Predestination

[chestertonrules]

I've cited Calvin's own writings. You, and several others respond by rote:

a) that's not so
b) that's just a straw-man
c) that' a misrepresentation

etc. ad nauseum

You're more than welcome to introduce more than just your opinion.

Calvinists don't like their dogmas brought out into the light.

 

[Montalban]

Calvinists don't like their dogmas brought out into the light.

I've actually been trying to find evidence that they're not deterministic.

This one apologetics site actually misses the point of Calvin's theological determinism by arguing that they don't believe in determinism FOR EVERYTHING, such as they don't think it's necessary to say that a particular rain-drop was meant to fall in a particular place. However that is simply to say that determinism doesn't guide every single thing. This of course is arguing past the point.

All the evidence I've seen about Calvin argues a theological determinism

I hope, for the interests of discussion, that someone on the opposition will present writings from Calvin to refute this understanding.

 

[chestertonrules]

I've actually been trying to find evidence that they're not deterministic.

This one apologetics site actually misses the point of Calvin's theological determinism by arguing that they don't believe in determinism FOR EVERYTHING, such as they don't think it's necessary to say that a particular rain-drop was meant to fall in a particular place. However that is simply to say that determinism doesn't guide every single thing. This of course is arguing past the point.

All the evidence I've seen about Calvin argues a theological determinism

I hope, for the interests of discussion, that someone on the opposition will present writings from Calvin to refute this understanding.

John Calvin
“God preordained, for his own glory and the display of His attributes of mercy and justice, a part of the human race, without any merit of their own, to eternal salvation, and another part, in just punishment of their sin, to eternal damnation”

 

[Livindesert]

John Calvin
“God preordained, for his own glory and the display of His attributes of mercy and justice, a part of the human race, without any merit of their own, to eternal salvation, and another part, in just punishment of their sin, to eternal damnation”

This is very true by God's choice some of us are are born to good lives and some to bad, some to be put for good use and some made to be broken. By suggesting God can make us without knowing our fate it is suggesting that God is not all powerful and therefore not God which is blasphemy.

 

[Livindesert]

I've actually been trying to find evidence that they're not deterministic.

This one apologetics site actually misses the point of Calvin's theological determinism by arguing that they don't believe in determinism FOR EVERYTHING, such as they don't think it's necessary to say that a particular rain-drop was meant to fall in a particular place. However that is simply to say that determinism doesn't guide every single thing. This of course is arguing past the point.

All the evidence I've seen about Calvin argues a theological determinism

I hope, for the interests of discussion, that someone on the opposition will present writings from Calvin to refute this understanding.

The concpet of determinism is an easy one. Free will is an illusion. What we think is free will is actually just us making choices in a way that would turn out the same everytime we were given a choice with the exact same conditions present.

Humans cannot comprehend why God in this way has elected some while sending others to hell. But we are humans and he is God so for whatever reason he elects us or damn's us we have no right to question his wisdom.

 

[Livindesert]

In conclusion if God wished to save everyone he could and would. The fact that their even is a hell has shown God has only elected some. We are your clay O'mighty potter whatever is your will let it be done.

 

[Hammster]

I've cited Calvin's own writings. You, and several others respond by rote:

a) that's not so
b) that's just a straw-man
c) that' a misrepresentation

etc. ad nauseum

You're more than welcome to introduce more than just your opinion.

I must have missed the posts where you quoted Calvin.

 

[Dorothea]

John Calvin
“God preordained, for his own glory and the display of His attributes of mercy and justice, a part of the human race, without any merit of their own, to eternal salvation, and another part, in just punishment of their sin, to eternal damnation”

Well, that's just Calvin's opinion. He's just a man, after all, and declared his beliefs to people, and some followed him. This is a perfect example of following the traditions of men. Sorry to all the Calvinists here. Don't mean to be mean, just honestly posting what I see as true.

 

[Hammster]

Well, that's just Calvin's opinion. He's just a man, after all, and declared his beliefs to people, and some followed him. This is a perfect example of following the traditions of men. Sorry to all the Calvinists here. Don't mean to be mean, just honestly posting what I see as true.

Wow. That is quite a statement coming from EO. We quote scripture. Usually EO and RCC quote old dead guys. And yet we are the one following the traditions of men? Amazing.

 

[Hammster]

I've actually been trying to find evidence that they're not deterministic.

This one apologetics site actually misses the point of Calvin's theological determinism by arguing that they don't believe in determinism FOR EVERYTHING, such as they don't think it's necessary to say that a particular rain-drop was meant to fall in a particular place. However that is simply to say that determinism doesn't guide every single thing. This of course is arguing past the point.

All the evidence I've seen about Calvin argues a theological determinism

I hope, for the interests of discussion, that someone on the opposition will present writings from Calvin to refute this understanding.

I would, but I am not all that read up on Calvin.

 

[Dorothea]

Wow. That is quite a statement coming from EO. We quote scripture. Usually EO and RCC quote old dead guys. And yet we are the one following the traditions of men? Amazing.

Yes, your church and others like it that are Protestant use the bible as sole authority which is anti-biblical, not Scriptural, you follow Calvin, who was a man who separated from the Catholic Church (for some reasons that I'm sure were valid), but still, he came about with his own ideas and opinions by interpreting scripture on his own, which is not biblical and is against the teachings of the Bible, Christ, and His apostles. They also do not follow all his Commandments/teachings, such as partaking of the Eucharist every Sunday, realizing baptism and Chrismation are two separate grace-filled experiences one goes through in the Church, the invention of the pretribulation rapture by interpreting a Scottish woman's dream in Scotland, and a preacher spreading it over Europe and eventually to the U.S., believing in OSAS, which is also not biblical, but a distorted view brought about by people's own fallen human intellect interpretation, not realizing that the bread and wine are truly the Body and Blood of Christ, which Christ tells us it is, and many disciples walk with him no more after He says this. And the punishment for not believing it so said in Hebrews, picking parts of the bible out, and denying the authority in the Church set by Christ and His Apostles, worshiping as Paul and the others taught in the Church which is the Divine Liturgy, and so on. So, where does the part fit in to actually following Christ's teachings about the Eucharist, partaking every Sunday (in Acts), His appointing the Apostles the first bishops of our churches, the countless verses that talk about people who fell away from believing, and the saying of Peter about private interpretation not permitted? So, what that tells me is that truly, some of the Protestant churches are exactly what has been said in the bible that warns us about not following the traditions of men.

