Questions about Predestination

[tanelornpete]

We believe. God doesn't believe for us so why is he doing the saving?

Trying to refute an argument by using logical fallacy makes the refutation irrelevant. There was a time in the not too recent past when such an argument would have been ignored, if written at all (which was very rare.) Most people were better educated. However, we (as a people) no longer use that education, and so, much that would be useful argument is spent trying to clarify things that are nearly pointless.

We believe. Very true. God does not believe for us. Very true. But that has nothing to do with God saving us.

We are not saved because we believe.

We believe because we are saved.

When we are brought to life we begin believing. When a corpse is brought to life, it begins breathing. Bringing a person to life is God's work. No dead man can will himself to life, let alone physically cuase himself to be alive! How hard is that to understand?

The same way if it's God that causes us to commit evil why can't you say God is a liar or child molester?

This argument infers that we are neutral, innocent teddy bears that wait around while God moves our limbs into various positions, voicing over us, and then smacking us, saying 'Bad Teddy'!

Not Classical Christianity at all. I will say it again, hopefully this time it will sink in a tiny bit. God creates us in such a way that we are willing to do what we do. He doesn't have to move innocent, (possibly protesting?) creatures to do things they wouldn't if only the demon god weren't making them do it. They do it willingly, joyfully, expectantly. They do what they are created to do.

This argument is as bad as Frank Zappa's: "Given: We are like God. If man is dumb then God is dumb. Man is dumb, therefore God is dumb."

Its known as asserting the consequent, and the result is a false conclusion. Instead of arguing false conclusions, why not avoid the error in the first place and get a sound argument put out here that will help other people grow?

Who are you to talk back to God and say he isn't a child molester?

The verses Calvinists quote prove That God is the one that does the evil.

" Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?"Give god the glory and say God is a child molester, liar and a thief.​

Guess we should remove those from our Bibles! Obviously, they shouldn't be there! Lets only pick verses that don't offend the desires of sinful men from now on, ok people?

God gets glory for creating the child molester, liar and thief - and using His creation to show us the difference between wrong and right, justice and mercy. If you believe you are somehow better than a liar, thief, or child molester then you have yet to understand the nature of your alienation from God. The difference between them and I: the grace of God.

Not my inherent goodness. God's grace.

David

 

[orthedoxy]

Trying to refute an argument by using logical fallacy makes the refutation irrelevant. There was a time in the not too recent past when such an argument would have been ignored, if written at all (which was very rare.) Most people were better educated. However, we (as a people) no longer use that education, and so, much that would be useful argument is spent trying to clarify things that are nearly pointless.

We believe. Very true. God does not believe for us. Very true. But that has nothing to do with God saving us.

We are not saved because we believe.

We believe because we are saved.

When we are brought to life we begin believing. When a corpse is brought to life, it begins breathing. Bringing a person to life is God's work. No dead man can will himself to life, let alone physically cuase himself to be alive! How hard is that to understand?

Then explain the verses that says believe and you will be saved. Act 2:38 among many verses shows people are not saved before they believed.

This argument infers that we are neutral, innocent teddy bears that wait around while God moves our limbs into various positions, voicing over us, and then smacking us, saying 'Bad Teddy'!

Did god condemn us after he saw we were bad or before? If God predestined people before the foundation then how can you say God condemned us to hell because we are so bad?
Would you say an infant is just as bad as a child molester and a thief?

Not Classical Christianity at all. I will say it again, hopefully this time it will sink in a tiny bit. God creates us in such a way that we are willing to do what we do. He doesn't have to move innocent, (possibly protesting?) creatures to do things they wouldn't if only the demon god weren't making them do it. They do it willingly, joyfully, expectantly. They do what they are created to do.

If child molesters were created to molest kids then what is so bad in their doing?

This argument is as bad as Frank Zappa's: "Given: We are like God. If man is dumb then God is dumb. Man is dumb, therefore God is dumb."

Its known as asserting the consequent, and the result is a false conclusion. Instead of arguing false conclusions, why not avoid the error in the first place and get a sound argument put out here that will help other people grow?

Guess we should remove those from our Bibles! Obviously, they shouldn't be there! Lets only pick verses that don't offend the desires of sinful men from now on, ok people?

God gets glory for creating the child molester, liar and thief - and using His creation to show us the difference between wrong and right, justice and mercy. If you believe you are somehow better than a liar, thief, or child molester then you have yet to understand the nature of your alienation from God. The difference between them and I: the grace of God.

Not my inherent goodness. God's grace.

David

I don't wish to remove the verses but rebuke the traditions that teach God is evil. These are not teachings you got from bible only but from tradition of men that was passed on to you.
Jesus said if anyone causes the little ones to sin then they should be put to death. This could only mean God doesn't cause evil acts or people to sin.

 

[tanelornpete]

Just to reiterate:
Trying to refute an argument by using logical fallacy makes the refutation irrelevant. There was a time in the not too recent past when such an argument would have been ignored, if written at all (which was very rare.) Most people were better educated. However, we (as a people) no longer use that education, and so, much that would be useful argument is spent trying to clarify things that are nearly pointless.

We are not saved because we believe.

We believe because we are saved.

When we are brought to life we begin believing. When a corpse is brought to life, it begins breathing. Bringing a person to life is God's work.

No dead man can will himself to life, let alone physically cause himself to be alive!

Then explain the verses that says believe and you will be saved. Act 2:38 among many verses shows people are not saved before they believed.

They are written in the indicative. Moreover they point to the future - if you believe you will not perish but will have eternal life. Just a side question: the words 'Will have eternal life' seem to say you don't have it now. Isn't that a contradiction?

Did god condemn us after he saw we were bad or before? If God predestined people before the foundation then how can you say God condemned us to hell because we are so bad?

Actually, I didn't say God condemned us to hell because we were bad - look through all my posts - you may be thinking of someone else. I agree with the statement, but I did not say it. Regardless, condemnation is the pronouncement of a judge that settles the legal status of the accused. God is eternal - He is not a prisoner of any Platonic Ideal or Kantian Category of Time. His pronouncements are the same yesterday as they are tomorrow. Our lives are temporal: we see things in a linear flow: one thought follows another. Our condemnation comes to us wrapped in time. It does not come to God in those constructs.

However: if you can say you are without sin and God condemns you then you are unjustly judged.

Would you say an infant is just as bad as a child molester and a thief?

Again with the logical fallacies; this time at least its informal! From our viewpoint some things are a lot worse than others: stealing a cookie from the cookie jar is not as bad as murdering your neighbor. But from God's point of view they stem from the same source: our sinful condition. And no one who sins can abide in God's presence. In case you've forgotten, God's pronouncement is that man must be AS HOLY AS GOD to live with Him. Not really nice, not less sinful than someone else: as completely sinless as God Himself, or you are not allowed in His presence. So is an infant as bad as a child molester? From the view that both the infant and the child molester must be as holy as God to abide in God's presence, then they are in the same boatload of trouble. From a human standpoint, at least where I see it, the child molester is worse.

If child molesters were created to molest kids then what is so bad in their doing?

Because God declares that molesting children is a sin. It is therefore 'bad'. Their sin lives with them, and sin affects all of us. However,they cannot stand before the Judge and claim: "I was coerced into doing what I did." They will have to acknowledge that they did so willingly.

