Is Calvinism a heresy?

[JLB777]

you fail to understand that obedience to God justifies that our faith is genuine before others but it is only faith that is granted by grace that justifies anyone before God.

Rom 3:24 being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus,

Rom 3:28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law.

Rom 4:2 For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God.
Rom 4:3 For what does the Scripture say? "ABRAHAM BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS ACCOUNTED TO HIM FOR RIGHTEOUSNESS."

Therefore the only path to righteousness is by grace through faith in the blood of Christ.

Rom 5:9 Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from wrath through Him.

The only way of righteousness is by grace through faith.


However you fail to understand that faith must have the corresponding action of obedience, in order for faith to be “alive” or “activated“, otherwise faith by itself is dead.

Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead. James 2:17

The “works” is not referring to “good works”.

The “work” being referred to by James is the corresponding ”act” of obedience, which is called the obedience of faith by Paul.


But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith: Romans 16:26


The only way a person is justified, made to be righteous before God, is by obeying the Gospel.


But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, “LORD, who has believed our report?” Romans 10:16


For the time has come for judgment to begin at the house of God; and if it begins with us first, what will be the end of those who do not obey the gospel of God?
1 Peter 4:17


in flaming fire taking vengeance on those who do not know God, and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. 2 Thessalonians 1:8


Shall I explain what t means to obey the Gospel?




JLB

 

[Derf]

Shall I explain what t means to obey the Gospel?

I'm curious.

And welcome aboard the forum.

 

[Derf]

God uses means to humble His people to see their need of Christ and the means He has chosen to use is the Gospel, which according to you, there is no need for people to preach because you seem to think men can humble themselves without the need for God's means at all.

No, God is constantly humbling people in the bible, but it isn't always salvific. He humbled pharaoh and the Egyptians. He humbled Haman, the Agagite. He humbled Agag and his Amalekites. He humbled the cities of Canaan. He humbled the Israelites a number of times. The only instances where humbling is salvific seem to be where one humbled himself.

The Gospel is commanded to be preached to all as a testimony of the victory that Christ has won for His sheep from all nations, tongues, tribes and peoples throughout the whole world but once again according to you, there is no need to preach the Gospel whatsoever because God loves absolutely everyone and therefore there can not logically be a Hell to be saved from.

And that's why Calvinism is a heresy!

When will you realise that God has decreed that His Gospel works both to save some people and to justly condemn others as clearly stated in 2 Cor 2:14-16?

The conversion of the apostle Paul on the road to Damascus is one the clearest evidences that God does not need the will of men to save them but you will twist this any way you can to avoid this along with the many other Scriptures that confirm this truth and in so doing are identified with those who abandoned Christ when He confronted them on this matter (John 6:44, 65-66).

View attachment 332804

How can a man "submit to the electing love and sovereign grace of God" unless he is ordained by God to do so. And once he is, how can he not? Spurgeon is hopelessly confused in that statement, as is apparent by the look on his face.

 

[John Mullally]

No, they recognized that self-deterministic people would assume it implied it. They didn't think it implied it either.

Non-Calvinists are not purely self-deterministic as we recognize the grace of God in sending his son to "take away the sins of the world" and that post-Calvary Jesus draws all men unto himself (John 12:32).

If X is controlling your will and action, then X is responsible for your action. From scripture we see that God holds man, not Himself, responsible for man's sin and rebellion. Therefore, fatalistic Calvin does not know what he is talking about (see below) and in Calvinism we have a situation of the blind leading the blind. (Matthew 15:14).

“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)​

​

From the perspective of Calvin and his followers anyone thinking they freely choose is delusional.

How can a man "submit to the electing love and sovereign grace of God" unless he is ordained by God to do so. And once he is, how can he not? Spurgeon is hopelessly confused in that statement, as is apparent by the look on his face.

