For those who argue for the omnibenevolence of God…

[Hammster]

Calvinism is a busy legal system built by logic and deduction from some verses in scripture. It isn't "the truth". It's an opinion about the "system of doctrine" in the scriptures. I am not one who follows that system, nor one who admires it.

That’s not the topic.

 

[Hammster]

Sheep is an idiom. Jesus used it to introduce new concepts and we shouldn't take it beyond what Jesus used it for. I brought up John 10:37-38 to show that by its usage, sheep didn't mean what you say it means. It is better to stick to more direct statements on salvation, such as found in the Bible after the resurrection.

Of note, Jesus only referred to people being "goats" at the judgement which would imply that people are not born reprobate.

Actually, it is an OT concept. Israel was called sheep. Jesus came to the lost sheep. It was never just a generalization. It was a reference to His people. It’s why He said He had other sheep not in that fold (Gentiles).

 

[John Mullally]

That’s your assumption that He’s trying to get them to be followers. We obviously disagree.

No its in black and white. Jesus would not point to his miracles as proof that he and the Father are one, if he did not want his opponents to change their mind about him and believe. As 1 Timothy 2:4 says God does not desire anyone perish.

 

[bling]

That didn’t really answer the question. Why is it unloving to save someone?

I told you: If God "saves" and does not punish, those who refuse Godly type Love, who does not like it or want it, then why should I humble myself to the point of accepting pure undeserved charity, since there is no downside to remaining proud and macho.

God is not saving those who refuse His help because he also Loves me and others, and He helped us by not saving others, who refuse His help, which helps us to not want to be like them, and thus humbly accept His help, obtaining Godly type Love and salvation.

God would be "unloving" (better said "unhelpful") to us by saving those who refused His Love.

 

[FireDragon76]

Prior to becoming a Christian, sinners do not have Godly type Love (this is a huge difference between before and after) plus the Christian will receive the indwelling Holy Spirit.
There is a huge difference between a person who humbles themselves to the point of accepting pure undeserved charity and the person who, for whatever reason, refuses to accept pure undeserved charity as charity, that is a big part of who the person is, but accepting this Love will make them, so much greater (like God who is Love).

Uh huh... it sounds alot like you are saying people earn grace by their humility, if God isn't involved in it. The whole point of grace being undeserved, is that God must be gracious first.

 

[Fervent]

Uh huh... it sounds alot like you are saying people earn grace by their humility, if God isn't involved in it. The whole point of grace being undeserved, is that God must be gracious first.

A lot of the dispute comes down to the Augustinian view of original sin, since it necessitates that there are no grounds on which God may make a judgment about those He extends grace to outside of what amounts to a cosmic lottery. The strengthening of that view by Luther and Calvin basically guarantees an orthodoxy that is essentially in agreement with Calvinism, if not in name. Of course, it makes Biblical statements quite strange and requiring re-interpretation such as statements about David, Noah, Lot, Job, and Daniel being righteous. This all makes for a situation in which the mediating position elaborated by Cassian regarding original sin and man's fallen state disappear, with the only options seemingly available a full blown Pelagian view or to dive head first into a Calvinist view.

 

[Hammster]

No its in black and white. Jesus would not point to his miracles as proof that he and the Father are one, if he did not want his opponents to change their mind about him and believe. As 1 Timothy 2:4 says God does not desire anyone perish.

No, it’s your assumption, as I pointed out. Much like your use of Timothy. It’s out of context, and ignores pretty much the whole OT.

 

[Hammster]

I told you: If God "saves" and does not punish, those who refuse Godly type Love, who does not like it or want it, then why should I humble myself to the point of accepting pure undeserved charity, since there is no downside to remaining proud and macho.

God is not saving those who refuse His help because he also Loves me and others, and He helped us by not saving others, who refuse His help, which helps us to not want to be like them, and thus humbly accept His help, obtaining Godly type Love and salvation.

God would be "unloving" (better said "unhelpful") to us by saving those who refused His Love.

You said it was wrong for God to change a heart without permission. And if changing a heart is something that allows a person to freely love God, why is that bad?

 

[bling]

Uh huh... it sounds alot like you are saying people earn grace by their humility, if God isn't involved in it. The whole point of grace being undeserved, is that God must be gracious first.

All mature adults can and will be humble at some point. Luke 14:11
"For all those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted.”
You do not "earn" anything by being humble (those who previously exalted themselves and made humble don't get anything from being humble.)
It is macho (respected by this world) to be self-reliant, willing to take the punishment you fully deserve, proud, bold and brave.
Be humble is really acknowledging and not denying the situation you are in.

 

[bling]

You said it was wrong for God to change a heart without permission. And if changing a heart is something that allows a person to freely love God, why is that bad?

You have to understand what “Love” we are talking about; this is why I use “Godly type Love”.

Do you want your spouse’s “love” to be just a knee-jerk reaction (robotic/automatic/only emotional)?

Is God’s Love for you just a knee-jerk reaction for God, or is it throughout, a choice on God’s part with other alternatives, is it a sacrificial Love for God (He is personally sacrificing to Love you), much more than just emotional, and really illogical (beyond human logic) it will cost God more than He will ever get from us, but that is who He is?