You are inducing a false premise into the mix - if you were to actually make that statement, you could see more clearly the difference between Classical theology and what you are claiming. You should try to find that premise!

God gets glory for creating the child molester, liar and thief - and using His creation to show us the difference between wrong and right, justice and mercy.

I don't wish to remove the verses but rebuke the traditions that teach God is evil.

Like you, I too wish to rebuke anyone who teach that God is evil. I teach that what God does is good. In fact, it is the definition of good.

These are not teachings you got from bible only but from tradition of men that was passed on to you.

These are teachings that are explicit in Scripture. The error is not on the part of Classical Christian theology. The error is that you yourself doing the exact thing you accuse us of doing: importing the teachings of men into the mix and passing it off as Scriptural. Abandon Plato (or Kant - not sure yet who has influenced you more) and stick to Scripture alone. There is no category of good outside of God by which He must measure His actions. What God does is good, even creating creatures designed to do evil.

I believe a large part of the issue here is in the fact that you look at everything from the viewpoint that you are autonomous and independent of God, and instead owe allegiance to the Ideas or Categories: things you define as good, evil, just, etc. Why not just worship them instead of the demiurge to which you diminish God?

Jesus said if anyone causes the little ones to sin then they should be put to death. This could only mean God doesn't cause evil acts or people to sin.

How could that be the ONLY meaning? I see no logical necessity that this be the absolute, irrefutable meaning of this passage. But then, I may be missing a proposition that is not clearly written here.

Perhaps its more clear than what you suggest: perhaps it is: "do not cause a child to sin." The extra proposition you induce here may be there, but I don't see it.

David

 

[BenjaminRandall]

Here's another Calvinist statement which, in effect, is a denial of "salvation by grace through faith" and an affirmation of the odd formula, "salvation by grace unto faith":

Tanelornpete writes, ""We believe because we are saved."

I wish you Calvinists would figure out if you believe we're saved through faith or unto faith. Is faith the means whereby we are saved, or is it merely the happy response of someone who is already saved? I'm beginning to think you really aren't sure.

I'm hitting this point hard, because you Calvinists keep on flip-flopping on the issue.

While I'm at it, my initial thread "Is salvation by faith" made the charge that Calvinists alter the Pauline formula to say "salvation by grace unto faith," which resulted in people accusing me of lying, misleading, and not knowing anything about Calvinism. Yet, in the course of this last month or so, you Calvinists have repeatedly vascillated on this issue.

I hope I'm not coming off too severe as to make people angry. But obviously, Calvinists have a problem with this issue.

 

[BenjaminRandall]

By the way, no matter how you slice it, we can't save ourselves. If we are indeed saved through faith, it is God who does the saving.

 

[BenjaminRandall]

I don't get half of what Orthodoxy says, but one thing I'm pretty sure about is that you have to be believe in order to be saved, and that God doesn't breathe life into you until you believe.

The dead man analogy doesn't work since the Pauline remedy to being dead is to believe.

 

[orthedoxy]

Just to reiterate:
Trying to refute an argument by using logical fallacy makes the refutation irrelevant. There was a time in the not too recent past when such an argument would have been ignored, if written at all (which was very rare.) Most people were better educated. However, we (as a people) no longer use that education, and so, much that would be useful argument is spent trying to clarify things that are nearly pointless.

We are not saved because we believe.

We believe because we are saved.

When we are brought to life we begin believing. When a corpse is brought to life, it begins breathing. Bringing a person to life is God's work.

No dead man can will himself to life, let alone physically cause himself to be alive!

They are written in the indicative. Moreover they point to the future - if you believe you will not perish but will have eternal life. Just a side question: the words 'Will have eternal life' seem to say you don't have it now. Isn't that a contradiction?

I wonder if other Calvinist thinks you are saved because you don't believe salvation by grace through faith.
I don't see any contradiction with that. We don't truly have eternal life not until the resurrection (the coming of Christ).

Actually, I didn't say God condemned us to hell because we were bad - look through all my posts - you may be thinking of someone else. I agree with the statement, but I did not say it. Regardless, condemnation is the pronouncement of a judge that settles the legal status of the accused. God is eternal - He is not a prisoner of any Platonic Ideal or Kantian Category of Time. His pronouncements are the same yesterday as they are tomorrow. Our lives are temporal: we see things in a linear flow: one thought follows another. Our condemnation comes to us wrapped in time. It does not come to God in those constructs.

However: if you can say you are without sin and God condemns you then you are unjustly judged.

How could God justly judge us when he has ordained us to hell before the foundation?
I think I understand you saying God judges according to his forekwoledge of what we are going to do. Is this right?

Again with the logical fallacies; this time at least its informal! From our viewpoint some things are a lot worse than others: stealing a cookie from the cookie jar is not as bad as murdering your neighbor. But from God's point of view they stem from the same source: our sinful condition. And no one who sins can abide in God's presence. In case you've forgotten, God's pronouncement is that man must be AS HOLY AS GOD to live with Him. Not really nice, not less sinful than someone else: as completely sinless as God Himself, or you are not allowed in His presence. So is an infant as bad as a child molester? From the view that both the infant and the child molester must be as holy as God to abide in God's presence, then they are in the same boatload of trouble. From a human standpoint, at least where I see it, the child molester is worse.
Because God declares that molesting children is a sin. It is therefore 'bad'. Their sin lives with them, and sin affects all of us. However, they cannot stand before the Judge and claim: "I was coerced into doing what I did." They will have to acknowledge that they did so willingly.

Read 1Cor 10:1-11 and tell me why didn't God kill all the Jews but only some? Seems like God did see sin one worst then others.
You can also read Heb 12:7-12 then read Heb 16 see if God sees all sins the same.

You are inducing a false premise into the mix - if you were to actually make that statement, you could see more clearly the difference between Classical theology and what you are claiming. You should try to find that premise!

How you determine what is classical and what is not?
Why don't you just rely on orthodox or heterodox?

God gets glory for creating the child molester, liar and thief - and using His creation to show us the difference between wrong and right, justice and mercy.

Like you, I too wish to rebuke anyone who teach that God is evil. I teach that what God does is good. In fact, it is the definition of good.

When you say God is good what does that mean. Can one be good if he is a thief, liar and child molester? If not why not? Was Hitler bad for doing Gods will? You do believe Hitler was doing Gods will?

These are teachings that are explicit in Scripture. The error is not on the part of Classical Christian theology. The error is that you yourself doing the exact thing you accuse us of doing: importing the teachings of men into the mix and passing it off as Scriptural. Abandon Plato (or Kant - not sure yet who has influenced you more) and stick to Scripture alone. There is no category of good outside of God by which He must measure His actions. What God does is good, even creating creatures designed to do evil.

I believe a large part of the issue here is in the fact that you look at everything from the viewpoint that you are autonomous and independent of God, and instead owe allegiance to the Ideas or Categories: things you define as good, evil, just, etc. Why not just worship them instead of the demiurge to which you diminish God?

How could that be the ONLY meaning? I see no logical necessity that this be the absolute, irrefutable meaning of this passage. But then, I may be missing a proposition that is not clearly written here.

