Works Salvation is False

[fhansen]

I'll lay you eight to five. . .

Gambling's looked down upon in the Bible, But I'd lay the same odds...

 

[Clare73]

Gambling's looked down upon in the Bible, But I'd lay the same odds...

And yet you feel free to do it. . .interesting.

 

[fhansen]

And yet you feel free to do it. . .interesting.

Oh my, I forgot about the sainthood I'm in the presence of here. So I guess I can only assume that you forgot about that part of the Bible.

 

[Clare73]

Oh my, I forgot about the sainthood

All the born again are earthly living saints in the NT.

I'm in the presence of here.

Pot. . .kettle?

So I guess I can only assume that you forgot about that part of the Bible.

You do know the meaning of "assume," right. . .ass-u-me.

 

[fhansen]

All the born again are earthly living saints in the NT.

I forgot that "theology", too. Saints that don't need to act like it. Tell, you what-I'll go first. Yesterday was Ash Wednesday, the beginning of Lent, and we're to practice discipline and, giving up worldy desires, etc. while giving more. Been a hoot.

 

[Clare73]

Tell, you what-I'll go first. Yesterday was Ash Wednesday, the beginning of Lent, and we're to practice discipline and, giving up worldy desires, etc. while giving more.

Sounds good to me. . .

Been a hoot.

Indeed, it has!

This must be #3. . .#1 and 2 weren't this much fun.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

And yet you feel free to do it. . .interesting.

Gambling's looked down upon in the Bible, But I'd lay the same odds...

Probability theory wasn't developed until the 17th Century with Pascal being one of many principle contributors. Therefore, gambling as we know it today, was unknown in the NT era. Casting lots was a traditional method of determining God's will. Casting lots as presented in Scriptures is purely descriptive with no prescription either condemning or condoning the practice.

 

[Clare73]

Probability theory wasn't developed until the 17th Century with Pascal being one of many principle contributors. Therefore, gambling as we know it today, was unknown in the NT era.

Thanks. . .

Casting lots was a traditional method of determining God's will. Casting lots as presented in Scriptures is purely descriptive with no prescription either condemning or condoning the practice.

In the OT it is both condoned and prescriptive (Lev 16:8, Nu 26:55-56, Nu 33:50-54, Nu 34:13, Jos 14:2, Jos 18:6, Jdg 20:9, Ne 10:34),
its decisions are from the Lord (Pr 16:33, Pr 18:18), and
it is used in the NT for decision from God (Ac 1:26).

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

In the OT it is both condoned and prescriptive

yeap, quite right. I guess I am having a senior moment.

 

[Michie]

One thing I can say about you two @fhansen and @Clare73, super entertaining! Lol

 

[John Mullally]

Tragically, many anti-Calvinists repeatedly misrepresent Calvinists.

I try to understand Calvinist POV and state my understand of such so that we are on the same page. Almost all Calvinists pretend to not understand non-Calvinists and act shocked to hear the perspective (not Good Faith). And so conversations with non-Calvinists frequently require me starting as square one where I state that God provides for all men, and men need faith to receive that provision (such as healing and salvation). AT LEAST I AM ACTING IN GOOD FAITH!!

 

[Mark Quayle]

Hypocritic Calvinists frequently pretend to not understand non-Calvinist views. In spite of hearing them all the time, they start their argurment as if they never heard the non-Calvinist POV or are vague. I never do that and I strive to be honest and up front. We don't have to start at square 1 all the time pretending not to understand the other POV.

And I would appreciate if you were specific in you criticisms. I can't read minds. You can count on me being specific.

@John Mullally posted, #171
"There is no need to misrepresent Calvinism as Calvin has God assigning many people to eternal torment from before their birth - which is Satanic.

“…individuals are born, who are doomed from the womb to certain death, and are to glorify him by their destruction.” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 23, Paragraph 6)
2 Corinthians 4:3 But even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, 4 whose minds the god of this age has blinded, who do not believe, lest the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine on them."

This is weird. I tried to reply to your post #171 and it put your post re Hypocritical Calvinists above, in the box instead. I had to copy and paste 171.

Anyway, I will try to make it a habit to refrain from engaging you for the obvious reason that you tend to become a bit frothy about what I believe. On the other hand, when you talk that way, is when it asks to be mentioned, for at least the other readers, what both Scripture and Reason affirm.

 

[John Mullally]

@John Mullally posted, #171
"There is no need to misrepresent Calvinism as Calvin has God assigning many people to eternal torment from before their birth - which is Satanic.

“…individuals are born, who are doomed from the womb to certain death, and are to glorify him by their destruction.” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 23, Paragraph 6)
2 Corinthians 4:3 But even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, 4 whose minds the god of this age has blinded, who do not believe, lest the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine on them."

This is weird. I tried to reply to your post #171 and it put your post re Hypocritical Calvinists above, in the box instead. I had to copy and paste 171.

Anyway, I will try to make it a habit to refrain from engaging you for the obvious reason that you tend to become a bit frothy about what I believe. On the other hand, when you talk that way, is when it asks to be mentioned, for at least the other readers, what both Scripture and Reason affirm.

I find it better to talk about what Calvin states instead of having to track every variant of Calvinism. If you are studying Islam, you tend to quote from Mohammed instead of some Caliph or random person.

