How to become a Calvinist in 5 easy steps

Brother-Mike

Predetermined to freely believe
Aug 16, 2022
626
537
Toronto
✟41,941.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Private
Wow.
All I do is explain scripture .
I find, instead, that mine is ignored and instead long posts about what the poster believes follow.

Then I get tired of it all.
I don't mean you.
Thanks for at least a respectful response. And in fairness to you I do see you posting some scripture and Calvin quotes back around thread #74 and vicinity. To me any of our debates on these topics necessitate scriptural reference, so kudos for that and may your willingness to talk about the Bible spread and flourish to others too.

My concerns were with comments like:

[to user John Mullally] "Speaking of self-delusion...have you ever run across this teaching of Calvin?" and elsewhere "I hope you know that Calvin's whole theory came about because he couldn't reconcile man's free will with God's sovereignty. Is that crazy or what?"

As I stated earlier, I do find it very interesting why anti-Calvinists take the position and noted aggressiveness that they do, given the seeming lack of anti-Arminian threads. Maybe you have an example thread where Calvinists were being boorish trolls? I would have the same criticism for them as I do for some in this thread.

If you're willing to look inward, maybe you can answer - and I mean this seriously - a question or two:
  1. What do you gain by opposing Calvinism in the manner above? Do you believe we are not in Christ and thus you're "saving" us?
  2. Do you believe that Calvinists think YOU are not in Christ?
  3. Are you equally spending time with Roman Catholics or the forum's cast of atheists because they too presumably differ from your worldview?
I would have to presume that if you joined these forums and like me were routinely awash in less-than-Christianly-civil debates regarding your understanding of God you'd be curious too, no?

Thanks for whatever illumination you can provide.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Mark Quayle
Upvote 0

John Mullally

Well-Known Member
Aug 5, 2020
2,349
813
Califormia
✟131,250.00
Country
United States
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Married
I don't know any Calvinists that disagree with this statement.
Calvinists exhibit the double think: I have heard them say that those who oppose them (like the WOF), have a different Jesus. a different Gospel,. amd yet upon quesioning will not show any support for their own assurance of salvation. This displays their own double think and intellectual vacancy. Example: Mark Quayle has been queried of the assurance of his salvation, and he did not answer in the affirmative - this despite his many posts and my reminders that Jesus says that those who believe and are baptized in Mark 16:16 will be saved. This shows that his relatively friendly posts, seemingly honest Calvinsts who accuse others of being self-deluded, secretly acknockledge that may happen to them. Ignore Calvin, ignore thier theological framesworks (like TULIP), believe the Gospel from Jesus in Mark 16:16. amd thank God for your salvation.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

John Mullally

Well-Known Member
Aug 5, 2020
2,349
813
Califormia
✟131,250.00
Country
United States
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Married
Zoidar, you say, "But if an unbeliever asks: "Did Jesus die for me?" [Calvinists] can't say anything".
But they most definitely can say something. From my point of view, and, of course, depending on how much they know about God and his Gospel, the first answer is, "do you want him?".





Mike you are exactly right. The argument so many have claimed, that 'whosoever' believes, (or calls upon the name, and other phrases) rules out predestination of the elect, is not only useless, but the same fact that renders it useless also applies to the question of evangelism by those who believe in Election —"WHO is it that believes?" If God does not love everyone, (and I'm not denying that in some form God does love everyone, but that's beside the point), there is nothing to be gained by fooling all in order that the elect might believe.

I've seen much effort in sowing seed, as if it was also harvest. I've watched churches making sure of the 'most effective' use of money in Evangelism, without the slightest concept that 'most hearers' or 'most needy' does not necessarily translate to most converts, and 'most converts' doesn't translate to most Redeemed. I thank God for the 'hit and run evangelist', but man, I don't enjoy listening to their mindset.

