• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

How to become a Calvinist in 5 easy steps

Clare73

Blood-bought
Jun 12, 2012
28,694
7,397
North Carolina
✟338,560.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
A one man show God created for himself, only for His own glory? That would be really selfish.
Says the one who did not give his one and only Son to be murdered. . .
I think one reason God created man was for man's own joy. Like having a child. You don't only get the child for your own joy, but so you can give the child a meaningful life, for the child's own joy's sake. That is love.
Scripture seems to show otherwise.

He created to show forth the glory of his goodness by the glory of his one and only Son in purchasing from damnation a bride, whom God is preparing, spotless and without wrinkle, to present to his Son, and which bride will share in the full inheritance of that one and only Son.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Clare73

Blood-bought
Jun 12, 2012
28,694
7,397
North Carolina
✟338,560.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I'm not exactly sure what conclusion you've drawn from that passage. I don't see anything that clearly supports your position.
That explains a lot. . .no understanding of what Scripture presents. . .and yet full of declarations regarding it.

Therefore God gave them over to. . .sin (Ro 1:24)
Because of this,
God gave them over to. . .sin (Ro 1:26)
since they did not
. . .he gave them over to. . .sin (Ro 1:28)
Correct. That man was 100% God - even if you disagree based on the theory of the Hypostatic Union.
No, the man was not 100% God.
Jesus was 100% man (material) and 100% God (Spirit). . .two natures in one person.
The man (material, human nature) was not God (Spirit, divine nature), and God (Spirit, divine nature) was not man (material, human nature).
Demonstrating what the Bible says is contra-biblical? Whatever, Clare.
One has to understand Biblical text before one can claim what "the Bible says."
 
Upvote 0

zoidar

loves Jesus the Christ! ✝️
Site Supporter
Sep 18, 2010
7,459
2,653
✟1,027,444.00
Country
Sweden
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Says the one who did not give his one and only Son to be murdered. . .

Scripture seems to show otherwise.

He created to show forth the glory of his goodness by the glory of his one and only Son in purchasing from damnation a bride, whom God is preparing, spotless and without wrinkle, to present to his Son, and which bride will share in the full inheritance of that one and only Son.
I'm not saying it isn't that. I'm saying it's not the only reason.

John 3:16. "For so God loved the world, He gave His only begotten Son."

He sent His Son because He loves man.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

JAL

Veteran
Site Supporter
Oct 16, 2004
10,778
928
Visit site
✟343,550.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
That explains a lot. . .no understanding of what Scripture presents. . .and yet full of declarations regarding it.

Therefore God gave them over to. . .sin (Ro 1:24)
Because of this,
God gave them over to. . .sin (Ro 1:26)
since they did not
. . .he gave them over to. . .sin (Ro 1:28)
Yes, Clare, I'm well aware of what words are there (it's actually possible to find Bible verses on Google) but sometimes you take ambiguous words of Scripture and presume that your interpretation is the only plausible one. As is the case here.
No, the man was not 100% God.
Jesus was 100% man (material) and 100% God (Spirit). . .two natures in one person.
The man (material, human nature) was not God (Spirit, divine nature), and God (Spirit, divine nature) was not man (material, human nature).

One has to understand Biblical text before one can claim what "the Bible says."
You fall back on the Hypostatic Union. Sorry, does not compute. By all accounts, no one understands the Hypostatic Union. Scholars themselves admit it. From where I stand, it's like speaking gibberish to me. You cannot credibly regard a humanly incoherent theory - a logical construct not clearly supported in Scripture - as an effective rebuttal of my stance.
 
Upvote 0

Mark Quayle

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist
Site Supporter
May 28, 2018
14,259
6,350
69
Pennsylvania
✟937,067.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Widowed
“…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)
Just because God can be Deterministic and you feel He is (which you package as first cause), doesn't mean He is.
I tried to put that quote-within-a-quote above the first, but it put it within it. Anyhow, I agree wholeheartedly with Calvin there. Not only is it simple logic, it is Biblical.

