Can you answer that question?
Uh. . . that video was a bit cringy. It has God condemning a man for stealing a pack of gum and telling a lie. It paints an incorrect picture of what sin is, and make God out to be a monster. Sorry. I'm a Calvinist, as you well know, but I strongly dislike that video.
Sorry, but Jesus didn't "provide" a satisfaction of God's wrath. The verse doesn't say He provided a propitiatory sacrifice. It says He is the propitiation. So any failure to understand what's clearly written is on you.
You said Calvinism didn't have an answer. I gave an answer. So to be honest, you should first acknowledge that we have an answer to your question.First, that is not an answer to my question. Second, truth should be more than just quoting the Bible. There are lots of people who quote the Bible and are not exactly correct in what they say with the Bible. If you feel the Bible defends you, then by all means, you have to make your case with Scripture with a good number of verses (including the context) and not with just one isolated verse that can be read the wrong way. Three, also truth or real world examples should also align with your belief because Jesus illustrated spiritual truth all the time by using real world examples (i.e. parables). It's why I gave you a real world example to show you the error of Calvinism. Can you make a real world example out of Calvinism with a similar scenario I gave you? Remember, the Canaanite women had expounded upon Jesus's parable with a parable of her own. So this means that you should be able to do this with Calvinism. But I know you can't because Calvinism does not exist in the Bible.
...
It is if you can get out of your head that John uses world in a variety of ways.I agree with you that Jesus IS the propitiation. But you miss the meaning of the second half of the verse of 1 John 2:2 (ESV): "He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world".
No matter how you want to weasel out of the statement of this verse, it clearly states that Jesus IS the propitiation (appeases the wrath of God) not only for the sins of us Christians but FOR THE SINS OF THE WHOLE WORLD.
Not for only the sins of the elect but for the sins of the whole wide world. Not a soul is missed out. Your Calvinistic ways cannot justifiably cause you to squirm out of this one.
Your teaching is not to be found in 1 John 2:2 (ESV).
View attachment 206393
Oz
You said Calvinism didn't have an answer. I gave an answer. So to be honest, you should first acknowledge that we have an answer to your question.
It is if you can get out of your head that John uses works in a variety of ways.
I don't need to show the morality. Everything God does is morally good. Do I really need to prove that point?Not true. You did not answer the moral issue which is at the heart of the question. You need to explain the morality behind how it is good and loving for God to save some and damn others when He has the power to save them all equally. If you are not answering the moral issue of this point, then you are not really answering the question. For example: I can ask you what color is the sky, but if you dodged the question with another question, or you make an ambigous statement, then that is not really a real answer to the question that actually resolves such a question. So you and others here can keep dodging the question still, but by not answering it properly, you show how Calvinism is flawed.
...
Sorry. Auto-correct. It should have said "world". It's corrected.That's a useless response to what I wrote. I quoted:
1 John 2:2 (ESV): "He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world".
What on earth do 'the sins of the whole world' have to do with 'works'? You're diverting attention away from the fact that Jesus' propitiation was not only for the elect but also 'for the sins of the whole world'. Not part of the world - Christians - but for the whole world of sinners.
Oz
Your asking a question with a question as yet another dodge of the truth here.
It is a question that cannot be answered by you or anyone because there is no such thing as God saving some people and not saving others (When He has the power or capacity to save them all).
...
And hes not here to discuss it.
He's not here to discuss it.No, but he clearly communicated in his book. The written word is a form of communication, as these forums demonstrate. We can know what John Calvin thought by reading his writings. Unless you believe he was irrational and what he wrote was completely contradictory to what he actually believed.
I personally write what I believe, else I would not write it. Am I perfect? By no means. Was John Calvin perfect? By no means.
I don't need to show the morality. Everything God does is morally good. Do I really need to prove that point?
Yes. God only saves some people, right? Why? You answer it. Your theological worldview can't answer it. Mine can.
Actually no. Calvinism cannot answer it because I have never seen an answer to this question from any Calvinist to this question over the years. The moral issue is not resolved in the answer ever.
...
The question has ben answer either directly to you or indirectly in threads you've been involved in, but because I'm a nice guy, I'll say it 1,001 times.
All men are deserving of the wrath of God due to both Adam's sin and their own
God, out of His mercy, pardons some. The rest receive justice.
There is nothing unjust about God punishing sin, is there.
You said:Are you a Universalist, by the way?
You said:If not, now you explain why God doesn't save everyone? Why did He create people who He knew would never exercise their "free will" to choose Him. He intentionally created people (according to your view) who were doomed from birth. Do you understand your view?
The God of Calvinism is the God of scripture. So He's morally good. Just because He doesn't do things the way you'd do them doesn't change that.There is no argument that God is good and moral in all He does.
The question remains: Is the God of Calvinism good and moral in all He does?
The problem I have is you do not seem to understand the moral problem in saving some and not saving others when one has the capacity to save all of them.
What kind of morals do you think apply to God as a part of His natural being?
Granted, I know God's morality is slightly different than our morality because certain human moral laws do not apply to God like they do for us. For example: God cannot steal because He owns everything. God cannot murder because all life is His to create and take. However, this does not mean there are not certain moral attributes that God possesses as a part of His natural being. God's goodness and holiness is trust worthy and good and they can be known to us by His Word and by examining truths within the real world. Surely God is not above that which is loving and good. For God is not ultimately hurting a person by ending their physical life or taking their possessions (by means of natural disaster, etc.). We have to think in terms of how God is eternally moral with man beyond our physical world. How is God loving and good to us when we the physical world is not a barrier or conflict? For if it was possible for God to force save everyone and He chooses not to force save them all when He can, then this is a violation of love that is a part of the attribute with God because God is ultimately seeking to do good with His creation and not evil. God wants to love all people. However, the Lord leaves this up to the individual. Why? Because any love that is forced is not true love. Marriages today are based on each person choosing of their own free will to love each other. However, if one man forced his love upon a woman, that would not be true love, but it would be something dark and twisted.
...
And there's the issue. God doesn't do things the way you'd do them, so you have to reinvent him to fit your moral code.It makes no sense.
The God of Calvinism is the God of scripture. So He's morally good. Just because He doesn't do things the way you'd do them doesn't change that.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?