So, to the question of whether the Reformed can evangelize effectively, without compromising their theology: Most, even Arminian, believers are otherwise adamant that the TRUTH be told, regardless of the consequences or apparent efficacy, yet somehow I keep running into this mindset that we must sell the Gospel. OF COURSE, there is a place for doing as Paul did, to be all things to all people that he might win some. Nevertheless, in Paul's evangelism I don't see ANYTHING that goes against what has become known as Calvinism or Reformed teaching, nor do I see him backing off of telling the facts. "22 “Fellow Israelites, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know. 23 This man was handed over to you by God’s deliberate plan and foreknowledge; and you, with the help of wicked men, put him to death by nailing him to the cross. 24 But God raised him from the dead, freeing him from the agony of death, because it was impossible for death to keep its hold on him."" (Acts 2)

It's better to say, "Listen to what God says", than to say, "God is a sweet old man who wants you so badly that he died for you, but it's up to you!"

The Word of God never returns to him void. If God uses the truth to harden someone's heart, what is the problem? I want GOD to change a heart; the intellect and emotions can't do it.

What do these who water down the Gospel say, when the agnostic says, "If God loves me, then why was I abused?"? "Well, God didn't really mean for you to be abused, but, see, we have freewill." Doesn't even sound close to, "Fear him who is able to destroy both body and soul in hell".

There is no useless evangelism, but if anything ever came close to it, it would be through the preaching of a 'winsome' gospel that ignores the truth.
Calvin per his "doomed from the womb" doctrine states many are destined to eternal torment. That is evil - that is a red flag to the thinking man who knows that God is described as love. How does a God of love predestine any to eternal torment? He does not. Clearly God desires all to be saved in 1 Timothy 2:4. Those who oppose me on 1 Timothy 2:4 (Claire and Quayle) will not argue that point. Instead they wave the white flag and avoid statitng it has already been addressed - no their vacuos ponts were never acknowledged, much less suported by the word of God.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: GodsGrace101
Upvote 0

Brother-Mike

Predetermined to freely believe
Aug 16, 2022
626
537
Toronto
✟41,941.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Private
Calvin per his "doomed from the womb" doctrine states many are destined to eternal torment. That is evil - that is a red flag to the thinking man who knows that God is described as love. How does a God of love predestine any to eternal torment? He does not. Clearly God desires all to be saved in 1 Timothy 2:4. Those who oppose me on 1 Timothy 2:4 (Claire and Quayle) will not argue that point. Instead they wave the white flag and avoid statitng it has already been addressed - no their vacuos ponts were never acknowledged, much less suported by the word of God.
I'd hate for you to go away thinking that you scored some kind of victory when in actuality it's probably more that people disengage from conversing with you, ceding the field, when you're being so Christian and charming to call them "intellectually vacant" and raving about their faith.

To that end, I am willing to put on my little Calvin hat, twirl my little goatee into a fine point, and harken with you the finer points of 1 Timothy 2:4 and verses more, should you wish to proceed my flannel friend. What say ye? Shall we discuss or shall I occupy my precious time in Godly manner elsewhere?
 
Upvote 0

John Mullally

Well-Known Member
Aug 5, 2020
2,349
813
Califormia
✟131,250.00
Country
United States
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Married
I'd hate for you to go away thinking that you scored some kind of victory when in actuality it's probably more that people disengage from conversing with you, ceding the field, when you're being so Christian and charming to call them "intellectually vacant" and raving about their faith.

To that end, I am willing to put on my little Calvin hat, twirl youit little goatee into a fine point, and harken with you the finer points of 1 Timothy 2:4 and verses more, should you wish to proceed my flannel friend. What say ye? Shall we discuss or shall I occupy my precious time in Godly manner elsewhere?
Ha, ha, put on your Calvin hat, hold on to your goatee, and get down to your finer points while disregarding 1 Timothy 2:4 as is the custom of the vacuous Calvinist.

