Calvinist Robots

[squint]

I am just indicating what the scriptures say. Yes, I believe that God can do anything, however, He limited himself when he stated that one is saved through faith in Christ.

You'll have to excuse me. I often use this exercise to show that it is one thing to say you believe in The Divine Sovereign, FULLY ABLE to do anything He wants to...

and THEN say that God will ONLY do as YOU SEE things and determine things.

That methodology is called a logical fallacy.

He limited himself

And THAT is called an argument from the excluded middle, meaning that there are OTHER possible and potential answers to these questions than what you POSE.

when he declared that one's sins must be covered by the blood of a pure sacrifice in order to be saved. It is God, not I (or not Calvinists), who set the parameters.

Well, pardon me while I view the sacrifice of God in Christ ONLY as YOU see and determine? Where did that Divine Sovereign slip off to...? Hello, anyone out there?

enjoy!

squint

 

[squint]

Calvinists do not hold to eternal justification.

Calvinists believe that God's wrath is on all unbelievers, including anyone who has been predestined (i.e., the elect).

Calvinists hold that at the point of conversion, God justifies the believer, which means they no longer bear God's wrath, and their status changes from God's enemy to being at peace with God. This change - conversion - is a specific point in time.

Calvinists also believe God uses people to spread the gospel and to accomplish His will. Calvinists believe God works through and uses the circumstances and will of the individual to bring them to a point of conversion.


LDG

Oh, it's abundantly CLEAR now!

The predestined and elect ARE and CAN BE LOST...meaning that they were NEITHER?

 

[A New Dawn]

You'll have to excuse me. I often use this exercise to show that it is one thing to say you believe in The Divine Sovereign, FULLY ABLE to do anything He wants to...

and THEN say that God will ONLY do as YOU SEE things and determine things.

That methodology is called a logical fallacy.



And THAT is called an argument from the excluded middle, meaning that there are OTHER possible and potential answers to these questions than what you POSE.



Well, pardon me while I view the sacrifice of God in Christ ONLY as YOU see and determine? Where did that Divine Sovereign slip off to...? Hello, anyone out there?

enjoy!

squint

To come to other conclusions requires that you either have had personal revelation that is not included in the Bible, or you feel that certain passages are ignorable. I'm not certain how anyone can read 'I am the way, the truth, and the life, NO MAN COMES TO THE FATHER BUT BY ME', and come to a different conclusion.

 

[squint]

I don't claim to know who will fail to attain heaven. Catholics don't assume our salvation is accomplished. We have the virtue of hope.

I know for no uncertain fact that the Devil and his messengers will be in the Lake. So does the RCC. So does hopefully everyone on these boards. So that much is a set and lock. And also for no uncertain fact the RCC has NOT CONCLUSIVELY determined that there will be a single named person in the Lake of Fire. They allow for God to OVER RULE with His Eternal Grace and Mercy to ALL MANKIND at least as a POTENTIAL.

So for YOU to presume ANY person is heading to the LAKE of FIRE is a view that is ALLOWED, but it IS also ONLY a presumption. It is NOT a set and lock from the RCC side.

The key difference though is that I believe God loves all of us and wants us to choose him.

Yeah, poor old God. Just sitting there on His Heavenly Cloud, waiting for us to activate Him in our behalves. Otherrwise it's the big for else.

He does not withhold his grace from some thus assuring their salvation.

I think you meant their non-salvation.

Perhaps a larger question in these matters is the effectiveness of GRACE. I do give the RCC credit for at least realizing the potential of same could very well be VASTLY GREATER than the sum of what all their theologians have come up with.

In this way they have bowed at least to the Potential of Superior Divine Sovereign Grace.

 

[Rick Otto]

You are not following my point.

According to non Calvinist beliefs, not just Catholic beliefs, our efforts to witness and spread the gospel actually do save souls.


Calvinists believe these things are incidental. ie. It doesn't really matter what anyone does.

You are misinformed, pal.
John Calvin was the first guy to go door to door evangelizing.
Very big on missions.
He knew from scripture that hearing the gospel is a way God has of delivering grace to His adopted children.
I think he actualy read the scriptures, Chez.

 

[Gary51]

Hey... Rick my man.... Just seen you in the active window.

Sorry.... what's the thread about?

 

[squint]

To come to other conclusions requires that you either have had personal revelation that is not included in the Bible, or you feel that certain passages are ignorable.

Well actually the questions of universal atonement or limited atonement have been debated for several hundred years now, so your isolating 'my view' to be 'personal revelation' or 'ignoring certain passages' is again an argument from the excluded middle, a false dilema. A strawman.

I'm not certain how anyone can read 'I am the way, the truth, and the life, NO MAN COMES TO THE FATHER BUT BY ME', and come to a different conclusion.

Well, by all means, let's just see this matter ONLY as you do and bow to THAT?

The questions of limited atonement vs. unlimited or universal atonement ARE classics in the realm of theology and there are many many good and excellent positions on BOTH SIDES of this ledger. And even within these matters there are many many sects.

These things are simply not so easy as making false claims and isolations and then blowing other views off on that basis. It's a far more interesting field than that methodology. Sorry.

And yes, I hate to tell ya, but there ARE other well reasoned logically consistent views.

enjoy!

squint

 

[chestertonrules]

You are misinformed, pal.
John Calvin was the first guy to go door to door evangelizing.
Very big on missions.
He knew from scripture that hearing the gospel is a way God has of delivering grace to His adopted children.
I think he actualy read the scriptures, Chez.