Perhaps its more clear than what you suggest: perhaps it is: "do not cause a child to sin." The extra proposition you induce here may be there, but I don't see it.

David

Matthew 18:6
But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.
Does God cause little ones to sin? If God is not the cause then how can you say God causes people to lie or any kind of sin?

My traditions started by Christ and passed on to the disciples and to Church Fathers then we received them. Your tradition started by men you can’t trace it passed Luther and Calvin.
Colossians 2:8
Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ.
What is the tradition of Christ?

 

[heymikey80]

Here's another Calvinist statement which, in effect, is a denial of "salvation by grace through faith" and an affirmation of the odd formula, "salvation by grace unto faith":

Tanelornpete writes, ""We believe because we are saved."

I wish you Calvinists would figure out if you believe we're saved through faith or unto faith. Is faith the means whereby we are saved, or is it merely the happy response of someone who is already saved? I'm beginning to think you really aren't sure.

Different Calvinists have reacted differently to the anti-Calvinist assertion that faith causes salvation.

Some take a 180 saying faith is a result of our new birth. They can say that, because salvation is not a blip in history.

Some say faith is connected in a different way than as a cause. This is the majority view in Calvinism. Faith is instrumental, not cause.

You can't expect consistency on a point which has no reason to be consistent. There's no theological reason for us to be consistent, because there's no primary impact here on our view.

We do know faith is the result of our indwelling.

But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faith Gal 5:22
​

We also know our salvation is through faith.

For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. Ep 2:8-9
​

Scripture claims both. So I guess I don't see the issue with saying one or the other.

 

[tanelornpete]

While I'm at it, my initial thread "Is salvation by faith" made the charge that Calvinists alter the Pauline formula to say "salvation by grace unto faith," which resulted in people accusing me of lying, misleading, and not knowing anything about Calvinism. Yet, in the course of this last month or so, you Calvinists have repeatedly vascillated on this issue.

I hope I'm not coming off too severe as to make people angry. But obviously, Calvinists have a problem with this issue.

I wish you Calvinists would figure out if you believe we're saved through faith or unto faith. Is faith the means whereby we are saved, or is it merely the happy response of someone who is already saved? I'm beginning to think you really aren't sure.

I'm hitting this point hard, because you Calvinists keep on flip-flopping on the issue.

If I may make an observation - you hit hard on this point because you still think that salvation must somehow be a reward given to those with enough sense to turn to God. Our salvation comes to us through faith – that is, we understand we are saved because we believe what God says. We are saved both through faith and unto faith. Initially our salvation starts the moment we begin believing. But it does not end there. We do not work our way into heaven. There is no amount of ‘trying to get there’ that will get us there. It is all through accepting God’s word that Jesus, not us, did all the work.

Hence: we are dead in sin. The Spirit beings us to life: that is, awakens us to a belief. But note this carefully: it does not mean that God brings us to life; now we need to work hard to maintain that salvation. It was finished 2000 years ago. We continue to believe until Christ returns, and we will continue to believe after that. Our salvation is not of works, none of us can boast.

Salvation was achieved by the work of Christ years ago. That work is imputed to us, and we understand this and believe it to be true. This is the faith through which our salvation becomes ours. It is a realization, an understanding that Jesus saved us. The faith does not save us – Jesus’ work did.

 

[tanelornpete]

I wonder if other Calvinist thinks you are saved because you don't believe salvation by grace through faith.

[FONT=&quot]We are saved by grace through faith. Not sure which other Calvinist you are talking about.[/FONT]

We don't truly have eternal life not until the resurrection (the coming of Christ)

[FONT=&quot].[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]So your argument here is that we don’t really have eternal life until the return of Christ. When the Bible says we have eternal life, it really doesn’t mean it, not in any true sense?
[/FONT]

How could God justly judge us when he has ordained us to hell before the foundation? I think I understand you saying God judges according to his forekwoledge of what we are going to do. Is this right?

[FONT=&quot]Foreknowledge is a part of it but not my point. I doubt anyone who truly believes in God doesn’t believe in His foreknowledge. If God does not know what the future holds (an irrelevant argument: given that God is eternal – there IS no future in regards to God) then there is no guarantee that anyone will ever be saved – something could come up that would destroy all of God’s plans.

[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]I do not argue from a point of foreknowledge, although you are free to think about that. I argue from the point of view of God’s revealed character. God judges based upon the reality of the situation: did you do such and such to so and so at this particular time, in this particular place? Yes? Well then, the judgment is….

[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]Here’s the issue you are having: you are using Platonic, not Christian, elements to build your argument. You hold that there is an external Idea of justice to which God is to be held. There is an eternal Idea of good, a list of wrongs and rights, against which God is to be measured.

[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]Using this worldy philosophical bias, you determine what justice is, and who can be judged.

[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]I do not hold to this notion. I hold specifically to the Scripture as the only source of information about God: what God does is right. What God does defines[/FONT][FONT=&quot] what is right. Sin is not sin unless God says it is. Sin is only sin when God says it is.

[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]Hence: God can judge us, justly, because HE is doing the judging. He is not held accountable by some exterior eternal consortium of ideas, nor are we. We are God’s creatures, He made us the way He wants us to be, and He will do His will.[/FONT]

Read 1Cor 10:1-11 and tell me why didn't God kill all the Jews but only some? Seems like God did see sin one worst then others.

[FONT=&quot]There are some still alive? Jesting aside, perhaps God used the killing of some and not all as a means of grace, or mercy: those who deserved to die were spared because of….mercy? My argument here is sound: the soul that sins shall die (God’s words, not mine.) Not ‘the soul that does really heinous things’ – but ‘the soul that sins’ – without qualification. There is no distinction, for all have sinned and come short of the glory of God. [/FONT]

You can also read Heb 12:7-12 then read Heb 16 see if God sees all sins the same.

[FONT=&quot]Hebrews 12:7-12 doesn’t address lesser or greater sins at all – it doesn’t even mention sin – not sure why you put that in here![/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]You are inducing a false premise into the mix - if you were to actually make that statement, you could see more clearly the difference between Classical theology and what you are claiming. You should try to find that premise! [/FONT]

[FONT="]How you determine what is classical and what is not?[/FONT]
[FONT="]Why don't you just rely on orthodox or heterodox?[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]I take it you didn’t find the premise![/FONT]

When you say God is good what does that mean. Can one be good if he is a thief, liar and child molester? If not why not? Was Hitler bad for doing Gods will? You do believe Hitler was doing Gods will?

[FONT=&quot]There is no external category of Good to which God must be judged. What God does is good, period. Whatever God does is good period. If God acts, that action defines ‘good’. God does not do things because they are good things to do. God does things, and those things we then use to define ‘good’. We cannot define ‘good’ without looking at God.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]What we do is not good unless God says it is. What we do is not sin unless God says it is. We do not make the judgment, nor does any external eternal category of idea make that judgment. God does.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]If God say eating cheese is a sin, it is a sin. If God calls theft a sin, it is. But note this: theft would not be a sin if God did not declare it to be one.[/FONT]

Can one be good is he is a thief, liar and child molester?