Exactly what portion of 1 Timothy 2:4, which destroys Calvinism. do you want to discuss? Given your srcree, I am surprised you have not already gotten down to your point. Given my experience, Calvinist doctrine hinges on disputable interprettation of their proof texts and total disregard of very clear srcriptural passages like 1 Timothy 2:4 that clearly states that God does not play favorites, but desires all to be saved. Try to remember that Pauls writings to Timothy were written specifically to Timothy, so there are no hidden meanings or mysteries in the text - in contrast to Calvin who poses a holy God as mysteriously decreeing every man's dispicable action. This bogus mystery should be interpretted as a red flag (i.e. heresy) as God's word states that a holy God does not even imagine, much less decree, evil (Jeremiah 32;35).

Please get to your point and avoid wasting my precious time, ha, ha.
 
Last edited:
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

Mark Quayle

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist
Supporter
May 28, 2018
13,005
5,622
68
Pennsylvania
✟780,935.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Widowed
Calvin per his "doomed from the womb" doctrine states many are destined to eternal torment. That is evil - that is a red flag to the thinking man who knows that God is described as love. How does a God of love predestine any to eternal torment? He does not. Clearly God desires all to be saved in 1 Timothy 2:4. Those who oppose me on 1 Timothy 2:4 (Claire and Quayle) will not argue that point. Instead they wave the white flag and avoid statitng it has already been addressed - no their vacuos ponts were never acknowledged, much less suported by the word of God.
--Will not argue what point? I've argued that 1 Timothy 2:4 doesn't mean what you take it to mean til I'm blue in the face. @Clare73 has done likewise. I've also many times pointed out that it's a really bad way to build doctrine--on your notions of love and justice.

But just so you won't misrepresent me again --hopefully --at least, on this:

1 Timothy 2:4 "...who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth."
1. Can be speaking of the fact that, as I have pointed out concerning the term, "double-predestination", merely to kill them eternally is not God's purpose in creating them. His purpose does indeed include their condemnation, but God takes no delight in the death of anyone. To put it in human terms that you might identify with, he 'wishes' they could be saved.
2. Some show that it is speaking of all without distinction, not all without exception --i.e. that God desires for all sorts of people, both Jew and Gentile, to be saved. Others take this further, to show all classes of men.
3. It is also possible by the much larger context to be referring to the fact that God desires for all his own to be saved. I don't put much stock in this use, but I mention it so you know that your look at things is far from the only one.
4. Most curiously, YOU don't accept it at face value. That is, you don't leave it at "God desires that all men be saved". NO! You have to take it beyond that, to imply that God INTENDS that all be saved. The verse does not imply that. It only says that God desires that all men be saved.

But here's someone that can do it better than I can.
1 Timothy 2:4 clearly states that God desires all to be saved. Try to take God at His word! Romans foreknowledge in Romans could be speaking of OT saints - so much for Calvinism. Again, try to believe 1 Timothy 2:4 - I know it goes against Calvin's "doomed from the womb" diatribe which contradicts 1 Timothy 2:4 and teaches God's eternal hatred towards man. Remember that John says that God is love - how does a God of love predestine any to eternal torment prior to birth as the vacuous Calivn states - it is worse than Hitler and should be viewed as a red flag by those viewing the Bible.. How is Calvinist unscripural doctrine of hatred (i.e. God pedestines many from birth to eternal torment)) accepted per scripture? Calvin sent a renowned scientist Servetus to a tortuous death over a minor Theological dispute - pure evil.
Are you really the sort that will believe just about anything you are told, as long as it supports your bias? If you are, then your use of Scripture is also suspect.

 
Upvote 0

John Mullally

Well-Known Member
Aug 5, 2020
2,349
813
Califormia
✟131,250.00
Country
United States
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Married
--Will not argue what point? I've argued that 1 Timothy 2:4 doesn't mean what you take it to mean til I'm blue in the face. @Clare73 has done likewise. I've also many times pointed out that it's a really bad way to build doctrine--on your notions of love and justice.