I also agree with your statement there, that just because God can be Determinisitic and I feel He is, doesn't mean He is. It is the lack of evidence to the contrary, and the Biblical positive statements that he IS, that are my reasons, not to mention, again, the simple logic by the law of causation. As I have said elsewhere, if he is not first cause, he is not God.
God being the potter and we being the clay shows that God created us with our unique characteristics. If you are going to say that means Determinism, then you have taken the analogy too far - as men, unlike clay pots, are animated.
I thoroughly agree we are each created with our unique characteristics. In fact, it is part of why I say that he created each for the particular purpose he has for us, during this temporal life, and after. Even now, there are dead and alive walking the face of the earth. I hope you can understand what I mean, when I say that God himself is the animation of the Redeemed. Apart from him none of us are even complete beings. We will be complete when we see him as he is, and the sons of God are revealed.
Calvinist Determinism is not clearly stated in scripture
For whatever it is worth, I don't like the word, 'Determinism'. It is used to imply things I don't believe. But the fact is, God has determined all things. but as RC Sproul put it, "If there’s anything that happens in this world outside the foreordination of God—if there’s no sense in which God is ordaining whatsoever comes to pass—then at whatever point something happens outside the foreordination of God it is, therefore, happening outside of the sovereignty of God." Frankly, that should be eminently obvious to anyone who believes in the absolute sovereignty of God.
The fact that not all are saved and that God desires all to be saved (1 Timothy 2:4), eliminates Calvinistic Determinism. Another argument: Per 1 John 4:16, God is love and 1 Corinthians 13:7 says that "Love hopes all things". Being that God hopes all things in his creation, Calvin puts himself outside the realm of logic and scripture when He says that God predestines some individuals to eternal torment before birth.
We've been through all that before. I disagree with your use of those references, so there's nothing to be gained by presenting them to me as arguments, unless you mean them for someone reading this.
 
Upvote 0

JAL

Veteran
Site Supporter
Oct 16, 2004
10,778
928
Visit site
✟343,550.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
One has to understand Biblical text before one can claim what "the Bible says."
These kinds of statements toward me are pure ad hominem, because you have never managed to effectively rebut my views. Time and again, your posts merely express your own preferred interpretation of Scripture, as though it were the only possible/plausible one. I have no precommitment to your personal biases and indoctrination.
 
Upvote 0

Clare73

Blood-bought
Jun 12, 2012
28,694
7,397
North Carolina
✟338,560.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Yes, Clare, I'm well aware of what words are there (it's actually possible to find Bible verses on Google) but sometimes you take ambiguous words of Scripture
"Ambiguous" only to those who have eyes that cannot see. . .
Divine revelation shows that it is sheer foolishness to think that rejectors of divine revelation have the ability to understand it.
and presume that your interpretation is the only plausible one. As is the case here.
And assertion without Biblical demonstration is assertion without merit.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Mark Quayle
Upvote 0

Mark Quayle

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist
Site Supporter
May 28, 2018
14,259
6,350
69
Pennsylvania
✟937,067.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Widowed
A one man show God created for himself, only for His own glory? That would be really selfish. I think one reason God created man was for man's own joy. Like having a child. You don't only get the child for your own joy, but so you can give the child a meaningful life, for the child's own joy's sake. That is love.
I didn't say his glory is his only reason. My problem with the libertarian freewill mindset is that it neglects the fact that this is not about us. Certainly he is kindly intentioned towards his creation. It is logically foolish to suppose that Almighty Creator would create for the mere purpose of destruction or meanness. (That would be boring, if for no other reason!) We know very well that he has a plan for his elect, that he has already given us information about. Yes he will accomplish his purpose for the particular creation he spoke into being! Otherwise, he would not have created. BUT, this is, and the Gospel is, about Christ. THERE is where our joy is found. And that is to his Glory, which was his first reason, all other reason falling within that one.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

zoidar

loves Jesus the Christ! ✝️
Site Supporter
Sep 18, 2010
7,459
2,653
✟1,027,444.00
Country
Sweden
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
I tried to put that quote-within-a-quote above the first, but it put it within it. Anyhow, I agree wholeheartedly with Calvin there. Not only is it simple logic, it is Biblical.
I won't argue against it now, but that quote of Calvin makes me both angry and sad. It's such a misrepresentation of God, from my understanding.
 
Last edited:
  • Friendly
Reactions: Mark Quayle
Upvote 0

zoidar

loves Jesus the Christ! ✝️
Site Supporter
Sep 18, 2010
7,459
2,653
✟1,027,444.00
Country
Sweden
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
I didn't say his glory is his only reason. My problem with the libertarian freewill mindset is that it neglects the fact that this is not about us. Certainly he is kindly intentioned towards his creation. It is logically foolish to suppose that Almighty Creator would create for the mere purpose of destruction or meanness. (That would be boring, if for no other reason!) We know very well that he has a plan for his elect, that he has already given us information about. Yes he will accomplish his purpose for the particular creation he spoke into being! Otherwise, he would not have created. BUT, this is, and the Gospel is, about Christ. THERE is where our joy is found. And that is to his Glory, which was his first reason.
Do you put God's glory ahead of His love to us? John 3:16. I wouldn't.