I do try to understand the Calvinist positions as I am in the habit of reverse-engineering things.

I would not be on this forum except that Calvinists have denegrated just about every preacher that I follow via the pulpit, radio programs dating back 40 years, fly-by-night internet discernment ministry, and media (American Gospel via Netflix). I actually do try to understand Calvinism as it would be dishonest to denegrate something I do not understand. Some of the criticisims coming out of Calvinism have some truth - but that is why Paul says we should judge. My conclusion is that Calvinist Theology is completely errant.

And by the way Ezekiel 18:30-32 is about as good at destroying Calvinist Theology as 1 Timothy 2:4 and 1 TImothy 4:10. Just in case you were looking for proof texts.

 

[Mark Quayle]

And by the way Ezekiel 18:30-32 is about as good at destroying Calvinist Theology as 1 Timothy 2:4 and 1 TImothy 4:10. Just in case you were looking for proof texts.

Been there. Done that.

But wasn't it you who said?
John Mullally said:
"Hypocritic Calvinists frequently pretend to not understand non-Calvinist views. In spite of hearing them all the time, they start their argurment as if they never heard the non-Calvinist POV or are vague. I never do that and I strive to be honest and up front. We don't have to start at square 1 all the time pretending not to understand the other POV."

But, isn't that what you just did, bringing up verses, and your claims concerning them, we have rehashed many times, as if I had never heard of them?

 

[John Mullally]

And by the way Ezekiel 18:30-32 is about as good at destroying Calvinist Theology as 1 Timothy 2:4 and 1 TImothy 4:10. Just in case you were looking for proof texts.

Been there. Done that.

Think again. I gave you good reasons to leave Calvinism. John terms God as love - and you can review 1 Corinthians 13 to see what that means. Calvin's doctrine is the opposite as it supposes that God predestines much of humanity before birth to eternal torment and then adding insult to injury says that God does it for the purpose of giving Himself glory. How evil (unlike 1 Corinthians 13) can you get? And you remain silent about that issue and instead continue to peddle your fatalistic Calvinism like Goebbels.

“…individuals are born, who are doomed from the womb to certain death, and are to glorify him by their destruction.” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 23, Paragraph 6)​

But wasn't it you who said?
John Mullally said:
"Hypocritic Calvinists frequently pretend to not understand non-Calvinist views. In spite of hearing them all the time, they start their argurment as if they never heard the non-Calvinist POV or are vague. I never do that and I strive to be honest and up front. We don't have to start at square 1 all the time pretending not to understand the other POV."

Yes most every time I start trying to explain the non-Calvinist view that includes man receiving from God in faith, the other will act perplext - but it is all an act. And this includes Calvinists who write thousands of posts on this site, Pretending to not understand is lying.

But, isn't that what you just did, bringing up verses, and your claims concerning them, we have rehashed many times, as if I had never heard of them?

I make every effort to understand the other and I do not feign misunderstanding. My explanations are sprinkled with Bible verses to show how they are grounded in scripture.

Calvinists have some shaky and tangential proof texts that I don't see often quoted verbatim with explanation applied. For example, is predestination in Romans 8:28 based upon a class of people (i.e. those who choose to believe or those God foreknew would believe) or particular pre-selected individuals (as Calvinist's assert)?

I hear your "first cause" philosophy that you constantly rehash. At least I rehash actual scripture.

 

[PuerAzaelis]

Pascal, in assuring us that our existence is explicable only in light of a belief in the eternal and condign torment of babies who die before reaching the baptismal font, shows us that there is often no meaningful distinction between perfect faith and perfect nihilism. Calvin, in telling us that hell is copiously populated with infants not a cubit long, merely reminds us that, within a certain traditional understanding of grace and predestination, the choice to worship God rather than the devil is at most a matter of prudence. So it is that, for many Christians down the years, the rationale of evangelization has been a desperate race to save as many souls as possible from God[.]

Hart, David Bentley. That All Shall Be Saved (p. 76). Yale University Press. Kindle Edition.

 

[RalphDaveWestfall]

"evangelization has been a desperate race to save as many souls as possible from God"

No it's a desperate race to save people from the consequences of rejecting the salvation bought for every believer at great cost on the cross.

Actually hell won't be that bad. With each person's due punishment spread over all eternity, the suffering is going to be very attenuated.

 

[Der Alte]

Pascal, in assuring us that our existence is explicable only in light of a belief in the eternal and condign torment of babies who die before reaching the baptismal font, shows us that there is often no meaningful distinction between perfect faith and perfect nihilism. Calvin, in telling us that hell is copiously populated with infants not a cubit long, merely reminds us that, within a certain traditional understanding of grace and predestination, the choice to worship God rather than the devil is at most a matter of prudence. So it is that, for many Christians down the years, the rationale of evangelization has been a desperate race to save as many souls as possible from God[.]
Hart, David Bentley. That All Shall Be Saved (p. 76). Yale University Press. Kindle Edition.

I read this through a few times. My old eyes are not as sharp as they once were but I could not find one single verse of scripture in this.

 

[Michie]

Just look up David Bentley Hart. I mean what is so hard about separating thought from official teaching? Seriously...

 

[Michie]