But just so you won't misrepresent me again --hopefully --at least, on this:

1 Timothy 2:4 "...who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth."
1. Can be speaking of the fact that, as I have pointed out concerning the term, "double-predestination", merely to kill them eternally is not God's purpose in creating them. His purpose does indeed include their condemnation, but God takes no delight in the death of anyone. To put it in human terms that you might identify with, he 'wishes' they could be saved.
2. Some show that it is speaking of all without distinction, not all without exception --i.e. that God desires for all sorts of people, both Jew and Gentile, to be saved. Others take this further, to show all classes of men.
3. It is also possible by the much larger context to be referring to the fact that God desires for all his own to be saved. I don't put much stock in this use, but I mention it so you know that your look at things is far from the only one.
4. Most curiously, YOU don't accept it at face value. That is, you don't leave it at "God desires that all men be saved". NO! You have to take it beyond that, to imply that God INTENDS that all be saved. The verse does not imply that. It only says that God desires that all men be saved.

But here's someone that can do it better than I can.

Are you really the sort that will believe just about anything you are told, as long as it supports your bias? If you are, then your use of Scripture is also suspect.

I don't like the changes the forum made as I don't know how to address individual points - maybe I will figure it out.

Look the book of Timothy is very clear text. Unlike Romans, Paul is straightford consulting his protoge he traveled with in Acts. In Romans where he is delivering doctine to those for whom he does not have clout, Paul uses a rhetorical style that is tough to follow (circuitous advocation of both sides of an argurment to eventually establish a point). Whereas in his letter to Timothy where he is instructing a protoge he is straightforward: In 1 Timothy 2:4 it is quite clear that Paul is advocating that God desires all men to be saved. This is universally accepted by non-Calvinist Christians - as it does not destroy their doctrine. As with other non-Calvinist Christians, I also don't believe everything is up to God as I believe all the directives to man in the Bible require man's co-operation (i.e. free will).

Important: I don't agree with your position that God commands men to do that which is only possiblle for some to do - as I believe that some of your supposed impossiblity is due to lack of preparation. For example, if your are required to solve a differential equation, you must have earlier studies in Calculus. This is analogous to the two classes of people in the parable of the virgims: the wise virgins who prepared, and the foolish virgins who did not prepare. So much of the inability is due to lack of earlier preparation - it is not directing men to do the impossible.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Brother-Mike

Predetermined to freely believe
Aug 16, 2022
626
537
Toronto
✟41,941.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Private
Ha, ha, put on your Calvin hat, hold on to your goatee, and get down to your finer points while disregarding 1 Timothy 2:4 as is the custom of the vacuous Calvinist.

Exactly what portion of 1 Timothy 2:4, which destroys Calvinism. do you want to discuss? Given your srcree, I am surprised you have not already gotten down to your point. Given my experience, Calvinist doctrine hinges on disputable interprettation of their proof texts and total disregard of very clear srcriptural passages like 1 Timothy 2:4 that clearly states that God does not play favorites, but desires all to be saved. Try to remember that Pauls writings to Timothy were written specifically to Timothy, so there are no hidden meanings or mysteries in the text - in contrast to Calvin who poses a holy God as mysteriously decreeing every man's dispicable action. This bogus mystery should be interpretted as a red flag (i.e. heresy) as God's word states that a holy God does not even imagine, much less decree, evil (Jeremiah 32;35).

Please get to your point and avoid wasting my precious time, ha, ha.
Excellent! First, read this from Spurgeon:


It's not that long. As I was researching and perusing my commentaries and other resources last night I stumbled upon it and was pleased and surprised with how closely it matched my understanding of the verse. Many commentarians (Calvin included) approach the verse from the "all types of men" approach, which I find less convincing, regardless of it's correctness. But Spurgeon faces the issue head on:

“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.