[FONT=&quot] Read Romans 3:9-18 for that answer.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Was Hitler bad for doing God’s will? No, Hitler was bad because he was a sinner. So was Stalin.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Do I believe Hitler was doing God’s will? Absolutely. We know what sin is even more clearly by understanding what Hitler and Stalin did. Will God judge them? Yes, because they did what they did, willingly – they were not coerced into behaving in a way contrary to their nature.[/FONT]

Matthew 18:6

But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.

[FONT=&quot]Your argument was: [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Jesus said if anyone causes the little ones to sin then they should be put to death. This could only mean God doesn't cause evil acts or people to sin.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]You wrote ‘this could only mean….

[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]My question was: how and why could this be the ONLY meaning for this passage! From reading it myself I get another meaning: ‘it is wrong to cause these children to sin’. That is not the same meaning. If your statement is correct, and that verse has ONLY ONE MEANING – well, muddled thinking causes more problems than it is worth. Again, [/FONT][FONT=&quot]how could that be the ONLY meaning? I see no logical necessity that this be the absolute, irrefutable meaning of this passage.[/FONT]

Does God cause little ones to sin? If God is not the cause then how can you say God causes people to lie or any kind of sin?

[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]God creates people in such a way that they willingly sin. Their actions are defined as sin by God. That is what they were created for – just as the vase is created to hold flowers and the hammer to strike nails. The fundamental element of sin – as far as I can determine it, is the desire to be master over God. It manifests itself in people trying to get away with their own desires – even though God has declared some of these desires to be wrong.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Have I ever said that God causes people to lie? You might want to read all of my posts and quote that line – I do not recall ever saying it. I’d appreciate the chance to correct myself!

[/FONT]

My traditions started by Christ and passed on to the disciples and to Church Fathers then we received them. Your tradition started by men you can’t trace it passed Luther and Calvin.

[FONT=&quot]There was a point in history (from about 1000 A.D. to 1500 A.D. where my views were not as popular - but they have always been around. I can trace it back through Augustine, and then back to Paul, and then back to Christ. Hence ‘Classical’ Christianity.[/FONT]

Colossians 2:8
Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ.

What is the tradition of Christ?

[FONT=&quot]The tradition of Christ is what can be called Christian philosophy – that is, Godly love of wisdom. [/FONT]

 

[tanelornpete]

I don't get half of what Orthodoxy says, but one thing I'm pretty sure about is that you have to be believe in order to be saved, and that God doesn't breathe life into you until you believe.

The dead man analogy doesn't work since the Pauline remedy to being dead is to believe.

From Paul: As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins, in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient. All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our sinful nature and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature objects of wrath. But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions—it is by grace you have been saved. And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus, in order that in the coming ages he might show the incomparable riches of his grace, expressed in his kindness to us in Christ Jesus. For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast. For we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.

If we had to start believing before we could be saved, then our salvation would be a reward for our effort - and it would be something of which we could boast: "At least I had the good sense to believe the gospel, unlike those losers over there who refused it!"

Our salvation is 100% the work of God on our behalf.

David

 

[orthedoxy]

[FONT=&quot]We are saved by grace through faith. Not sure which other Calvinist you are talking about.[/FONT]

How can you be saved through faith if you claim you believe because you are saved?

[FONT=&quot].[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]So your argument here is that we don’t really have eternal life until the return of Christ. When the Bible says we have eternal life, it really doesn’t mean it, not in any true sense?
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Foreknowledge is a part of it but not my point. I doubt anyone who truly believes in God doesn’t believe in His foreknowledge. If God does not know what the future holds (an irrelevant argument: given that God is eternal – there IS no future in regards to God) then there is no guarantee that anyone will ever be saved – something could come up that would destroy all of God’s plans.

If Calvinists believe they have eternal life now, why do they accuse EO of praying to the dead when they pray to the saints?
Eternal life will happen when we have immortal bodies. We do have eternal life in a sense our spirit will not die but true eternal life is when Jesus comes again and separates the sheep’s from the goats. then the saying that is written will come true: "Death has been swallowed up in victory."

Would you say God chose us to be saved before he knew we would choose him?
Would you say God judged and condemned people before they were bad or have done anything bad?
Why can’t you see God is saving after knowing whether we choose him or reject him? Since scripture is clear he sends people to hell because they are evil, people are not evil before they lived their life. The same way he saves people beforehand because he knows what our choices are.
Read Matt 25:31 to the end and tell me if he is choosing people for eternal life before or after they chose or reject Jesus?
Since we know God predestines people then we know he is making it knowingly. According to his foreknowledge.

[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]I do not argue from a point of foreknowledge, although you are free to think about that. I argue from the point of view of God’s revealed character. God judges based upon the reality of the situation: did you do such and such to so and so at this particular time, in this particular place? Yes? Well then, the judgment is….

[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]Here’s the issue you are having: you are using Platonic, not Christian, elements to build your argument. You hold that there is an external Idea of justice to which God is to be held. There is an eternal Idea of good, a list of wrongs and rights, against which God is to be measured.

[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]Using this worldy philosophical bias, you determine what justice is, and who can be judged.

[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]I do not hold to this notion. I hold specifically to the Scripture as the only source of information about God: what God does is right. What God does defines[/FONT][FONT=&quot] what is right. Sin is not sin unless God says it is. Sin is only sin when God says it is.

[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]Hence: God can judge us, justly, because HE is doing the judging. He is not held accountable by some exterior eternal consortium of ideas, nor are we. We are God’s creatures, He made us the way He wants us to be, and He will do His will.[/FONT]

I think you are trying to say God is just but he doesn’t have to judge justly from our point of view.
God is good even if he lies and molests babies.
God is love but he hates some people and tortures them unconditionally.
You need to explain what does God is good, God is love, and God is just mean.
Would you say Hitler is just, loving and good? If not why not?

[FONT=&quot]There are some still alive? Jesting aside, perhaps God used the killing of some and not all as a means of grace, or mercy: those who deserved to die were spared because of….mercy? My argument here is sound: the soul that sins shall die (God’s words, not mine.) Not ‘the soul that does really heinous things’ – but ‘the soul that sins’ – without qualification. There is no distinction, for all have sinned and come short of the glory of God. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Hebrews 12:7-12 doesn’t address lesser or greater sins at all – it doesn’t even mention sin – not sure why you put that in here![/FONT]

1cor 10 are people who have repented from their sins, they were people of God.
1For I do not want you to be ignorant of the fact, brothers, that our forefathers were all under the cloud and that they all passed through the sea. 2They were all baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea. 3They all ate the same spiritual food 4and drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and that rock was Christ. 5Nevertheless, God was not pleased with most of them; their bodies were scattered over the desert.

Are you telling me if a Calvinist sin they shall die?
Why didn’t all the Jews died? Paul says these people died because they committed certain sins
6Now these things occurred as examples[a] to keep us from setting our hearts on evil things as they did. 7Do not be idolaters, as some of them were; as it is written: "The people sat down to eat and drink and got up to indulge in pagan revelry." 8We should not commit sexual immorality, as some of them did—and in one day twenty-three thousand of them died. 9We should not test the Lord, as some of them did—and were killed by snakes. 10And do not grumble, as some of them did—and were killed by the destroying angel.

Why didn’t God kill all the Jews? Was it because the other ones were sinless?
The same in Heb 12 God says he disciplines his kids but he says don’t be like Esau.
When we sin god disciplines us but if we commit a sin like Esau we would be cut off.