John 3:16. "For so God loved the world, He gave His only begotten Son."

Do remember what Paul said about love?

If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but do not have love, I have become a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal.
— 1 Corinthians 13:1

Love is patient, love is kind and is not jealous; love does not brag and is not arrogant, does not act unbecomingly; it does not seek its own, is not provoked, does not take into account a wrong suffered, does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth; bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.
— 1 Corinthians 13:4-7
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

JAL

Veteran
Site Supporter
Oct 16, 2004
10,778
928
Visit site
✟343,550.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
For whatever it is worth, I don't like the word, 'Determinism'. It is used to imply things I don't believe. But the fact is, God has determined all things. but as RC Sproul put it, "If there’s anything that happens in this world outside the foreordination of God—if there’s no sense in which God is ordaining whatsoever comes to pass—then at whatever point something happens outside the foreordination of God it is, therefore, happening outside of the sovereignty of God." Frankly, that should be eminently obvious to anyone who believes in the absolute sovereignty of God.
Correct. Libertarian freedom is antithetical to the absolute sovereignty of God. He would be absolutely sovereign if He had opted to create us as deterministic puppets, but where is the fun in that? So we have at least two reasons to believe that God opted for a modicum of human freedom.

...(1) An all-powerful God could derive no pleasure from deterministic puppets. The results would be too boring/predictable.
...(2) Divine retribution implies that we - at least Adam, Eve, and the angels - have freedom to abstain from sin.

Conclusion: God COULD have been a control-freak, but found free will more palatable.
 
Upvote 0

Mark Quayle

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist
Site Supporter
May 28, 2018
14,259
6,350
69
Pennsylvania
✟937,067.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Widowed
Do you put God's glory ahead of His love to us? John 3:16. I wouldn't.

John 3:16. "For so God loved the world, He gave His only begotten Son."

Do remember what Paul said about love?

If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but do not have love, I have become a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal.
— 1 Corinthians 13:1

Love is patient, love is kind and is not jealous; love does not brag and is not arrogant, does not act unbecomingly; it does not seek its own, is not provoked, does not take into account a wrong suffered, does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth; bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.
— 1 Corinthians 13:4-7
God's glory includes his love for us, and perhaps it is valid to say the vice versa. Truth is, though, his glory is true, even apart from his creation. His glory is not about us, but we are about his glory.
 
Upvote 0

Lost Witness

Ezekiel 3:3 ("Change")
Nov 10, 2022
1,749
1,031
39
New York
✟122,979.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
310780211_182966154267112_5429571890484194083_n.jpg
 
Upvote 0

zoidar

loves Jesus the Christ! ✝️
Site Supporter
Sep 18, 2010
7,459
2,653
✟1,027,444.00
Country
Sweden
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
God's glory includes his love for us, and perhaps it is valid to say the vice versa. Truth is, though, his glory is true, even apart from his creation. His glory is not about us, but we are about his glory.
I would say God's glory is connected with God's love, but I think we will disagree how it's connected. God wouldn't earn any glory if He sent His Son for His own glory. The reason God earns glory from sending His Son is because He did it for us (out of love).
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: GodsGrace101
Upvote 0

GodsGrace101

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Apr 17, 2018
6,713
2,297
Tuscany
✟255,207.00
Country
Italy
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
You say, "I find that the reformed never reply to my verses."
I can't speak for the rest of the reformed, but, to me, your verses are no more proving of the point you take them to prove than the verses of any other of your ilk.

I now "your ilk" is not really pejorative, but, boy, it sure sounds bad.
If you think the verses I post are not supportive of what I'm stating,
shouldn't you be telling me where I'm wrong in understanding them?
I always reply to verses.

I've been discouraged, as no doubt you too have, from time to time, from having argued so long with little visible result. It's like trying to wake the dead. You show choice and seem to think it means your brand of freewill. You show patience, mercy, even forbearance, and think it means God is unable until we are willing.
God is always able.
He's always ready to take us in as a member of His Kingdom.
This is why Jesus died as an atonement.
God was so separated by man when Adam fell that it took God to bring us back to Him and break the power of satan.
Acts 11:18
18He will declare to you a message by which you will be saved, you and all your household.’