In his next few paragraphs after this quotation Spurgeon goes on to lay out his understanding, so I'll leave it to you to at least read those parts. Or maybe for various reasons you'd prefer me to summarize his (my) thinking, that's fine too and I'll respond as soon as I am able.

My goal in all of this is not to convince you that I am right. My goal is to answer why I believe what I believe. I would hope your side of the discussion can also reflect this spirit of calm, respectful and brotherly dialogue too.
 
Upvote 0

John Mullally

Well-Known Member
Aug 5, 2020
2,349
813
Califormia
✟131,250.00
Country
United States
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Married
Excellent! First, read this from Spurgeon:


It's not that long. As I was researching and perusing my commentaries and other resources last night I stumbled upon it and was pleased and surprised with how closely it matched my understanding of the verse. Many commentarians (Calvin included) approach the verse from the "all types of men" approach, which I find less convincing, regardless of it's correctness. But Spurgeon faces the issue head on:

“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.

In his next few paragraphs after this quotation Spurgeon goes on to lay out his understanding, so I'll leave it to you to at least read those parts. Or maybe for various reasons you'd prefer me to summarize his (my) thinking, that's fine too and I'll respond as soon as I am able.

My goal in all of this is not to convince you that I am right. My goal is to answer why I believe what I believe. I would hope your side of the discussion can also reflect this spirit of calm, respectful and brotherly dialogue too.
To begin with the text says "all men" and not "all types of men". Assuming that Paul who wrote half of the NT had a lapse in precision and meant "all types of men" in 1 Timothy 2:4, then that would also need be the context in surrounding verses 1 Timothy 2:1, 1 Timothy 2:2, and 1 Timothy 2:6. In particular, how much sense does it make for Paul to tell Timothy to pray for "all types of men" in 1 Timothy 2:1? It would sound like mush. The whole passage of 1 Timothy 2:1-6 makes much more sense if Paul was telling Timothy is to pray for "all men".
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

GodsGrace101

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Apr 17, 2018
6,713
2,298
Tuscany
✟231,507.00
Country
Italy
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Thanks for at least a respectful response. And in fairness to you I do see you posting some scripture and Calvin quotes back around thread #74 and vicinity. To me any of our debates on these topics necessitate scriptural reference, so kudos for that and may your willingness to talk about the Bible spread and flourish to others too.

I think that even though we don't agree, we can certainly treat each other with respect as Jesus would want.
In fact Jesus said we would be known as being His disciples for the love we have for each other.
John 13:35

My concerns were with comments like:

[to user John Mullally] "Speaking of self-delusion...have you ever run across this teaching of Calvin?" and elsewhere "I hope you know that Calvin's whole theory came about because he couldn't reconcile man's free will with God's sovereignty. Is that crazy or what?"

Actually, as I'm sure you know, the above is true.
It seems that it had to be God's sovereignty and no free will for man
or
free will for man, but this somehow removed God's total sovereignty.
Something my small brain sees no problem with...
It seems to me that my having free will is right in line with God's sovereignty...
why would an all powerful and mighty and sovereign God be fearful of allowing man to have free will?

As I stated earlier, I do find it very interesting why anti-Calvinists take the position and noted aggressiveness that they do, given the seeming lack of anti-Arminian threads. Maybe you have an example thread where Calvinists were being boorish trolls? I would have the same criticism for them as I do for some in this thread.

There shouldn't be any anti-arminiun threads because other Christians do not consider themselves to be arminium.
I know that Jacob A. started out as a predestination believer, but then he changed and that's about all I know about him.

Also, I think it's important to note that we are following Jesus...
we shouldn't be believers of Calvin, Arminius, or anyone esle.
They are men, just like all other men that were not charismatic enough to begin their own religion.
(faith).

