]

God choose ppl in view of Christ, God want all to be saved.. you agree?

God didn't actively choose ppl for hell, it's ppl's fault for rejecting Christ

I don't dispute that it is the people's fault --after all, they have sinned, and deserve no better. That doesn't imply that God never planned for that to happen, or even that his reason for creating each one that ends up damned is for the purpose of his glory, to show his power and justice and his mercy to those he chose for glory.

What do you think it means when 'God wants' --he wishes, he plans, he would, but..., he lacks? Does God lack anything, to need or have 'want' of it? The Bible is full of places where God has mercy on a person or a people, a city or nation, yet they are not in the end saved. He does not, as such, delight in the destruction of anyone, as far as I know. But he desires the end product, the Bride of Christ, the Church, the Dwelling Place of God himself, and this (the forever doomed) are part of what it takes to make her precisely what he had in mind from the beginning.

The same sort of mental construction shows up when Christ asks, if it were possible to let this cup pass --"nevertheless, not as I will, but your will be done".

 

[Mark Quayle]

I never said that John Calvin said that God rejoices over a sinners damnation. You can read the Calvin quote for yourself.

I did postulate that if God does not rejoice in a sinners damnation, God gets no glory from it. If X, then Y does not necessitate If Y, then X.

You yourself say here, that "..if God does not rejoice in a sinners damnation, God gets no glory from it." and deduced from that that Calvin was wrong in saying God gets glory from it. YOU linked them together as logically mutually incompatible. Paint it how you like.

 

[Mark Quayle]

If my logic is poor then you are saying Angels, who behold the face of God continually, may love that which God does not love - rejoice where God would not rejoice.

No. I will try again: I am not saying anything about the angels --that is your narrative. I make no comment on it other than to say the premise (angels are rejoicing) doesn't logically lead to the conclusion (God is rejoicing). It may or may not be true, but the one doesn't necessarily mean the other is true.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I never linked the gift of God to FORCING. Your form of logic includes a lot of mind reading - you frequently attribute statements to me that I never came close to saying.

You said, "Neither MacArthur (per his doctrinal statement) nor I believe He will force himself on anyone." You are, or are you not, referring to the Calvinistic doctrine of Irresistable Grace-- i.e. that God regenerates a person quite independent of any act of will on their part, changing their heart and will.? You certainly seem to take this work of God, regeneration, which I call the Gift of God, as 'forcing'. You used the very word, "force". If that is not what you were talking about, what were you talking about?

 

[Mark Quayle]

The Grace Community Church's (John MacArthur) doctrinal statement (Doctrinal Statement | Grace Community Church) says that regeneration requires action on the individual as it occurs:

when the repentant sinner, as enabled by the Holy Spirit, responds in faith to the divine provision of salvation.​

Repentance and response are actions taken by the individual. The Holy Spirit does not do the repenting or responding.

Analogy: If I say that I hit a home run when the ball makes contact with the bat at 110 MPH, what happens first the home run or bat to ball contact?

If MacArthur believes and/or teaches repentance and response follow regeneration, the doctrinal statement is misleading - and perhaps deceptive.

This is an example of assuming a premise (God exclusively chooses saved and lost) and then asking a different question (Were you there?). Used car salesman technique. Maybe your joking!

You know what I was being sarcastic about. Don't pretend otherwise.

So you can't answer the point I made. God does not need to find out what you are going to do to make his plans concerning you.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Analogy: If I say that I hit a home run when the ball makes contact with the bat at 110 MPH, what happens first the home run or bat to ball contact?

If I say I was stung by a paper wasp, someone might ask, "When?", and I will reply, "When I fell from the tree." Since they saw me fall from the tree, my answer makes perfect sense, and even suggests why I fell from the tree.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Repentance and response are actions taken by the individual. The Holy Spirit does not do the repenting or responding.

Do you need a refresher course on the Scriptures that show the unregenerated are unable to repent or respond positively to the gospel? We've been over this enough. Good day, sir. And yes, God bless you.

 

[John Mullally]

You yourself say here, that "..if God does not rejoice in a sinners damnation, God gets no glory from it." and deduced from that that Calvin was wrong in saying God gets glory from it. YOU linked them together as logically mutually incompatible. Paint it how you like.

You said that I said that John Calvin said "God rejoices over a sinners damnation" and objected to that.

And then it progressed to linking things together that are logically incompatible and that I had to admit something. I admit I don't know what 2 linked things you are talking about. Here is a guess: My statements would be logically incompatible if I agreed with what John Calvin wrote is correct. And now I have to paint something.

Suggestion: Say exactly what you disagree with. For example, based upon more recent posts I suppose you disagree with: "If God does not rejoice in a sinners damnation, God gets no glory from it". I am lousy at guessing games.

 

[John Mullally]

No. I will try again: I am not saying anything about the angels --that is your narrative. I make no comment on it other than to say the premise (angels are rejoicing) doesn't logically lead to the conclusion (God is rejoicing). It may or may not be true, but the one doesn't necessarily mean the other is true.

I said "Angels follow God, so if the Angels rejoice over a sinner's repentance, then so does God." Angels follow God can be thought of as "If angels rejoice over X, then God rejoices over X".

 

[John Mullally]

If I say I was stung by a paper wasp, someone might ask, "When?", and I will reply, "When I fell from the tree." Since they saw me fall from the tree, my answer makes perfect sense, and even suggests why I fell from the tree.

It is more accurate to say it occurred just before I fell out of the tree. People frequently think in cause and effect. Its When <cause>, then <effect>.

We are talking MacArthur's doctrinal statement over one of the important points that separates Calvinists from non-Calvinists. If repentance and response follows regeneration as you say, why does John write the doctrinal statement so that it sounds like repentance precedes regeneration. In any case, the order in the doctrinal statement should not be ambiguous. If repentance is a sign following regeneration (like good works), instead of preceding regeneration, say it that way.

 

[John Mullally]

You know what I was being sarcastic about. Don't pretend otherwise.

So you can't answer the point I made. God does not need to find out what you are going to do to make his plans concerning you.

God, who is love, has good plans for me:

Jeremiah 29:11 For I know the plans I have for you,” declares the LORD, “plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future.

Jesus came to bring life and destroy the works of the devil. Satan has come to kill, steal, and destroy. John Calvin says that God predestines (thus condemns) some to Hell before they are born - thus attributing the desire of the devil (to kill and destroy) to God!

 

[John Mullally]

Do you need a refresher course on the Scriptures that show the unregenerated are unable to repent or respond positively to the gospel?

No thank you I will stick with the Bible.

When speaking to the men at Athens, Paul states that God arranges man's circumstances so that lost men would seek Him and find Him.

Acts 17:26 And He has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their preappointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings, 27 so that they should seek the Lord, in the hope that they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us;​

 

[John Mullally]

God no more forces himself on anyone than he forced them to exist. You would call the gift of God FORCING???

I would never call the gift of God forcing. You should know I don't believe in the Calvinist doctrine of Irresistible Grace. God may use circumstances to get the resistant to do His Will - as in the case of Jonah (who himself was a prophet). If God does not force his prophet (Jonah) to do something, why would he force anyone else?

 

[Religiot]

Calvinist's limited atonement? Well, personally I think calvinism explanation in their logic or whatsoever but it's confusing and complicated. I rather be on the side with the early church fathers. That's why I'm not a fan of that tradition.

I love how Thomas Jefferson described Calvinism:

 

[John Mullally]

I love how Thomas Jefferson described Calvinism:
View attachment 293519

John Calvin justified killing his theological opponents with the Bible