A message that saves us...

Isaiah 12:2
2God is my savior.

Zephanaiah 12:17
17The Lord your God is in your midst, a mighty one who will save; he will rejoice over you with gladness; he will quiet you by his love; he will exult over you with loud singing.



The Lord rejoices over those He will save.
Surely He would be sad at those that are not saved.

Psalm 34:18
The Lord is near to the brokenhearted and saves the crushed in spirit.



You say, "Yes, God's grace is open for all to take advantage of or deny."
I can't help but be skeptical of your use of the word, "open". All I see your statement to be saying, (discounting that use of "open"), is that God must wait for us to act first, and that, somehow, we, though dead in our sins, are able to obey the gospel, contrary to Romans 8.

God does not wait for us to act first.
This is incorrect theology and I've NEVER said that. You're assuming again.
God does hope we will answer with a yes, after He has revealed Himself to us - in whatever way He sees fit, as Romans 1:19-20 supports.
And yes, we are ABLE to obey the gospel.
Would you be able to show me in Romans 8 where it says we are not ABLE?


You say, "We cannot add to God's grace in any way...God is full of grace - one cannot be more full than full."
Then, if God is all in all, and full of grace, are you saying mathematically there is nothing else? Unless that is how you are thinking, him being replete with Grace is not quite what we are talking about, (though in the logical end it may perhaps be argued that way). What we are talking about is the complete work of Grace, in producing regeneration, faith, repentance, the ability to obey, and even in creating our very will. You concede this in your statement here, yet somehow, like the others of your ilk, think that little extra ingredient in the soup, that of the person grasping for Christ, "accepting him", (or however you want to put it), is somehow not God's work —in fact, somehow mysteriously not work at all— but entirely of the freewill of man or it is not actual real choice. Again, I say, if it is not the work of God, it is not actual real choice. If one supposedly reaches for God apart from the work of God, it is a mockery of Grace.

How could that be?
God is always at work revealing Himself to man - who knows how many times a day God revealed Himself to you before you became a believer.
But we are ABLE to reach for God. It's written all over the NT, I've posted 10's of verses, including some of Jesus speaking.
Why not reply to that instead of giving a speech?
I mean, what we think is pretty irrelevant unless we could back it up with scripture.

You say, "The following verses about God's mercy (which is a part of His grace) tells that all are welcomed:"
Obvious enough. I suppose you posit these verses as proof, (since "all are welcomed"), that God has not chosen specific ones, predestining them for Heaven while rejecting the reprobates, unless by reason of their choice alone.

PLEASE show me how it is NOT of their choice alone.
And don't go all the way back and say that I'm saying that God does not make the first move.
It is MY CHOICE whether or not I want to follow God or satan.

Romans 6:16 NASB
16Do you not know that when you present yourselves to someone as slaves for obedience, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin resulting in death, or of obedience resulting in righteousness?
17But thanks be to God that though you were slaves of sin, you became obedient from the heart to that form of teaching to which you were committed,
18and having been freed from sin, you became slaves of righteousness.
19I am speaking in human terms because of the weakness of your flesh. For just as you presented your members as slaves to impurity and to lawlessness, resulting in further lawlessness, so now present your members as slaves to righteousness, resulting in sanctification.


Just look at what the above states:
1. We present OURSELVES.
2. Either as slaves to obedience, or slaves of obedience. Our choice.
3. We became obedient from the heart DUE TO A FORM OF TEACHING...The teaching of the Apostles.
4. We presented ourselves as slaves to impurity, now we are to present ourselves as slaves to righteousness.
5. Resulting in Sanctification. Sanctification is achieved by a free will choice to obey...by presenting ourselves.

Repeated in Romans 12:1 PRESENT YOUR BODY ... Present implies that WE are doing the presenting. God is not speaking to Himself.
You want it to show God's longing as though it means he has no preference, no agenda, no particular reason to create, but only general goodwill toward even the reprobate. In other words, you want him to be altogether as we would be were we without sin. You want him subject to circumstances he does not control.
God controls every circumstance.
Please stop putting words in my mouth.
God DOES have an agenda regarding mankind,
and He is loving enough to LET US KNOW WHAT IT IS, as I've stated on several occasions now.
You say, "Jerusalem wouldn't LET Jesus protect her."
Take a look at which "translations" use that terminology. That isn't even worthy of the term translation —it is "paraphrase" at best, and not a very good one. It says, "but you were not willing." God is not subject to anything but himself —not even to our omnipotent (as if !) wills.
Matthew 23:37 means the same, no matter what version you use. The persons were NOT WILLING. This denotes free will.