If you're willing to look inward, maybe you can answer - and I mean this seriously - a question or two:
  1. What do you gain by opposing Calvinism in the manner above? Do you believe we are not in Christ and thus you're "saving" us?
  2. Do you believe that Calvinists think YOU are not in Christ?
  3. Are you equally spending time with Roman Catholics or the forum's cast of atheists because they too presumably differ from your worldview?
I would have to presume that if you joined these forums and like me were routinely awash in less-than-Christianly-civil debates regarding your understanding of God you'd be curious too, no?

Thanks for whatever illumination you can provide.
1. Nothing is to be gained if I address you "in the manner above". When I'm mistreated, I just tune out the other poster.
I can tell you why I, and most other Christians, take calvinism negatively.
We're not just debating or discussing doctrine here.
What we're discussing is the very nature of God.
We can get doctrine wrong - but can we get the nature of God wrong?

If God is as the bible portrays Him, He is certainly a loving, merciful and just God.
If He IS all these qualities, then how can it possibly be that God desires some to be saved and some to be damned?
And for His own glory, no less.
How does arbitrarily choosing some for eternal torment give Him glory?
Does God have to prove His sovereignty to man by using him as playthings?


Personally, I believe you're saved because you live for God and this is what matters.
I don't believe that a mistaken doctrine will cause a man to lose his soul...
However, the reformed are the only Christians that believe in this God that creates evil
and uses it for His own purposes.
A God that chooses only some for heaven and doesn't even allow us to know WHY.

2. I don't know what calvinists think about me. Honestly, I don't care.
I only care what God thinks of me. I do notice that after a few posts they kind of get tired of posting -
it might be me, I don't know...but it seems as though they get a little upset with most everyone.
Of course, this does not mean every calvinist.

3. I spend REAL time with atheists in the real world. I'm not on forums too much due to the time it takes to post properly.
Catholics are nice people but they're not too familiar with their faith.
However, I'll address those issues too at times - I must say that I know both Protestant and Catholic doctrine.

To repeat, I believe the reason calvinism is more interesting, to me at least, is because the reformed seem to believe in a
different God/gospel.

In fact where is the good news in calvinism?
Was the NT written for everyone, or just the saved that were chosen by God?

Take John 3:16
I think it's prescriptive.
But you, necessarily, have to believe it's descriptive.
Why would Jesus state this at all, if it were not of the utmost importance?
If it was just to let those that are saved, know they are saved?
Or did He state this to let mankind know HOW to become saved?
Wasn't this His primary reason for coming to us?
 
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

GodsGrace101

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Apr 17, 2018
6,713
2,298
Tuscany
✟231,507.00
Country
Italy
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I don't like the changes the forum made as I don't know how to address individual points - maybe I will figure it out.

Look the book of Timothy is very clear text. Unlike Romans, Paul is straightford consulting his protoge he traveled with in Acts. In Romans where he is delivering doctine to those for whom he does not have clout, Paul uses a rhetorical style that is tough to follow (circuitous advocation of both sides of an argurment to eventually establish a point). Whereas in his letter to Timothy where he is instructing a protoge he is straightforward: In 1 Timothy 2:4 it is quite clear that Paul is advocating that God desires all men to be saved. This is universally accepted by non-Calvinist Christians - as it does not destroy their doctrine. As with other non-Calvinist Christians, I also don't believe everything is up to God as I believe all the directives to man in the Bible require man's co-operation (i.e. free will).

Important: I don't agree with your position that God commands men to do that which is only possiblle for some to do - as I believe that some of your supposed impossiblity is due to lack of preparation. For example, if your are required to solve a differential equation, you must have earlier studies in Calculus. This is analogous to the two classes of people in the parable of the virgims: the wise virgins who prepared, and the foolish virgins who did not prepare. So much of the inability is due to lack of earlier preparation - it is not directing men to do the impossible.
Click on reply.
Go to the last word of the part you want to address.
Hit the ENTER key once or twice.

A space will be created for your reply.
It's easier than before!
 