 

[Hammster]

Is it the contention of some here that God would not give a command that we cannot, in our human power (or with the assistance of the Holy Spirit) obey? In other words, are you saying that if God commands it, we should be able to do it, and that demonstrates free will?

 

[Dorothea]

Is it the contention of some here that God would not give a command that we cannot, in our human power (or with the assistance of the Holy Spirit) obey? In other words, are you saying that if God commands it, we should be able to do it, and that demonstrates free will?

What I'm saying is when Christ says "Do this," he really means it.

 

[Hammster]

Yes, your church and others like it that are Protestant use the bible as sole authority which is anti-biblical, not Scriptural,

Show me.

you follow Calvin, who was a man who separated from the Catholic Church (for some reasons that I'm sure were valid), but still, he came about with his own ideas and opinions by interpreting scripture on his own

I have read little of Calvin.

which is not biblical and is against the teachings of the Bible, Christ, and His apostles.

Show me, because I can show just the opposite.

They also do not follow all his Commandments/teachings, such as partaking of the Eucharist every Sunday,

Never seen it in scripture, especially the way the RCC does it (not sure how the EO does it).

realizing baptism

I have been baptized.

and Chrismation

don't know what that is. Where is it in scripture so I can look it up?

are two separate grace-filled experiences one goes through in the Church, the invention of the pretribulation rapture by interpreting a Scottish woman's dream in Scotland, and a preacher spreading it over Europe and eventually to the U.S.,

I don't hold to a pretrib rapture, and know a lot of reformed folks that don't, either.

believing in OSAS, which is also not biblical, but a distorted view brought about by people's own fallen human intellect interpretation,

This is interesting. How did you come about having this opinion?

not realizing that the bread and wine are truly the Body and Blood of Christ, which Christ tells us it is,

Boy, talk about traditions of men, and getting it WAY wrong.

and many disciples walk with him no more after He says this. And the punishment for not believing it so said in Hebrews, picking parts of the bible out, and denying the authority in the Church set by Christ and His Apostles, worshiping as Paul and the others taught in the Church which is the Divine Liturgy, and so on. So, where does the part fit in to actually following Christ's teachings about the Eucharist, partaking every Sunday (in Acts), His appointing the Apostles the first bishops of our churches, the countless verses that talk about people who fell away from believing, and the saying of Peter about private interpretation not permitted? So, what that tells me is that truly, some of the Protestant churches are exactly what has been said in the bible about not following the traditions of men.

And how did you come about acquiring all of this knowledge?

 

[Hammster]

What I'm saying is when Christ says "Do this," he really means it.

Do you have the ability to do it? I know that when He says do it, He means it. I am just trying to get a grasp on this because I think it has been stated by some that if it is commanded, it means that we should be able to follow the command, since we are free. So just looking for confirmation.

 

[Montalban]

Well, that's just Calvin's opinion. He's just a man, after all, and declared his beliefs to people, and some followed him. This is a perfect example of following the traditions of men. Sorry to all the Calvinists here. Don't mean to be mean, just honestly posting what I see as true.

I note someone says that they missed me citing Calvin. That's not my fault if someone 'misses' what I evidence. (But it's in post #321 and he posted immediately after).

That same person promised ChestertonRules to address biblical verses and has not.

I've asked for evidence for the predestination argument... Calvin's words, or some other determinist writer.

I think that's the summary of the opposition;
'missing' argument
ignoring addressing of biblical verses
repeating "that's just a straw-man"

and so on.

 

[Livindesert]

Wow. That is quite a statement coming from EO. We quote scripture. Usually EO and RCC quote old dead guys. And yet we are the one following the traditions of men? Amazing.

QFT

 

[Livindesert]

Romans 9:20-24 (English Standard Version)

20But who are you, O man,(A) to answer back to God?(B) Will what is molded say to its molder, "Why have you made me like this?" 21(C) Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump(D) one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? 22What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience(E) vessels of wrath(F) prepared for destruction, 23in order to make known(G) the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he(H) has prepared beforehand for glory— 24even us whom he(I) has called,(J) not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?

 

[Hammster]

I note someone says that they missed me citing Calvin. That's not my fault if someone 'misses' what I evidence. (But it's in post #321 and he posted immediately after).

That same person promised ChestertonRules to address biblical verses and has not.

I've asked for evidence for the predestination argument... Calvin's words, or some other determinist writer.

I think that's the summary of the opposition;
'missing' argument
ignoring addressing of biblical verses
repeating "that's just a straw-man"

and so on.

You know, I am in the room. But if this is your best argument, then okay.

 

[Hammster]

Romans 9:20-24 (English Standard Version)

20But who are you, O man,(A) to answer back to God?(B) Will what is molded say to its molder, "Why have you made me like this?" 21(C) Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump(D) one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? 22What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience(E) vessels of wrath(F) prepared for destruction, 23in order to make known(G) the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he(H) has prepared beforehand for glory— 24even us whom he(I) has called,(J) not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?

Oh, come on now. You know that this really doesn't mean what it says.