[FONT=&quot]I take it you didn’t find the premise![/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]There is no external category of Good to which God must be judged. What God does is good, period. Whatever God does is good period. If God acts, that action defines ‘good’. God does not do things because they are good things to do. God does things, and those things we then use to define ‘good’. We cannot define ‘good’ without looking at God.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]What we do is not good unless God says it is. What we do is not sin unless God says it is. We do not make the judgment, nor does any external eternal category of idea make that judgment. God does.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]If God say eating cheese is a sin, it is a sin. If God calls theft a sin, it is. But note this: theft would not be a sin if God did not declare it to be one.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot] Read Romans 3:9-18 for that answer.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Was Hitler bad for doing God’s will? No, Hitler was bad because he was a sinner. So was Stalin.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Do I believe Hitler was doing God’s will? Absolutely. We know what sin is even more clearly by understanding what Hitler and Stalin did. Will God judge them? Yes, because they did what they did, willingly – they were not coerced into behaving in a way contrary to their nature.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Your argument was: [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Jesus said if anyone causes the little ones to sin then they should be put to death. This could only mean God doesn't cause evil acts or people to sin.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]You wrote ‘this could only mean….

[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]My question was: how and why could this be the ONLY meaning for this passage! From reading it myself I get another meaning: ‘it is wrong to cause these children to sin’. That is not the same meaning. If your statement is correct, and that verse has ONLY ONE MEANING – well, muddled thinking causes more problems than it is worth. Again, [/FONT][FONT=&quot]how could that be the ONLY meaning? I see no logical necessity that this be the absolute, irrefutable meaning of this passage.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]God creates people in such a way that they willingly sin. Their actions are defined as sin by God. That is what they were created for – just as the vase is created to hold flowers and the hammer to strike nails. The fundamental element of sin – as far as I can determine it, is the desire to be master over God. It manifests itself in people trying to get away with their own desires – even though God has declared some of these desires to be wrong.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Have I ever said that God causes people to lie? You might want to read all of my posts and quote that line – I do not recall ever saying it. I’d appreciate the chance to correct myself!

Do you believe God causes everything? Does God cause little ones to sin?
Or do you believe God only cause good things?

[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]There was a point in history (from about 1000 A.D. to 1500 A.D. where my views were not as popular - but they have always been around. I can trace it back through Augustine, and then back to Paul, and then back to Christ. Hence ‘Classical’ Christianity.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]The tradition of Christ is what can be called Christian philosophy – that is, Godly love of wisdom. [/FONT]

Augustine believed you can loose your salvation, he didn’t believe in faith alone, bible alone, he baptized infant and believed they were born again at that point, he believed Christ died for everyone.
You still believe your view is orthodoxy(Classical Christianity)?

 

[tanelornpete]

How can you be saved through faith if you claim you believe because you are saved?

[FONT=&quot]I am arguing that my salvation is not a reward for my faith. I am saved because Jesus lived, died and rose again for me, 2000 years ago. I accept the fact that I am saved because the bible says I am, not because I am doing the right things. My salvation is an understood fact. I volitionally assent to the fact that Scripture tells me I am saved. Hence the term through faith, rather than through ingestion of meatloaf, or proper headgear, or standing on my head, or thinking happy thoughts. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

If Calvinists believe they have eternal life now, why do they accuse EO of praying to the dead when they pray to the saints?

[FONT=&quot]There you go again, with a logical fallacy: this time equivocation. Try redoing your objection without using interchangeable definitions on the major premise. Once you have a single definition, I’ll be glad to answer your question.[/FONT]

By the way - live or dead, a saint cannot answer your prayers. Only God can. You are free pray to anything you want - rocks, sticks, your best friend, a pumpkin. The purpose of prayer is to bring us into communion with the object of our prayers. If you want to be in communion with your dog, pray to it. But I suggest praying to God for truth,
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

Eternal life will happen when we have immortal bodies. We do have eternal life in a sense our spirit will not die but true eternal life is when Jesus comes again and separates the sheep’s from the goats. then the saying that is written will come true: "Death has been swallowed up in victory."

[FONT=&quot]So the term ‘eternal’ has more than one use. I note that you caught the equivocation here. I am pointing this out because you miss this form of argument very often. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

Would you say God chose us to be saved before he knew we would choose him?
Would you say God judged and condemned people before they were bad or have done anything bad?

[FONT=&quot]God chose to save us concurrent with knowing that we would choose Him. One does not precede the other. More importantly, God’s prescience is not the cause of His decisions. It is the result of God being eternal.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

Why can’t you see God is saving after knowing whether we choose him or reject him?

[FONT=&quot]Your argument here involves more of the idea that time exists outside of and controls God. Perhaps you should worship time instead of God! Your argument infers that there was a point in Gods existence where He was ignorant and then He learned something. God does NOT save after learning a fact. He is omniscient: the fact already resided in Him – and has always resided in Him. It is impossible for anything that can be known to be missing from the term ‘omni’-scient. Hence, your plea that I change my mind and understand that there was a time in the past when God was ignorant is, in my mind, at least dishonorable to the eternal God.[/FONT]

Since scripture is clear he sends people to hell because they are evil, people are not evil before they lived their life.

[FONT=&quot]That argument makes no sense. That is, it is entirely irrational. You argue is that Hell is punishment for evil, and God sends evil people there – therefore they were not evil before they lived their life! [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]There are terms in your conclusion that do not appear in your argument. The only possible conclusion to be gotten from your argument is this: Hell is for evil, God sends some people there, therefore some people are evil. Try presenting the actual terms of your argument so that we can at least talk about it – even if we disagree.[/FONT]

The same way he saves people beforehand because he knows what our choices are.

[FONT=&quot]What do you mean ‘he saves people beforehand’? Before what?[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

Read Matt 25:31 to the end and tell me if he is choosing people for eternal life before or after they chose or reject Jesus?

[FONT=&quot]
That passage doesn’t make the argument one way or the other. All it shows is that God judges correctly. [/FONT]

Since we know God predestines people then we know he is making it knowingly. According to his foreknowledge.

[FONT=&quot]You are correct there – the fact that God predestines people definitely shows that He is operating rationally. I take it that the last sentence is more of the argument that God is not omniscient. [/FONT]

I think you are trying to say God is just but he doesn’t have to judge justly from our point of view.

[FONT=&quot]You are somewhat following my argument here. I am saying that God is just - and that He is not required to judge us according to the designs of sinful humanity. If he were to judge from our point of view, I’m sure we could find all kinds of pet sins for which He would not be allowed to hold us accountable. [/FONT]

God is good even if he lies and molests babies.

[FONT=&quot]Let me rephrase that for you: if God molested a baby, that action would be good, because what God does is good. I do not believe God has ever molested a baby, however. And the fact that He has never molested a baby is a good sign that we should regard that as an evil – argument by absence, sort of. [/FONT]

God is love but he hates some people and tortures them unconditionally.

[FONT=&quot]Again, if God tortured people unconditionally, we would be obligated have to understand that to be good. However, He does not torture people unconditionally, and hence from that observation, we can, again, understand that to do so is most likely evil. [/FONT]

You need to explain what does God is good, God is love, and God is just mean.