  • Like
Reactions: zoidar
Upvote 0

zoidar

loves Jesus the Christ! ✝️
Supporter
Sep 18, 2010
7,163
2,606
✟877,129.00
Country
Sweden
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
  • Friendly
Reactions: GodsGrace101
Upvote 0

JAL

Veteran
Supporter
Oct 16, 2004
10,777
928
Visit site
✟343,550.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
@Mark Quayle,
@Brother-Mike,

Imagine a scientist who genetically pre-engineered 7 of his 10 kids to perform evil atrocities unleashing catastrophic suffering upon humanity. He engineered the remaining 3 kids to be model citizens. He does this for his own glory.

When all is said and done, you are appointed, as a human judge or juror, to pass sentence on both:

...(1) The 7 evil kids. You will need to restrain them, to protect society, but would you consider them (A) evil or (B) criminally insane and thus effectively innocent?

...(2). The geneticist himself. Are his actions praiseworthy? Or reprehensible?

As much as possible, let's try to leave Christianity and the Bible out of this analogy so I can get a more objective sense of your personal feelings and ethics. Obviously I am trying to find out if there is a double-standard in your views of divine ethics versus human ethics.

Thanks in advance for any candor on this topic.
 
Upvote 0

GodsGrace101

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Apr 17, 2018
6,713
2,298
Tuscany
✟231,507.00
Country
Italy
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
@Mark Quayle,
@Brother-Mike,

Imagine a scientist who genetically pre-engineered 7 of his 10 kids to perform evil atrocities unleashing catastrophic suffering upon humanity. He engineered the remaining 3 kids to be model citizens. He does this for his own glory.

When all is said and done, you are appointed, as a human judge or juror, to pass sentence on both:

...(1) The 7 evil kids. You will need to restrain them, to protect society, but would you consider them (A) evil or (B) criminally insane and thus effectively innocent?

...(2). The geneticist himself. Are his actions praiseworthy? Or reprehensible?

As much as possible, let's try to leave Christianity and the Bible out of this analogy so I can get a more objective sense of your personal feelings and ethics. Obviously I am trying to find out if there is a double-standard in your views of divine ethics versus human ethics.

Thanks in advance for any candor on this topic.
I'd like to add @BBAS 64 to the above.
And, yes, there is a double standard.
It seems man loves his pets more than God loves His creatures. Paul loved his people more than God loves His, Romans.
And it seems man is more just than God.
Funny that we're more loving and just than the God that made us who IS those qualities.
Why make creatures that are better than the maker?
 
  • Like
Reactions: JAL
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

GodsGrace101

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Apr 17, 2018
6,713
2,298
Tuscany
✟231,507.00
Country
Italy
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Excellent! First, read this from Spurgeon:


It's not that long. As I was researching and perusing my commentaries and other resources last night I stumbled upon it and was pleased and surprised with how closely it matched my understanding of the verse. Many commentarians (Calvin included) approach the verse from the "all types of men" approach, which I find less convincing, regardless of it's correctness. But Spurgeon faces the issue head on:

“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.

In his next few paragraphs after this quotation Spurgeon goes on to lay out his understanding, so I'll leave it to you to at least read those parts. Or maybe for various reasons you'd prefer me to summarize his (my) thinking, that's fine too and I'll respond as soon as I am able.

My goal in all of this is not to convince you that I am right. My goal is to answer why I believe what I believe. I would hope your side of the discussion can also reflect this spirit of calm, respectful and brotherly dialogue too.
Could I understand better?
BM,,,why do we have to hear from James White and Charles Spurgeon?

Why can't we hear from scripture, which is God's word to us, plain and simple with no spin put on it?

Would you agree with me that the ONLY men we should pay any attention to would be the Early Church Fathers?
That would be the early theologians up till 325AD.

Why would anyone now know more than them??

They didn't believe in eternal unconditional security (OSAS) or predestination, BTW.
 
Upvote 0