Hilarious

 

[Mark Quayle]

Non-Calvinists are not purely self-deterministic as we recognize the grace of God in sending his son to "take away the sins of the world" and that post-Calvary Jesus draws all men unto himself (John 12:32).

If X is controlling your will and action, then X is responsible for your action. From scripture we see that God holds man, not Himself, responsible for man's sin and rebellion. Therefore, fatalistic Calvin does not know what he is talking about (see below) and in Calvinism we have a situation of the blind leading the blind. (Matthew 15:14).

“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)​

​

From the perspective of Calvin and his followers anyone thinking they freely choose is delusional.

God is not X. God is WAY beyond anything we can submit to a human worldview. If I remember right, I've tried this before with you, but you seemed to be unable to hold it at arms length: If you must insist on real will, meaning, uncontrolled by God, consider it, from God's point of view, as a story he told. We do our thing in this story, but yes, he told it. And THAT is the only way it even CAN BE real.

 

[John Mullally]

God is not X. God is WAY beyond anything we can submit to a human worldview. If I remember right, I've tried this before with you, but you seemed to be unable to hold it at arms length: If you must insist on real will, meaning, uncontrolled by God, consider it, from God's point of view, as a story he told. We do our thing in this story, but yes, he told it. And THAT is the only way it even CAN BE real.

Cut the pretense, you understand mathematical and logical abstraction as you have spoken of Karnaugh maps in the past. To your own self be true. Point-of-view is meaningless in this argument - if God has shaped our will and actions such that we have no other recourse then to do what his "providence" decrees as Calvin plainly states, then God is responsible for our actions. No amount of weasel-wording double-talk changes that. That is your evidence that Calvin was a blind guide.

“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)​

 

[Mark Quayle]

Cut the pretense, you understand mathematical and logical abstraction as you have spoken of Karnaugh maps in the past. To your own self be true. Point-of-view is meaningless in this argument - if God has shaped our will and actions such that we have no other recourse then to do what his "providence" decrees as Calvin plainly states, then God is responsible for our actions. No amount of weasel-wording double-talk changes that. That is your evidence that Calvin was a blind guide.

“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)​

Point-of-view means everything in this argument. You pretend that God sees this as we do. The Bible presents this [that we call 'real'] as a vapor compared to [the solid reality of] what is to come.

By the way, I agree wholeheartedly with Calvin there. I am not pretending anything. You indeed do choose between what you see as options, but I can more easily show logical reason why there is no possibility that you could have chosen otherwise, than you can show that there are ever more than one actual possible thing to choose, regardless of the numbers of options.

I tried to show a way to synthesize your erroneous notions of self-deterministic freewill, under God's logically necessary causation, but you're not having it —apparently even that weakens your self-determinism too much.

 

[Derf]

but I can more easily show logical reason why there is no possibility that you could have chosen otherwise, than you can show that there are ever more than one actual possible thing to choose, regardless of the numbers of options.

I'd be interested in seeing this.

 

[John Mullally]

Point-of-view means everything in this argument. You pretend that God sees this as we do. The Bible presents this [that we call 'real'] as a vapor compared to [the solid reality of] what is to come.

Just stating that God has a different point-of-view is not an argument. 2+2 does not equal 5 in any point-of-view.

Paul who presents God's Point-of-View (as his letters are canonized) says that God desires all people to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth. (1 Timothy 2:4, also Ezekiel 33:11 in the OT) Calvin says that God pre-destines some to eternal torment to give glory to himself. God is not schizophrenic such as predestining what he does not desire. Paul and Calvin cannot both be right.

“…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)​

Calvin even says that some who die in infancy go to hell (see below) - which triggered many to baptize their infants. That is why Calvinist's persecuted Anabaptist's to death who held the correct view of scripture (i.e. scripture only commands baptism of believers) as Calvinists believed that baptizing infants would prevent them from going to hell if they died in their infancy.