[FONT=&quot]Ok – although I am not sure why you need those explained – it seems to me that even a toddler could understand those.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]1)[/FONT][FONT=&quot]God is good. This one may be the most difficult, because we tend to want to say ‘God DOES good’ instead. However, this phrase means that all the things God does are good things, and we get our definition of Good from looking at God’s actions. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]2)[/FONT][FONT=&quot]God is love. This one means pretty much the same thing. The things that God does define love. If we want to know what love, is, we need to see what God does.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]3)[/FONT][FONT=&quot]God is just mean. This one means that the things God does are nasty and unkind. [/FONT]

Would you say Hitler is just, loving and good? If not why not

[FONT=&quot]Not having ever known Hitler, I could not make an absolute judgment about that – maybe he loved his dog and was kind to his girlfriend. Maybe not. What we think about Hitler is the actions that his government took in his name – and these things were evil. They were evil because God declares things like theft, and murder, to be sins. What Hitler (and Stalin) did was evil because God said it was.

Let me make this very clear: these things are sins because God says they are. The case is not that they are eternally evil independent of God, and He finds out which things are bad and then relates that fact to us, carrying out the eternal uncreated Order of Things as the judge over Eternity. No, God determines an action to be a sin and tells us His decision. He can change it at any time. It is sin because God declares it to be.

[/FONT]

1cor 10 are people who have repented from their sins, they were people of God...Are you telling me if a Calvinist sin they shall die?

[FONT=&quot]In case you missed it, all people die. In any event, I do not believe this passage points out that these people were all saved, any more than is everyone in the church building saved. I do not even believe all of them truly repented of their sins. They traveled under the name of ‘people of God’ but not all Jews are Israel. They make have regretted past actions, or temporarily jumped on the bandwagon because it felt right, or was the popular thing to do. You may partake of the same songs, sermons, sacraments, and make all kinds of sweet professions, as the person sitting next to you, but as James says, faith that does not being forth fruit is dead. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

Why didn’t all the Jews died? Paul says these people died because they committed certain sins.

[FONT=&quot]Paul lists a few sins, but to read into this that these sins somehow cause a loss of salvation, is to deny that Christ paid the penalty for all your sins. Maybe some of them, but this infers that there are others that you must cover yourself. Hence, salvation becomes one of works, and the one who overcomes these sins can most certainly boast of their might and wisdom. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

Why didn’t God kill all the Jews? Was it because the other ones were sinless?

[FONT=&quot]The definition of grace is to treat us in a way that we do not deserve. He treated some with grace. Not hard to figure out. The question is really good here – why didn’t God kill all of them? They all deserved it – we all deserve it: it is only God’s grace that saves us.[/FONT]

Do you believe God causes everything? Does God cause little ones to sin? Or do you believe God only cause good things?

[FONT=&quot]There is a fallacy here involving the word cause (at least there is a set of missing premises) so this is very difficult to understand, let alone answer. However, assuming what you might mean:[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]“I form the light and create darkness. I make peace and create evil; I the Lord do all these things. (Isaiah 45:7)[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Do you believe that Hitler sinned unwillingly? That he tried and tried to avoid sin, but was miserably forced to do the evils for which he is held responsible? Do you believe people sin unwillingly? I don’t think you do, and neither do I. The difference is that I stick with the Scriptures, which says God creates us to do good and evil, and I note that we do it willingly.[/FONT]

Augustine believed you can loose your salvation, he didn’t believe in faith alone, bible alone, he baptized infant and believed they were born again at that point, he believed Christ died for everyone. You still believe your view is orthodoxy(Classical Christianity)?

[FONT=&quot]I am absolutely certain that my faith is orthodox (Classical). Apparently you haven’t read enough Augustine to make this worth my time. Just a hint: At one point he argued for all of those things. He then refuted his early beliefs in the later stages of his life. Try reading him some time rather than relying on hearsay.

I would also like to point out that all theologians but the biblical authors are prone to error. Theologians throughout the ages have tried to be true to Scripture, all err. This does not infer that ALL of what they say is false. Some never infers all. Our job is to measure their statements against Scripture and mold our understanding accordingly. I've found the line of theology that I call Classical (as opposed to 'Orthodox' - for a very obvious reason) - is one that I've found consistently adheres to Scripture alone as a guide to truth, and avoids - as much as each human author is able - any taints by worldly philosophies.

David
[/FONT]

 

[heymikey80]

We believe. God doesn't believe for us so why is he doing the saving? The same way if it's God that causes us to commit evil why can't you say God is a liar or child molester?

Evil is always has intent. What's the intent of God -- the punishment of evil. He said so.

Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction Rom 9:21-22
​

No reason to talk back to the God Who explains what we should understand.

Who are you to talk back to God and say he isn't a child molester?

Because God prepares child molesters for destruction through His righteous Judgment, not for approval.

People constantly use rhetoric, tarring an event with intent. Were we to use words in ways that don't tar one with the other, it would be straightforward to see. For instance, doesn't God inflict terrible pain on people for an eternity? Does that make God a sadist -- someone who gets perverse pleasure out of inflicting pain on others?

Isn't the real question: "Is God perverse?" To which I say No -- we're the ones who are perverse in how we perceive God and His Creation.

The verses Calvinists quote prove That God is the one that does the evil.
" Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?"
Give god the glory and say God is a child molester, liar and a thief.

Intriguing. You're saying the Apostle's words prove God does evil. Yet Paul flatly denies it.

What if some were unfaithful? Does their faithlessness nullify the faithfulness of God? By no means! Let God be true though every one were a liar, as it is written,

"That you may be justified in your words, and prevail when you are judged."
​

But if our unrighteousness serves to show the righteousness of God, what shall we say? That God is unrighteous to inflict wrath on us? ( I speak in a human way.) By no means! For then how could God judge the world? Rom3:3-6
​

Paul's words don't say such a thing, and there's nothing in Calvinism that says such a thing either. But Paul does say God hardens people, that God creates people intending to destroy them, that God has power over good and evil people, both.

God causes everyone to exist in the way they exist at the time they exist. He made them, He has the right of destruction. He's hardened people; He has mercy on people. The Apostle has said so. The Apostle has also said God is righteous. These aren't problems for Calvinists. If they're problems that you have, then explain the nature of your problem. Otherwise it's just a feeling you have about how you think things work.

And that, no, I won't construct my idea of God on your feeling.

 

[orthedoxy]

[FONT=&quot]I am arguing that my salvation is not a reward for my faith. I am saved because Jesus lived, died and rose again for me, 2000 years ago. I accept the fact that I am saved because the bible says I am, not because I am doing the right things. My salvation is an understood fact. I volitionally assent to the fact that Scripture tells me I am saved. Hence the term through faith, rather than through ingestion of meatloaf, or proper headgear, or standing on my head, or thinking happy thoughts. [/FONT]

Were you saved when Jesus died 2000 years ago or when you believed?

[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]There you go again, with a logical fallacy: this time equivocation. Try redoing your objection without using interchangeable definitions on the major premise. Once you have a single definition, I’ll be glad to answer your question.[/FONT]

By the way - live or dead, a saint cannot answer your prayers. Only God can. You are free pray to anything you want - rocks, sticks, your best friend, a pumpkin. The purpose of prayer is to bring us into communion with the object of our prayers. If you want to be in communion with your dog, pray to it. But I suggest praying to God for truth,
[FONT=&quot]

I know some hypocrites that say you should ask God directly, then they ask their pastors to pray for them or ask other people to pray for them. I know you probably don't ask other people to pray for you go straight to God right?

