Is There Faith In Calvinist System?

[bbbbbbb]

That didn't answer my question. Besides that verse doesn't say " God commands you to be perfect". Does it? So how do you explain God commanding people to repent, when He created them with no chance of doing so?

"Be perfect" sure sounds like a command to me. If it is not a command what is it?

 

[John Mullally]

I know that’s your position. But that didn’t address my hypothetical.

I did address it. You may not agree with how I addressed your hypothetical. My position is that that the atonement was paid for Ralph, but it can only be received by him conditionally.

 

[Hammster]

I did address it. You may not agree with how I addressed your hypothetical. My position is that that the atonement was paid for Ralph, but it can only be received by him conditionally.

You responded to the post. That’s not the same thing as addressing.

 

[John Mullally]

Let’s try it this way. Let’s say, for illustrative purposes, that Ralph only sinned once. He lied to his wife one day. That lie would be enough to sentence him to hell. He dies unrepentant and unregenerate. But, according to you, Christ died for that sin.

What would Ralph be punished for in hell, if Christ already took the punishment for that sin?

Like I said the payment requires belief on the part of the recipient. That means it is received conditionally. If you don't meet the conditions you don't receive forgiveness of sins.

You do not accept Christ's payment can be received conditionally. And that lines up with Calvinist thought because "Limited Atonement" insists that Christ only died for the elect, So in Calvinism, there is no need for the Christ's payment to be received conditionally - so why should you accept that.

However, 2 Peter 2:1, says that Christ paid for False Teachers who were on their way to Hell and I mentioned that to you much earlier on this thread. These False Teachers do not receive the atonement - which lines up with my argument that the atonement is received conditionally.

I know that’s your position. But that didn’t address my hypothetical.

I did address it. You may not agree with how I addressed your hypothetical. My position is that that the atonement was paid for Ralph, but it can only be received by him conditionally.

You responded to the post. That’s not the same thing as addressing.

You say you understand my position. The posts show I have responded in depth. You have strung this along. It is time to clear things up How exactly did I fail to address your hypothetical?

 

[Hammster]

You say you understand my position. The posts show I have responded in depth. You have strung this along. It is time to clear things up How exactly did I fail to address your hypothetical?

As far as I can tell, you haven’t shown what Ralph would be punished for.

 

[John Mullally]

It is time to clear things up How exactly did I fail to address your hypothetical?

As far as I can tell, you haven’t shown what Ralph would be punished for.

As far as I can tell you well understand my position. You could be direct and show where and why you disagree. Instead you ask questions and pose hypotheticals loaded with assumptions in order to play "Gotcha".

I mentioned many, many times that receipt of Christ's payment is conditional and requires faith on the part of the recepient. No faith, no forgiveness of sins. Therefore, if Ralph does not believe the Gospel, he dies in his sins even though Christ died for him (as well as the rest of humanity).

Your hypothetical is addressed to me and thus you are looking for my reasoning. Yet you standby and judge based upon your own reasoning - which includes your hidden assumption: Everyone for whom Christ died for will be saved. You say I did not answer your hypothetical because my reasoning does not match yours. Your hypothetical did not include the assumption "Everyone for whom Christ died for will be saved" which is where you know we divide.

It is sad that you feel that you have to resort to deceitful methods in order to support a cause dear to you. Refer also to post 181.

 

[Hammster]

As far as I can tell you well understand my position. You could be direct and show where and why you disagree. Instead you ask questions and pose hypotheticals loaded with assumptions in order to play "Gotcha".

I mentioned many, many times that receipt of Christ's payment is conditional and requires faith on the part of the recepient. No faith, no forgiveness of sins. Therefore, if Ralph does not believe the Gospel, he dies in his sins even though Christ died for him (as well as the rest of humanity).

Your hypothetical is addressed to me and thus you are looking for my reasoning. Yet you standby and judge based upon your own reasoning - which includes your hidden assumption: Everyone for whom Christ died for will be saved. You say I did not answer your hypothetical because my reasoning does not match yours. Your hypothetical did not include the assumption "Everyone for whom Christ died for will be saved" which is where you know we divide.

It is sad that you feel that you have to resort to deceitful methods in order to support a cause dear to you. Refer also to post 181.

And with all that, you still haven’t shown what Ralph would be punished for. Is it for sin, or not accepting the gift?

 

[John Mullally]

And with all that, you still haven’t shown what Ralph would be punished for. Is it for sin, or not accepting the gift?

Therefore, if Ralph does not believe the Gospel, he dies in his sins even though Christ died for him (as well as the rest of humanity).

Ralphy is punished for his sin.

 

[Hammster]

Therefore, if Ralph does not believe the Gospel, he dies in his sins even though Christ died for him (as well as the rest of humanity).

What sin is he being punished for? It can’t be lying since Christ was the propitiation for that sin. It has to be something else.

 

[John Mullally]

What sin is he being punished for? It can’t be lying since Christ was the propitiation for that sin. It has to be something else.

He is punished for the one sin you said he commited - lying. Stop pretending like we have not been over this repeatedly and acting like I would accept your "It can’t be lying since Christ was the propitiation for that sin" - as you know my position.

I pick up from a recent exchange, as shown below, I say Christ's propitiation is received conditionally - so even though Christ atoned for all men's sin, that atonement is not effective for all men as it is received conditionally, You respond by pointing out that I said the payment was made for Ralph and therefore any conditions on its receipt don't matter because payment was made and therefore Ralph's sins are paid for and he goes to heaven.

Like I said the payment requires belief on the part of the recipient. That means it is received conditionally. If you don't meet the conditions you don't receive forgiveness of sins.