​

“Again I ask: whence does it happen that Adam’s fall irremediably involved so many peoples, together with their infant offspring, in eternal death unless because it so pleased God? The decree is dreadful indeed, I confess. Yet no one can deny that God foreknew what end man was to have before he created him, and consequently foreknew because he so ordained by his decree. And it ought not to seem absurd for me to say that God not only foresaw the fall of the first man, and in him the ruin of his descendants, but also meted it out in accordance with his own decision.” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 23, Paragraph 7)​

By the way, I agree wholeheartedly with Calvin there. I am not pretending anything. You indeed do choose between what you see as options, but I can more easily show logical reason why there is no possibility that you could have chosen otherwise, than you can show that there are ever more than one actual possible thing to choose, regardless of the numbers of options.

The quote from Calvin in Post 1124 and 1126 show that there are no real options open to man - we are effectively a puppet on a string. You seem to agree here finally. The many pleading directives in the word of God demonstrate that people can choose between options. Why would God plead with man unless He thought such pleading could affect man's will and sway him? On the other hand why are people judged for wrong decisions, when their decisions were pre-determined as Calvin states?

I tried to show a way to synthesize your erroneous notions of self-deterministic freewill, under God's logically necessary causation, but you're not having it —apparently even that weakens your self-determinism too much.

You bounce between misinterpreting the simple things I say (such as using X as a substitute for anything) and here you are baffling with B.S. Where did you "synthesize my erroneous notions of self-deterministic freewill"? And where did you establish from scripture "God's logically necessary causation"? Here your argumentation lies in muddying the waters with B.S. But as seen earlier you are not adverse to sarcasm, dismissal, and phony outrage.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I'd be interested in seeing this.

Simple. The only thing that can happen is whatever does happen. Empirical

History shows that for however many options there were at any one juncture, a person only ever chose one. We have never seen otherwise. We can extrapolate this trend into the future. It has held true from thousands (billions?) of years —we can be confident the trend will continue.

We do have options from which to choose. But only one-at-a-time is possible to be chosen.

 

[BNR32FAN]

The Catholic Church does not consider Calvinism, a theology developed by John Calvin in the 16th century, to be heretical. However, it does disagree with certain aspects of Calvinist theology, particularly the belief in double predestination, the doctrine that God predestines some individuals to eternal salvation and others to eternal damnation. The Catholic Church teaches that God desires the salvation of all humanity, and that every person has the free will to accept or reject God's grace.

The Catholic Church also disagree with the beliefs of the "Limited atonement" which is the belief that Jesus died only for the elect. The Catholic Church teaches that Jesus died for all humanity, and that his sacrifice on the cross is sufficient for the salvation of all people.

In summary, while the Catholic Church does not consider Calvinism to be heretical, it disagrees with certain aspects of Calvinist theology, particularly the belief in double predestination and limited atonement.

Well it also disagrees that eternal security is incorrect but I would surmise that if the church does not teach that Calvinism is heresy it certainly does teach that these particular doctrines are heretical. After all there’s only either heretical or orthodox when it comes to doctrines.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Just stating that God has a different point-of-view is not an argument. 2+2 does not equal 5 in any point-of-view.

It is an argument against your logic which presumes certain absurdities which I have pointed out.

Paul who presents God's Point-of-View (as his letters are canonized) says that God desires all people to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth. (1 Timothy 2:4, also Ezekiel 33:11 in the OT) Calvin says that God pre-destines some to eternal torment to give glory to himself. God is not schizophrenic such as predestining what he does not desire. Paul and Calvin cannot both be right.

Your continued repetition of your use of 1 Tim. 2:4 and other verses that you use the same way, is no longer an argument. You've been shown wrong so many times, that this is become mere assertion, anymore. It's not an argument.

It is, of course, true that God is not schizoid. He does, however, predestine what he does not like or enjoy, though, in order to bring about what (whom?) he loves.