New International Version
“Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were not willing.

New Living Translation
“O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones God’s messengers! How often I have wanted to gather your children together as a hen protects her chicks beneath her wings, but you wouldn’t let me.

English Standard Version
“O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you were not willing!

Berean Standard Bible
O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those sent to her, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were unwilling!

Berean Literal Bible
Jerusalem, Jerusalem, killing the prophets and stoning those having been sent to her! How often would I have gathered together your children, the way in which a hen gathers together her chicks under the wings, and you were not willing!

King James Bible
O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!

New King James Version
“O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing!

New American Standard Bible
“Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who have been sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling.

NASB 1995
“Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling.

NASB 1977
“O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling.

Amplified Bible
“O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who murders the prophets and stones [to death] those [messengers] who are sent to her [by God]! How often I wanted to gather your children together [around Me], as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling.

Christian Standard Bible
“Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her. How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing!

Holman Christian Standard Bible
“Jerusalem, Jerusalem! She who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her. How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, yet you were not willing!

American Standard Version
O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, that killeth the prophets, and stoneth them that are sent unto her! how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!

Aramaic Bible in Plain English
Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you that murdered The Prophets and stoned those who were sent to it! How many times have I desired to gather your children, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were not willing!

Contemporary English Version
Jerusalem, Jerusalem! Your people have killed the prophets and have stoned the messengers who were sent to you. I have often wanted to gather your people, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings. But you wouldn't let me.

Douay-Rheims Bible
Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them that are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered together thy children, as the hen doth gather her chickens under her wings, and thou wouldest not?

Good News Translation
"Jerusalem, Jerusalem! You kill the prophets and stone the messengers God has sent you! How many times I wanted to put my arms around all your people, just as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you would not let me!
 
Upvote 0

GodsGrace101

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Apr 17, 2018
6,713
2,297
Tuscany
✟255,207.00
Country
Italy
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
That God has incredible mercy upon those helpless ones to whom he chose to show mercy. And that, not to just break even and have the penalty and stain of sin removed, but to be completed in him.

You continue to show the same mindset, the same worldview, as the rest of the freewillers, that this life is about us. None of this is about us.
It's not good news if the news is ONLY for those upon whom God wishes to show mercy.
John said he wrote his words so that we might hear and be saved.
1 John 1:3-4
John 20:31 NASB
31but these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name.


John wrote so that we may believe...and by believing have eternal life.

I've listed many verses that state that God has mercy on everyone. (that chooses to believe).
We are saved by faith -- belief brings faith.

We are all helpless when born Mark,
why would a just God have mercy on just a few?
And (heaven help me) USE the others He created to somehow show His glory by sentencing them to hell?

And please remember that YOU also continue to show the same mindset...
that God is not LOVE, MERCY AND JUSTICE.

I'd say that this IS about US.
It was God that created humans.
It was God that put responsibility on Adam.
God did everything.
He allowed Adam to name animals.
He allowed Adam to walk with Him in the Garden.

GOD DID EVERYTHING FOR US. Even the plan of salvation because He knew we'd fail.
(emphasis - not screaming).
 
Upvote 0

Clare73

Blood-bought
Jun 12, 2012
28,694
7,397
North Carolina
✟338,560.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I would say God's glory is connected with God's love, but I think we will disagree how it's connected. God wouldn't earn any glory if He sent His Son for His own glory.
The Father is glorified in the glory of the Son who redeemed the church.
The reason God earns glory from sending His Son is because He did it for us (out of love).
The Father doesn't "earn" glory, he shows forth his glory.
 
Upvote 0

Clare73

Blood-bought
Jun 12, 2012
28,694
7,397
North Carolina
✟338,560.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
You're funny Clare.
I responded 2 times.
If you have the time and/or care, you could easily look up the replies.
Indeed. . .and it appears it will take at least three times to fulfill my request that you exegete Ro 5:12-15, being true to its words and consistent with Paul's argument there.
 
Upvote 0