How to become a Calvinist in 5 easy steps

[Mark Quayle]

God will, and how does God judge people according to the scriptures? Does He judge them justly or unjustly?

What have I been claiming? God is altogether just, and thorough.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Where are you getting this definition because I can’t find it anywhere?

Can you say God is not just unless he complies with/ meets parameters within some objective definition of justice? Can you show me where it applies to God from outside himself? Can you show where justice comes from? Who are you, oh man?

 

[Mark Quayle]

If God is not required to operate according to what the scriptures state then they are false.

Who is requiring it?

You are making a category error. God does not contradict scripture. Only your notions of it. God is not required to do anything, except by the presumption of creatures. The whole notion is moot. Nothing there on which to speculate, oh human.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Just like God killing Uzzah for trying to prevent the Ark from falling, was that unjust? No because we don’t know what his fate was.

Why would we need to know what his fate was?

Failing to keep the law in even one small point, makes one guilty of the whole law. Is there ANY scenario where Uzzah could be justly said to NOT go to hell for that disobedience?

EVEN if God used Uzzah's disobedience to keep the cart upright!

There is only one such scenario.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Your still clinging to the notion that the author is referring to someone who thought he was repentant instead of someone who was actually repentant. The author gives no indication whatsoever that the person was not repent, he actually wrote the exact opposite of what your saying.

Have it your way. Nevertheless, the passage does not show that those God has chosen to be members of his Dwelling Place will somehow escape becoming what God chose them to be.

 

[John Caldwell]

According to your hermeneutics, that is inference on your part for the sake of your theology, for it does not state "God is three in one."

So much for being literal. . .I'm as "literal" as you are.

I don't say "God is three in one". I say God is One - Father, Son and Spirit for the Father and Son are One and the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of God

The reason I say this is Scripture states God is One.
Scripture states that the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of God. And Scripture states that the Father and Son are One.

Just saying "Three in One" is more of a slogan than a doctrine.

Essential doctrines need to be in the text of Scripture. Secondary teachings not so much. The Atonement is an essential doctrine because so much is built upon the doctrine.

I do not begrudge you your theories. I don't insist that you need to take the Bible literally. I once believed as you and was no less a child of God. As a Calvinist I didn't even realize I held competing positions (a biblicist in principle but not in practice).

I do approach Scripture with the presupposition that the actual text of Scripture determines its meaning so we will never agree on the Atonement.

But we do not have to agree.

I want others who pass by this thread to consider various Atonement theories - to include the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement. BUT I also want them to consider that Scripture could teach what is written in its text.

I want them to understand that Scripture does not need those philosophies to make sence....that is, to understand God's Word as if it taught what is recorded in the text ("what is written").

THEN they can compare and decide for themselves which to accept.

 

[BNR32FAN]

I did, and consistently have, categorically if not particularly, even before you asked. NO, the elect are not capable of ultimately falling away.

So then the entire message is useless. Verses 2-7 are completely useless and verse 6 is an impossibility.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I once believed as you and was no less a child of God.

I've got a feeling you don't know what @Clare73 believes. You seem to argue with her at times in these matters as though, for example, she did not believe in the Trinity,

 

[BNR32FAN]

Have it your way. Nevertheless, the passage does not show that those God has chosen to be members of his Dwelling Place will somehow escape becoming what God chose them to be.

Amen!! But it does show that people who were regenerated can fall away resulting in God’s decision to omit their name from the book of life, hence “chosen according to His foreknowledge”.

 

[Mark Quayle]

So then the entire message is useless. Verses 2-7 are completely useless and verse 6 is an impossibility.

Which reference are you talking about now? Hebrews 6 or John 15? Either way the warning is not rendered useless by any take on the text that I have mentioned. Once again, instead of submission, you think we have some right to know the outcome before deciding. You suppose yourself on God's level, or he on ours.

 

[John Caldwell]

I've got a feeling you don't know what @Clare73 believes. You seem to argue with her at times in these matters as though, for example, she did not believe in the Trinity,

I never suspected for once that @Clare73 didn't believe in the Trinity.

I am talking about what she has said she believes (I was talking about what she posted that she believes about the Atonement).

At one time I believed exactly what @Clare73 posted that she believed.

I guess I did assume she believed in the Trinity. But you are right. @Clare73 has not stated that she does.

@Clare73 is the one who brought up the Trinity, insisting a biblicist would not hold the doctrine that "God is three in one" because it is not in the Bible. I don't know where she gets those ideas, or why she introduced them on this thread.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Amen!! But it does show that people who were regenerated can fall away resulting in God’s decision to omit their name from the book of life, hence “chosen according to His foreknowledge”.

Can you show, other by such inference, anything that comes right out and says that the regenerate believer can lose his salvation?

 

[BNR32FAN]

Can you say God is not just unless he complies with/ meets parameters within some objective definition of justice? Can you show me where it applies to God from outside himself? Can you show where justice comes from? Who are you, oh man?

Where are you getting the definition of the word “just” from?

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

I never suspected for once that @Clare73 didn't believe in the Trinity.

I am talking about what she has said she believes (I was talking about what she posted that she bieved about the Atonement).

At one time I believed exactly what @Clare73 posted that she believed.

I guess I did assume she believed in the Trinity. But you are right. @Clare73 has not stated that she does.

I'm surprised that ya'll thing he is a she when @Clare73 has posted the he is a he.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Who is requiring it?

You are making a category error. God does not contradict scripture. Only your notions of it. God is not required to do anything, except by the presumption of creatures. The whole notion is moot. Nothing there on which to speculate, oh human.

God is required to honor His covenant God is required to be just and holy. God is required to follow thru on prophecy.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I never suspected for once that @Clare73 didn't believe in the Trinity.

I am talking about what she has said she believes (I was talking about what she posted that she bieved about the Atonement).

At one time I believed exactly what @Clare73 posted that she believed.

I guess I did assume she believed in the Trinity. But you are right. @Clare73 has not stated that she does.

I'm glad to hear it. Yes, Clare is debating tenets and methods —not debating her beliefs here, as such. She was comparing the discarding of the doctrine of the Trinity over the fact that it is not mentioned as such in Scripture, with the literalism you claimed to espouse, after you took her to say ...haha, shoot, I'm not going to go back and look!

 

[Mark Quayle]

I'm surprised that ya'll thing he is a she when @Clare73 has posted the he is a he.

Where? Quote. in context

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

Where? Quote. in context

I asked a long time ago and that was the answer I recieved. You'll have to ask @Clare73 again.

Claire is female spelling, clare is short for clarence so I believed him.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Why would we need to know what his fate was?

Failing to keep the law in even one small point, makes one guilty of the whole law. Is there ANY scenario where Uzzah could be justly said to NOT go to hell for that disobedience?

EVEN if God used Uzzah's disobedience to keep the cart upright!

There is only one such scenario.

Ok Uzzah was commanded not to touch the Ark and he broke that commandment I give you that, but I highly doubt that his fate is the lake of fire for all eternity for that offense. Obviously we can’t say for sure because it’s not mentioned in the scriptures so I concede on that point.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Which reference are you talking about now? Hebrews 6 or John 15? Either way the warning is not rendered useless by any take on the text that I have mentioned. Once again, instead of submission, you think we have some right to know the outcome before deciding. You suppose yourself on God's level, or he on ours.

John 15