[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]So the term ‘eternal’ has more than one use. I note that you caught the equivocation here. I am pointing this out because you miss this form of argument very often. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]God chose to save us concurrent with knowing that we would choose Him. One does not precede the other. More importantly, God’s prescience is not the cause of His decisions. It is the result of God being eternal.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]Your argument here involves more of the idea that time exists outside of and controls God. Perhaps you should worship time instead of God! Your argument infers that there was a point in Gods existence where He was ignorant and then He learned something. God does NOT save after learning a fact. He is omniscient: the fact already resided in Him – and has always resided in Him. It is impossible for anything that can be known to be missing from the term ‘omni’-scient. Hence, your plea that I change my mind and understand that there was a time in the past when God was ignorant is, in my mind, at least dishonorable to the eternal God.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]That argument makes no sense. That is, it is entirely irrational. You argue is that Hell is punishment for evil, and God sends evil people there – therefore they were not evil before they lived their life! [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]There are terms in your conclusion that do not appear in your argument. The only possible conclusion to be gotten from your argument is this: Hell is for evil, God sends some people there, therefore some people are evil. Try presenting the actual terms of your argument so that we can at least talk about it – even if we disagree.[/FONT]

What I’m saying is: God "will give to each person according to what he has done."To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger.
What I’m saying he will send people to hell after they have lived their lives.
Do you believe in an omnipotent God? Can God create man that makes completely free choices?
I believe in omniscient God, God knows beforehand what my choices are going to be He knows where I will spend eternity.

I don’t see how can a person from your point of view make a righteous judgment by condemning one to hell for evil when they have not even lived their live, they have not committed evil?
You would have to admit from man point of view your God is not just, he is not loving.
Hitler can’t be a loving. From your view God becomes like Hitler and Stalin. The bible tells us God is love. This means love from mans point of view, the bible says he is just that means from man point of view. You can’t have your view and believe in a loving and just God.

[FONT=&quot]What do you mean ‘he saves people beforehand’? Before what?[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]
That passage doesn’t make the argument one way or the other. All it shows is that God judges correctly. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]You are correct there – the fact that God predestines people definitely shows that He is operating rationally. I take it that the last sentence is more of the argument that God is not omniscient. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]You are somewhat following my argument here. I am saying that God is just - and that He is not required to judge us according to the designs of sinful humanity. If he were to judge from our point of view, I’m sure we could find all kinds of pet sins for which He would not be allowed to hold us accountable. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Let me rephrase that for you: if God molested a baby, that action would be good, because what God does is good. I do not believe God has ever molested a baby, however. And the fact that He has never molested a baby is a good sign that we should regard that as an evil – argument by absence, sort of. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Again, if God tortured people unconditionally, we would be obligated have to understand that to be good. However, He does not torture people unconditionally, and hence from that observation, we can, again, understand that to do so is most likely evil. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Ok – although I am not sure why you need those explained – it seems to me that even a toddler could understand those.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]1)[/FONT][FONT=&quot]God is good. This one may be the most difficult, because we tend to want to say ‘God DOES good’ instead. However, this phrase means that all the things God does are good things, and we get our definition of Good from looking at God’s actions. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]2)[/FONT][FONT=&quot]God is love. This one means pretty much the same thing. The things that God does define love. If we want to know what love, is, we need to see what God does.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]3)[/FONT][FONT=&quot]God is just mean. This one means that the things God does are nasty and unkind. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Not having ever known Hitler, I could not make an absolute judgment about that – maybe he loved his dog and was kind to his girlfriend. Maybe not. What we think about Hitler is the actions that his government took in his name – and these things were evil. They were evil because God declares things like theft, and murder, to be sins. What Hitler (and Stalin) did was evil because God said it was.

Let me make this very clear: these things are sins because God says they are. The case is not that they are eternally evil independent of God, and He finds out which things are bad and then relates that fact to us, carrying out the eternal uncreated Order of Things as the judge over Eternity. No, God determines an action to be a sin and tells us His decision. He can change it at any time. It is sin because God declares it to be.

[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]In case you missed it, all people die. In any event, I do not believe this passage points out that these people were all saved, any more than is everyone in the church building saved. I do not even believe all of them truly repented of their sins. They traveled under the name of ‘people of God’ but not all Jews are Israel. They make have regretted past actions, or temporarily jumped on the bandwagon because it felt right, or was the popular thing to do. You may partake of the same songs, sermons, sacraments, and make all kinds of sweet professions, as the person sitting next to you, but as James says, faith that does not being forth fruit is dead. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]Paul lists a few sins, but to read into this that these sins somehow cause a loss of salvation, is to deny that Christ paid the penalty for all your sins. Maybe some of them, but this infers that there are others that you must cover yourself. Hence, salvation becomes one of works, and the one who overcomes these sins can most certainly boast of their might and wisdom. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]The definition of grace is to treat us in a way that we do not deserve. He treated some with grace. Not hard to figure out. The question is really good here – why didn’t God kill all of them? They all deserved it – we all deserve it: it is only God’s grace that saves us.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]There is a fallacy here involving the word cause (at least there is a set of missing premises) so this is very difficult to understand, let alone answer. However, assuming what you might mean:[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]“I form the light and create darkness. I make peace and create evil; I the Lord do all these things. (Isaiah 45:7)[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Do you believe that Hitler sinned unwillingly? That he tried and tried to avoid sin, but was miserably forced to do the evils for which he is held responsible? Do you believe people sin unwillingly? I don’t think you do, and neither do I. The difference is that I stick with the Scriptures, which says God creates us to do good and evil, and I note that we do it willingly.[/FONT]

You believe a little different then other Calvinist(I have noticed). The other Calvinist would admit that God causes people to molest babies, He crashed the planes into buildings on 9/11.
What does the verse you quote means when it says I create evil?
I know God sends people to jail when they do evil but does this verse say God molest kids?

[FONT=&quot]I am absolutely certain that my faith is orthodox (Classical). Apparently you haven’t read enough Augustine to make this worth my time. Just a hint: At one point he argued for all of those things. He then refuted his early beliefs in the later stages of his life. Try reading him some time rather than relying on hearsay.

I would also like to point out that all theologians but the biblical authors are prone to error. Theologians throughout the ages have tried to be true to Scripture, all err. This does not infer that ALL of what they say is false. Some never infers all. Our job is to measure their statements against Scripture and mold our understanding accordingly. I've found the line of theology that I call Classical (as opposed to 'Orthodox' - for a very obvious reason) - is one that I've found consistently adheres to Scripture alone as a guide to truth, and avoids - as much as each human author is able - any taints by worldly philosophies.

David
[/FONT]

I’ve read some Augustine. Do you really believe he or any Church at that time believed in bible only, faith only, eternal security, limited atonement. Augustine prayed to the dead, He prayed hail Maries.
Please don’t quote Augustine as to someone that have the same faith as you do. You can post this question on RC (OBOB) forum they will correct you. Your faith is a new faith nothing classical about it.