“…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)​

Calvin even says that some who die in infancy go to hell (see below) - which triggered many to baptize their infants. That is why Calvinist's persecuted Anabaptist's to death who held the correct view of scripture (i.e. scripture only commands baptism of believers) as Calvinists believed that baptizing infants would prevent them from going to hell if they died in their infancy.

And your problem with that is what?

​

“Again I ask: whence does it happen that Adam’s fall irremediably involved so many peoples, together with their infant offspring, in eternal death unless because it so pleased God? The decree is dreadful indeed, I confess. Yet no one can deny that God foreknew what end man was to have before he created him, and consequently foreknew because he so ordained by his decree. And it ought not to seem absurd for me to say that God not only foresaw the fall of the first man, and in him the ruin of his descendants, but also meted it out in accordance with his own decision.” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 23, Paragraph 7)​

And your problem with this is what?

The quote from Calvin in Post 1124 and 1126 show that there are no real options open to man - we are effectively a puppet on a string. You seem to agree here finally. The many pleading directives in the word of God demonstrate that people can choose between options. Why would God plead with man unless He thought such pleading could affect man's will and sway him? On the other hand why are people judged for wrong decisions, when their decisions were pre-determined as Calvin states?

You bounce between misinterpreting the simple things I say (such as using X as a substitute for anything) and here you are baffling with B.S. Where did you "synthesize my erroneous notions of self-deterministic freewill"? And where did you establish from scripture "God's logically necessary causation"? Here your argumentation lies in muddying the waters with B.S. But as seen earlier you are not adverse to sarcasm, dismissal, and phony outrage.

Define "options". I just finished writing @Derf on this. You have no proof that man's many options are any of them possible to choose, but one-at-a-time.

Repeatedly God's causation of all subsequent things (which is logically necessary), to include the principle or system we know of as 'reality', is shown in Scripture. Genesis 1:1, John 1:1 and forward, Colossians 1:16, —Ha! even Romans 8:28, in one reading, just for starters.

 

[John Mullally]

Just stating that God has a different point-of-view is not an argument. 2+2 does not equal 5 in any point-of-view.

It is an argument against your logic which presumes certain absurdities which I have pointed out.

It is not an argument as God reveals Himself through scripture. It is absurd to you that people can freely choose - as per Calvin God has already made all of our choices for us.

Your continued repetition of your use of 1 Tim. 2:4 and other verses that you use the same way, is no longer an argument. You've been shown wrong so many times, that this is become mere assertion, anymore. It's not an argument.

I have presented other scriptures that support 1 Timothy 2:4, such as the surrounding context (1 Timothy 2:1-6), God is the savior of all people (1 Timothy 4:10), God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked (Ezekiel 33:11), God does not desire than any perish (2 Peter 3:9), and God so loved the world (John 3:16) that He gave His Son. Your weariness over my presentation of scripture demonstrates that you prefer the doctrine of men (i.e. fatalistic Calvinism) over the word of God.

And your problem with that is what?


And your problem with this is what?

Calvin presents a God who takes pleasure in predestining people to hell as it gives Him greater glory. No God is love (1 John 4:8). One problem with that is that God has not changed places with the devil (2 Corinthians 4:3-4). Also reference Ezekiel 33:11.

“…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)​

​

Calvin states that God directs all the devil actions as well. No God is not divided against Himself, directing the works of the devil, while sending Jesus to destroy the works off the devil (1 John 3:8).

“The devil, and the whole train of the ungodly, are in all directions, held in by the hand of God as with a bridle, so that they can neither conceive any mischief, nor plan what they have conceived, nor how muchsoever they may have planned, move a single finger to perpetrate, unless in so far as he permits, nay unless in so far as he commands, that they are not only bound by his fetters but are even forced to do him service” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 1, Chapter 17, Paragraph 11)​

Repeatedly God's causation of all subsequent things (which is logically necessary), to include the principle or system we know of as 'reality', is shown in Scripture. Genesis 1:1, John 1:1 and forward, Colossians 1:16, —Ha! even Romans 8:28, in one reading, just for starters.