Our “permission” is our acceptance of God’s Love for us in the form of accepting being forgiven. In order for the transaction of forgiveness to be completed, we have to humbly accept God’s pure charitable undeserved forgiving as pure charity or it does not take place.

Again, if God forces His Love on us (changes our hearts against our will) that “love” will not be Godly type Love, since that is not something we want, desire or like.

 

[FireDragon76]

All mature adults can and will be humble at some point. Luke 14:11
"For all those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted.”
You do not "earn" anything by being humble (those who previously exalted themselves and made humble don't get anything from being humble.)
It is macho (respected by this world) to be self-reliant, willing to take the punishment you fully deserve, proud, bold and brave.
Be humble is really acknowledging and not denying the situation you are in.

That doesn't really answer my pushback to what seems to be an assertion that people should earn grace through humility. Whether or not people will be humbled isn't relevant. The issue is what is the basis for God's grace: God's love or our humility? If it's about our humility, then it's not hard to see that as undermining the doctrine of grace.

 

[Hammster]

You have to understand what “Love” we are talking about; this is why I use “Godly type Love”.

Do you want your spouse’s “love” to be just a knee-jerk reaction (robotic/automatic/only emotional)?

Is God’s Love for you just a knee-jerk reaction for God, or is it throughout, a choice on God’s part with other alternatives, is it a sacrificial Love for God (He is personally sacrificing to Love you), much more than just emotional, and really illogical (beyond human logic) it will cost God more than He will ever get from us, but that is who He is?

Our “permission” is our acceptance of God’s Love for us in the form of accepting being forgiven. In order for the transaction of forgiveness to be completed, we have to humbly accept God’s pure charitable undeserved forgiving as pure charity or it does not take place.

Again, if God forces His Love on us (changes our hearts against our will) that “love” will not be Godly type Love, since that is not something we want, desire or like.

If God changes a heart, and that frees one to love Him freely, is that love?

 

[bling]

That doesn't really answer my pushback to what seems to be an assertion that people should earn grace through humility. Whether or not people will be humbled isn't relevant. The issue is what is the basis for God's grace: God's love or our humility? If it's about our humility, then it's not hard to see that as undermining the doctrine of grace.

Was all the prodigal son father did for the prodigal son due to the son humble return, or the Father's Love. The Father does not owe the son one thing for returning nor does the son earn or deserve anything for returning.

 

[bling]

If God changes a heart, and that frees one to love Him freely, is that love?

No! You are turning it around; the change heart comes with the obtaining of Godly type Love (the heart changer). The Love in the person changes their heart. Humans have to open their hearts (really just not close their hearts) to accept the change. If it was all up to God, without any input from man, we would not need to spend any time on this messed up world and no one would go to hell.

 

[John Mullally]

No, it’s your assumption, as I pointed out. Much like your use of Timothy. It’s out of context, and ignores pretty much the whole OT.

Your understanding of "my sheep" makes no sense as Jesus is not going to try to convince reprobates to believe in him (John 10:37-38). That would be casting pearls before swine.

We all approach scripture with some bias. But to say that 1 Timothy 2:4 does not indicate that God desires all to be saved, you have to have extreme bias. This is from Surgeon concerning 1 Timothy 2:4:

1 Timothy 2:3 This is good, and pleases God our Savior, 4 who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.​

Charles Spurgeon on 1 Timothy 2:4,: “What then? Shall we try to put another meaning into the text than that which it fairly bears? You must, most of you, be acquainted with the general method in which our older Calvinistic friends deal with this text. ‘All men,’ say they,—‘that is, some men’: as if the Holy Ghost could not have said ‘some men’ if he had meant some men. ‘All men,’ say they; ‘that is, some of all sorts of men’: as if the Lord could not have said ‘all sorts of men’ if he had meant that. The Holy Ghost by the apostle has written ‘all men,’ and unquestionably he means all men.​

Concerning the source of bias: Here are two inflammatory quotes from your mentor Calvin who states that (a) God creates some for the expressed purpose of sending them to eternal torment in order to receive glory for himself, and (b) we are all puppets with our every thought and action predetermined by God. If these are true they would be plainly stated in scripture and we would not have had to wait 1500 years to get that special revelation from John Calvin.

“…individuals are born, who are doomed from the womb to certain death, and are to glorify him by their destruction.” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 23, Paragraph 6)​

​

“We hold that God is the disposer and ruler of all things, –that from the remotest eternity, according to his own wisdom, He decreed what he was to do, and now by his power executes what he decreed. Hence we maintain, that by His providence, not heaven and earth and inanimate creatures only, but also the counsels and wills of men are so governed as to move exactly in the course which he has destined.” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 1, Chapter 16, Paragraph 8)​

 

[Hammster]

I’m on vacation, so I won’t have a lot of time to respond. So I’m going to request that this be closed.

Thanks for all the input.

 

[HARK!]

MOD HAT ON

Per the OP's request:

MOD HAT OFF​