Regardless of whether it’s received conditionally, the fact is that, according to you, the sin was paid for. It’s atoned for. In my view, that means it’s no longer accounted to Ralph. He’s no longer on the hook for it. It’s been propitiated. Is it correct to believe that you have some different view?

2 Peter 2:1 shows that some men are going to hell (swift destruction) even though Christ paid their atonement, so Peter shows your reasoning in the above quote is invalid. Christ can atone for a man's sin and that same man can still go to hell - that can only mean the atonement is received conditionally. Christ gives the condition for receiving His atonement in Mark 16:15-16. Therefore, if Ralph does not believe the Gospel, he will not receive Christ's atonement, he dies in his sins, and he goes to hell for lying.

2 Peter 2:1 But there were also false prophets among the people, even as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Lord who bought them, and bring on themselves swift destruction​

You do not accept Christ's payment can be received conditionally. And that lines up with Calvinist thought because "Limited Atonement" insists that Christ only died for the elect, So in Calvinism, there is no need for the Christ's payment to be received conditionally - so why should you accept that.

However, 2 Peter 2:1, says that Christ paid for False Teachers who were on their way to Hell and I mentioned that to you much earlier on this thread. These False Teachers do not receive the atonement - which lines up with my argument that the atonement is received conditionally.

I know that’s your position. But that didn’t address my hypothetical.

You don't get to the point ASAP, you are commonly flippant, and you frequently complain that your questions are not being answered, even though good-faith attempts are made. Your questions are sometimes disengenuous as they attach an assumption that you know the other does not accept. If in the future, you don't find others sufficiently answering your questions, be gracious for their efforts and ask for clarification instead of accusing them of not answering. Treat others as you would like to be treated - as we all reap what you sow.

 

[John Mullally]

"Be perfect" sure sounds like a command to me. If it is not a command what is it?

Your fellow Calvinist R. C. Sproul says the following concerning this command: https://www.ligonier.org/learn/qas/when-jesus-says-be-ye-perfect-your-father-heaven-p

In the first place, the word that is translated “perfect” literally means “be complete.” So often, the New Testament and the Old Testament will describe people as being upright and righteous—not in the sense that they have achieved total moral perfection, but rather that they have reached a singular level of maturity in their growth in terms of spiritual integrity.​

​

I am not surprised R. C. Sproul said this as I heard almost the same from my non-Calvinist pastor.

 

[Mark Quayle]

The use of "God has not cast away His people whom He foreknew." in Romans 11:2 is past tense. Examples of "His people whom he foreknew" in verses that immediately follow reference OT saints Elijah and David. who had long ago left this planet. Elijah left in a flaming chariot - what a way to go!

You're not making any sense to me. What difference does it make as to the meaning of God's foreknowledge, that "foreknew" in Romans 11:2 is past tense? So what, that Elijah and David had long ago left this planet?

 

[Bobber]

I mentioned many, many times that receipt of Christ's payment is conditional and requires faith on the part of the recepient. No faith, no forgiveness of sins. Therefore, if Ralph does not believe the Gospel, he dies in his sins even though Christ died for him (as well as the rest of humanity).

Not to mention that other poster sees examples in the real world all about them where what you've said it true. I'm an executor of an estate and things belong to people. They didn't work for them they are left to them freely. They however have to take certain actions to cause the transfer of what was freely given to become materialized into their accounts. To believe is an (verb) action word and it'll never stop being an action word or an action phrase throughout all time.

 

[John Mullally]

You're not making any sense to me. What difference does it make as to the meaning of God's foreknowledge, that "foreknew" in Romans 11:2 is past tense? So what, that Elijah and David had long ago left this planet?

Some but not all passages in the NT that include "foreknew" occurred in the past at the time of writing. After further consideration, yes, that becomes a "So what".

 

[John Mullally]

Not to mention that other poster sees examples in the real world all about them where what you've said it true. I'm an executor of an estate and things belong to people. They didn't work for them they are left to them freely. They however have to take certain actions to cause the transfer of what was freely given to become materialized into their accounts. To believe is an (verb) action word and it'll never stop being an action word or an action phrase throughout all time.

Agree. On Biblical matters, you know you have a weak argument if you have to rely on analogies (like Calvinists commonly do) instead of scripture. Some may say well Paul did that. Yes, but Paul did not have the writings of the NT to rely on.

 

[Hammster]

He is punished for the one sin you said he commited - lying. Stop pretending like we have not been over this repeatedly and acting like I would accept your "It can’t be lying since Christ was the propitiation for that sin" - as you know my position.

Okay. Thanks for being clear that God is cruel and unjust in that He has no problem punishing His Son for a sin that He knows He’ll punish someone else for.

 

[Hammster]

Not to mention that other poster sees examples in the real world all about them where what you've said it true. I'm an executor of an estate and things belong to people. They didn't work for them they are left to them freely. They however have to take certain actions to cause the transfer of what was freely given to become materialized into their accounts. To believe is an (verb) action word and it'll never stop being an action word or an action phrase throughout all time.

Because that’s exactly how the atonement is presented in scripture.

 

[Hammster]

Agree. On Biblical matters, you know you have a weak argument if you have to rely on analogies (like Calvinists commonly do) instead of scripture. Some may say well Paul did that. Yes, but Paul did not have the writings of the NT to rely on.

Lol. You just agreed with an analogy.

 

[John Mullally]

Lol. You just agreed with an analogy.

I don't know what analogy you are talking about. Analogies are not useless - they are excellent for introducing new concepts.

 

[Hammster]

I don't know what analogy you are talking about. Analogies are not useless - they are excellent for introducing new concepts.

Hmm

On Biblical matters, you know you have a weak argument if you have to rely on analogies