So do you believe that different people would have been saved if Calvin had not gone door to door?

 

[chestertonrules]

In this way they have bowed at least to the Potential of Superior Divine Sovereign Grace.

Have you bowed at least to the potential of divine retribution for some humans?

 

[A New Dawn]

Well actually the questions of universal atonement or limited atonement have been debated for several hundred years now, so your isolating 'my view' to be 'personal revelation' or 'ignoring certain passages' is again an argument from the excluded middle, a false dilema. A strawman.


Well, by all means, let's just see this matter ONLY as you do and bow to THAT?

The questions of limited atonement vs. unlimited or universal atonement ARE classics in the realm of theology and there are many many good and excellent positions on BOTH SIDES of this ledger. And even within these matters there are many many sects.

These things are simply not so easy as making false claims and isolations and then blowing other views off on that basis. It's a far more interesting field than that methodology. Sorry.

And yes, I hate to tell ya, but there ARE other well reasoned logically consistent views.

enjoy!

squint

I'm not sure that universal atonement is considered a classical view. I do know that it was a view held by some in the early church and was declared a heresy, and even here on CF, it was considered unorthodox enough to relegate discussion of it to Unorthodox Theology until fairly recently. So, I do feel fairly confident enough about making my statement.

 

[Rick Otto]

Hey... Rick my man.... Just seen you in the active window.

Sorry.... what's the thread about?

Oh,... I just had a little hissy fit about people always sayin' predestination makes us sentient beings into robots. Not that I have anything against robots. Matter of fact I suspect some of my best friends... never mind.
The coffeee's talkin' now. (lol)

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Have you bowed at least to the potential of divine retribution for some humans?

I know I have

Reve 19:17 And I perceived one Messenger standing in the sun and he cries-out in great voice saying to all the birds, the ones flying in mid-heaven, "hither! be ye being gathered! into the Supper of the Great God.
18 That ye may be eating/faghte <5315> (5632) fleshes [Zeph 1:7/Ezekiel 39:17]

 

[squint]

I'm not sure that universal atonement is considered a classical view.

Oh please. Let's not do this.

I do know that it was a view held by some in the early church and was declared a heresy, and even here on CF, it was considered unorthodox enough to relegate discussion of it to Unorthodox Theology until fairly recently. So, I do feel fairly confident enough about making my statement.

The discussions of these matters are vast, and yes, there are actually theologians who do not believe like Calvinists. Imagine that? Even 'orthodox' theologians. Imagine that?

And no dear, it's NOT a heresy to have a different view than the Calvinist one on the efficacy of the atonement.

So please, let's not do that drill either. Let's just say that your view is NOT necessarily The Divine Sovereign Position.

 

[chestertonrules]

Oh,... I just had a little hissy fit about people always sayin' predestination makes us sentient beings into robots. Not that I have anything against robots. Matter of fact I suspect some of my best friends... never mind.
The coffeee's talkin' now. (lol)

You can't just answer the softball questions, Obama.

You missed one!

So do you believe that different people would have been saved if Calvin had not gone door to door spreading the gospel?

 

[Rick Otto]

So do you believe that different people would have been saved if Calvin had not gone door to door?

Everybody is a different person.
I think the people God chooses to save, He saves.
Don't you?

 

[A New Dawn]

The discussions of these matters are vast, and yes, there are actually theologians who do not believe like Calvinists. Imagine that? Even 'orthodox' theologians. Imagine that?

And no dear, it's NOT a heresy to have a different view than the Calvinist one on the efficacy of the atonement.

So please, let's not do that drill either. Let's just say that your view is NOT necessarily The Divine Sovereign Position.

There are other views than the Calvinist view on the atonement that are not universal in nature, and those I am willing to debate. I do not believe universalism is Biblical though. I have the right to believe that just as you have the right to believe .................... whatever it is you believe.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

You can't just answer the softball questions, Obama.

You missed one!

So do you believe that different people would have been saved if Calvin had not gone door to door spreading the gospel?

But he wasn't the only one spreading the Gospel.

 

[Rick Otto]

You can't just answer the softball questions, Obama.

You missed one!

So do you believe that different people would have been saved if Calvin had not gone door to door spreading the gospel?

Obama - the perfect scapegoat. Spend eight years taking the country from a balanced budget to a record debt, puttin' it in two unwinnable wars, bankrupt the economy, & then hand it over to the patsy before it explodes in a ball of flames.

I answer friends first.

 

[squint]

Have you bowed at least to the potential of divine retribution for some humans?

IF there was a single named human example, I could accept that. I would not presume anyone into the Lake of Fire 'because' there are many many specific scriptural examples to NOT do that...

For example, measure unto others how YOU want to be measured. Would you 'really' measure yourself potentially into the Lake of Fire? Pardon me to say that no person in their RIGHT MIND would wish that potential upon themselves SO WHY would they even think of same to OTHERS?

No, toying with that idea is a danger in and of itself. Judgment to me is a vastly more complex and interesting subject that has other answers that are more considerate of my unsaved neighbors.

And I do give my hats off to the RCC for at least recognizing this.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

No, toying with that idea is a danger in and of itself. Judgment to me is a vastly more complex and interesting subject that has other answers that are more considerate of my unsaved neighbors.

That sounds like the kinda of Gospel I would preach