From scripture we see that God pre-plans some events, such as Exodus and Christ's crucifixion and resurrection. Just because God pre-planned some events, does not mean God pre-plans our every thought and action as Calvin states.

 

[Derf]

Simple. The only thing that can happen is whatever does happen. Empirical

Future isn't empirical.

History shows that for however many options there were at any one juncture, a person only ever chose one. We have never seen otherwise.

Actually, that's how neapolitan ice cream was invented. Someone refused to choose one of chocolate, vanilla, and strawberry. So, extrapolate that into the future, and voila, the future isn't just the progression of determined choices. (somewhat tongue-in-cheek).

We can extrapolate this trend into the future. It has held true from thousands (billions?) of years —we can be confident the trend will continue.

We do have options from which to choose. But only one-at-a-time is possible to be chosen.

Only when the options are mutually exclusive do we only get to choose one. But, let's say we're only dealing with those type of choices, as Joshua told the people to choose between life and death. If someone chose life then, and you know exactly which choice it was, that doesn't mean his choices for the rest of his life were settled. People can repent and turn from wickedness, as well as repent of choosing life and start being wicked. Those choices might affect whether you and I are here today, but not which choices we will make.

Only a dedication to a settled future can result in your tortured logic and erroneous conclusion.


Ps. after that mess, please don't ever complain about anybody else's bad logic again. I'm pretty sure God will judge you by the very words of your mouth.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Well it also disagrees that eternal security is incorrect but I would surmise that if the church does not teach that Calvinism is heresy it certainly does teach that these particular doctrines are heretical. After all there’s only either heretical or orthodox when it comes to doctrines.

A number of doctrines associated with Calvinism are heretical.

 

[David Kent]

Calvinism is a branch of Protestant Christianity that originated in the 16th century, named after John Calvin, and is characterized by its emphasis on the sovereignty of God, the importance of grace and predestination. It teaches that God predestines some individuals to salvation and others to damnation, and that this decision is made before a person is born and cannot be changed. It also teaches that the only way to be saved is through faith in Jesus Christ, and that good works have no role in salvation.

The Catholic Church has a different understanding of salvation and the role of grace and faith. The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches that God's grace is necessary for salvation and that it is offered to all people. It states that faith in Jesus Christ is necessary for salvation, but it also affirms that good works and obedience to God's commandments also play an important role in salvation. It teaches that salvation is not only a gift of God but also a task to be achieved by the believer, who is responsible for his or her own salvation.

In terms of predestination, the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches that God has predestined no one to go to hell; for this, a willful turning away from God (a mortal sin) is necessary, and persistence in it until the end. In the scriptures, it is stated that God wants all people to be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth (1 Tim 2:4), and that his will is for everyone to be saved (1 Tim 2:4) and that God does not desire that anyone should perish (2 Pet 3:9).

In summary, Calvinism and Catholic Church have different understanding of predestination, grace and the role of faith and good works in salvation. While the Catholic Church teaches that God's grace is necessary for salvation and that it is offered to all people, Calvinism teaches that God predestines some individuals to salvation and others to damnation and that only faith in Jesus Christ is necessary for salvation, good works have no role in salvation.

All sinners are destined for salvation unless God saves them. All have sinned and come short of the Kingdon of God,

Those who truly believe are chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world. Why did God cheese the Jews over every nation? Because of His sovereign will. The same with true Christians.

GOD is sovereign and he says, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy.

 

[maxamir]

However, one slight slip on the narrow path and it is evident to all that the individual failed to look to Christ and, having failed to persevere to the end, revealed to all his true, fallen nature. In certain times, that might be using one's left hand rather than one's right hand or it might be taking a sip of alcohol as, say, in a medicinal form.

Every true saint is guaranteed to slip on the narrow path and at times even fall deeply into the mud of their sin to teach them the importance of His grace alone in their perseverance.