 

[tanelornpete]

Were you saved when Jesus died 2000 years ago or when you believed?

[FONT=&quot]I was saved 2000 years ago, am being saved now and will be saved in the future. All different uses of the term salvation: the real issue is eternal life, is it not? I was purchased by Christ 2000 years ago – the deal was done then and there. At a point in time I came to realize this fact. My belief was not rewarded with salvation – it was the result of my being given eternal life – eternal life involves understanding the nature of salvation. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

I know some hypocrites that say you should ask God directly, then they ask their pastors to pray for them or ask other people to pray for them. I know you probably don't ask other people to pray for you go straight to God right?

[FONT=&quot]Certainly I ask others to pray for me. With one caveat: all the people I ask to pray for me have ears to hear, or eyes to see so that they can communicate with me. They have the physical ability to hear my request and they in turn pray – with me – directly to God, Who also ‘hears’ – but you address the notion of God’s sovereignty, and omniscience here, and the subject of the purpose of prayer, and that’s the stuff of an entirely different thread.[/FONT]

What I’m saying is: God "will give to each person according to what he has done."To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger. What I’m saying he will send people to hell after they have lived their lives.

[FONT=&quot]Very true. We agree on this point – all Calvinists would agree with you here. I doubt anyone has ever argued God send people to Hell before they sin. Kind of a straw man there, eh?[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

Do you believe in an omnipotent God?

[FONT=&quot]Yes. Do you believe an omnipotent God can make a rock too big for Him to life?[/FONT]

Can God create man that makes completely free choices?

[FONT=&quot]I do not know if God could make a man whose choices were ‘completely free’. (Seems like one of those 'rock to big to lift' questions) but I do know he did not. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]If your choices were completely free you would not have control over your actions: you’d be doing something different every second you were conscious, and the rest of the time you’d be asleep. Your choice would run your life. As it stands, you make informed decisions (at least some of the time) and your choices are controlled (the opposite of freedom) by your decisions. You choose one thing because you prefer it, you chose to deny something else because you do not prefer it. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Be honest for once and say that you want man to be sovereign over himself, and God to be sovereign over everything else. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

I believe in omniscient God, God knows beforehand what my choices are going to be He knows where I will spend eternity.

[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]And you are bound by those choices : where is your freedom? Or can you change your mind - but then, wouldn't this already be etched ijn stone from eternity as well? If God is right, then you have no choice but to make the choices that have already been established ahead of time. The only difference between your view and mine is that you make the choices sovereign, whereas I make God sovereign.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

I don’t see how can a person from your point of view make a righteous judgment by condemning one to hell for evil when they have not even lived their live, they have not committed evil?

You would have to admit from man point of view your God is not just, he is not loving.

[FONT=&quot]No, I do not. God is love, and God is just. What God does is love, what God does is just. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

Hitler can’t be a loving.

[FONT=&quot]Hitler can’t be a loving…what?[/FONT]

From your view God becomes like Hitler and Stalin. The bible tells us God is love. This means love from mans point of view, the bible says he is just that means from man point of view.

[FONT=&quot]What verse says God is love from a man’s point of view? Also, what verse says God is just from a man’s point of view? Again, which man? When the Bible tells us God is love, it also tells us what that means: it explains it over and over, usually by example – God loved the world this way: while we did not deserve it, He gave His only Son to die in our place. The fact that we learn what love is by reading these passages does NOT infer that man defines love and God falls into place with that definition (“man’s view of love”).[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]You are arguing from the consequent again, which invalidates your entire argument. [/FONT]

You can’t have your view and believe in a loving and just God.

[FONT=&quot]Yes I can, and in fact, do. [/FONT]

You believe a little different then other Calvinist(I have noticed). The other Calvinist would admit that God causes people to molest babies, He crashed the planes into buildings on 9/11.

[FONT=&quot]I’ll let that other Calvinist (whoever that is) answer as to how I am different. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

What does the verse you quote means when it says I create evil?

Exactly what it says.....
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

I know God sends people to jail when they do evil but does this verse say God molest kids?

[FONT=&quot]There’s your problem! You have confused God with human beings! People send people to jail. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Another problem: you have (again) argued from a consequent to a conclusion. Let me quote a very good Calvinist author (my favorite) to point out what I mean: [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]God is neither responsible nor sinful, even though he is the ultimate cause of everything. He is not sinful because in the first place whatever God does is just and right. It is just and right simply in virtue of the fact that he does it. Justice or righteousness is not a standard external to God to which God is obligated to submit. Righteousness is what God does. Since God caused Judas to betray Christ, this causal is righteous and not sinful. By definition, God cannot sin. As this point it must be particularly pointed out that God’s causing a man to sin is not sin. There is no law superior to God, which forbids him to decree sinful acts. Sin presupposes a law, for sin is lawlessness. Sin is any want of conformity unto or transgression of a law. But God is ‘ex-lex’.[/FONT]
​

[FONT=&quot]If a man should cause or try to cause another to sin this attempt would be sinful – this is because the relation of one man to another is entirely different from the relation of God to any man. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]The relation of a man to the law is equally different from the relation of God to the law: what holds true in one situation does not hold true in the other. God has absolute and unlimited rights over all created things. Of the same lump of clay he can make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor. The clay has no claims on the potter. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Your argument is “man does such and such, therefore God does such and such.” Or, ‘Man is like God. Man does ‘X’ therefore God does ‘X’”[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Arguing from the consequent – a fallacy that causes your conclusions to be false by default. [/FONT]

I’ve read some Augustine. Do you really believe he or any Church at that time believed in bible only, faith only, eternal security, limited atonement. Augustine prayed to the dead, He prayed hail Maries.

[FONT=&quot]Read some more.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

Please don’t quote Augustine as to someone that have the same faith as you do. You can post this question on RC (OBOB) forum they will correct you. Your faith is a new faith nothing classical about it.

[FONT=&quot]I think you insulted all the Romanists on the planet there! I take it you level the same charge at Calvin.

David
[/FONT]

 

[Gus2009]

Wow, after reading the first few pages of this thread i have to say that its a really good thread, good arguments on both sides.

Pulls out popcorn*

 

[ReformedChapin]

I’ll let that other Calvinist (whoever that is) answer as to how I am different.

Those "calvinist" are called hypercalvinist and are heretics. You believe exactly how every other orthodox reformed person believes, man willfully follows Gods sovereign control therefore is responsible.

 

[heymikey80]

Do you believe people sin unwillingly? I don’t think you do, and neither do I. The difference is that I stick with the Scriptures, which says God creates us to do good and evil, and I note that we do it willingly.

Bingo. This is precisely, exactly the point of Reformed theology since Augustine -- and Paul.

 

[unpardoned1]

It doesn't seem that God is very loving to create someone who he predestined to hell and eternal torment.Thats horrible...I'm sure that atheist wouldn't even torture their children or wish eternal torment on thier worst enemy!!!! How can God who is supposed to be rightous in every way, predestine people to hell and not give them a real chance? Obviously not a loving God...worse then my child molestation father! Great...whats new? Just another cruel man in my life...just what I need! Why does God hate us so much??????????
This is the kind of belief that keeps people away...far far away, from Christians. If this is true...the Great Commision was a crock!!!!