Psa_37:24 Though he fall, he shall not be utterly cast down; For the LORD upholds him with His hand.

 

[maxamir]

The only way of righteousness is by grace through faith.


However you fail to understand that faith must have the corresponding action of obedience, in order for faith to be “alive” or “activated“, otherwise faith by itself is dead.

Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead. James 2:17

The “works” is not referring to “good works”.

The “work” being referred to by James is the corresponding ”act” of obedience, which is called the obedience of faith by Paul.


But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith: Romans 16:26


The only way a person is justified, made to be righteous before God, is by obeying the Gospel.


But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, “LORD, who has believed our report?” Romans 10:16


For the time has come for judgment to begin at the house of God; and if it begins with us first, what will be the end of those who do not obey the gospel of God?
1 Peter 4:17


in flaming fire taking vengeance on those who do not know God, and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. 2 Thessalonians 1:8


Shall I explain what t means to obey the Gospel?




JLB

The command of the Gospel is to repent and believe which is impossible for men to do in themselves and this is why a person must first be born again by grace to want to obey God.

Faith without works is indeed dead but remember that any works without faith is sin (Rom 14:23).

 

[maxamir]

No, God is constantly humbling people in the bible, but it isn't always salvific. He humbled pharaoh and the Egyptians. He humbled Haman, the Agagite. He humbled Agag and his Amalekites. He humbled the cities of Canaan. He humbled the Israelites a number of times. The only instances where humbling is salvific seem to be where one humbled himself.

And that's why Calvinism is a heresy!

How can a man "submit to the electing love and sovereign grace of God" unless he is ordained by God to do so. And once he is, how can he not? Spurgeon is hopelessly confused in that statement, as is apparent by the look on his face.

Agreed, not every person who is humbled is saved. This is made plainly evident in the many who say they know Christ as Lord but look to their own works instead of Christ for righteousness (Matt 7:22-23).

Please show me from Holy Scripture where the Doctrines of Grace which proclaims that salvation belongs to the Lord and not spiritually dead man are heretical.

Those who are ordained by God to come to God end up coming to God, even if they kick against the goads as Paul did (Acts 9:5).

 

[Mark Quayle]

Future isn't empirical.

I didn't say future is empirical. Scratch that one off your list of where I was illogical.

Only when the options are mutually exclusive do we only get to choose one. But, let's say we're only dealing with those type of choices, as Joshua told the people to choose between life and death. If someone chose life then, and you know exactly which choice it was, that doesn't mean his choices for the rest of his life were settled. People can repent and turn from wickedness, as well as repent of choosing life and start being wicked. Those choices might affect whether you and I are here today, but not which choices we will make.

Only a dedication to a settled future can result in your tortured logic and erroneous conclusion.

If options are not mutually exclusive, and we choose two or more, then we chose that one thing —to choose those two or more. Scratch another one off your list.

Ps. after that mess, please don't ever complain about anybody else's bad logic again. I'm pretty sure God will judge you by the very words of your mouth.

I have no doubt I will be judged, and by my own standard, at that. And THAT principle, at least, seems to apply universally, (unlike the atonement. (No, the OT comment is not illogical, in this instance. Sorry.).) But your remarks there seem to show hurt feelings, perhaps about someone saying your logic is messy.

So are you going to show me where I am wrong, and, that, in fact, Chance does rule God? Or are you going to say that God depends on our choices to accomplish his plans?

So far, you have not shown that what is available to us from which to choose, is actually available to us from which to do.


But how do you come up with that, about making one decision meaning the rest of life's choices being settled? What does one choice have to do with whether the remainder of one's choices are settled or not? If any of them are settled, why not all of them? I'm finding only erroneous logic there. But maybe it was only poorly stated.

Every repentance and every turning from wickedness, AND every sin, is "settled", as you put it. That doesn't mean you don't choose. It only means that God not only knows what you will choose, but that what you choose is part of his plans concerning you.