User Tag List

Page 6 of 28 FirstFirst ... 345678916 ... LastLast
Results 76 to 90 of 413

Thread: Calvinism Is The Gospel, So Only Believers Of Calvinism Are Saved.

  1. #76
    TOL Legend beloved57's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    ATL
    Posts
    18,740
    Thanks
    594
    Thanked 1,848 Times in 1,765 Posts

    Blog Entries
    14
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    50999
    "... I have my own private opinion that there is no such a thing as
    preaching Christ and him crucified, unless you preach what now-a-days is
    called Calvinism. I have my own ideas, and those I always state boldly. It is
    a nickname to call it Calvinism; Calvinism is the gospel, and nothing else."

    Charles Spurgeon !

  2. The Following User Says Thank You to beloved57 For Your Post:

    Nanja (October 30th, 2018)

  3. #77
    Over 1500 post club
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    1,522
    Thanks
    140
    Thanked 174 Times in 149 Posts

    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by 7djengo7 View Post
    Are you trying to imply, here, that the proposition (which is about the extent of the atonement), 'Christ did not die for all mankind', is not a constituent proposition of the gospel?
    Do you often speak in double negatives?
    "Christ did...not...die for all mankind
    is...not...a constituent proposition of the gospel.
    Turn this around:
    "Christ died for all mankind is your proposition of the gospel."
    It seems you ignore all the scripture from Jesus where he chooses his disciples and tells them that he will bring to salvation all that the Father has given him.
    It seems you ignore Jesus warning about hell.
    Your proposition requires God to save all humanity, yet you add a wrinkle because the entire responsibility, in your proposition, for salvation must lie fully upon the human will and nowhere else.

  4. #78
    Over 1500 post club nikolai_42's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    1,947
    Thanks
    140
    Thanked 862 Times in 550 Posts

    Blog Entries
    4
    Mentioned
    38 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    413219
    Quote Originally Posted by 7djengo7 View Post
    Well, again, here is the Spurgeon quote:



    It is you who is, quite literally, trying to read something into the Spurgeon quote:



    But, Spurgeon did not write:

    Calvinism is [that in which] the gospel [is preached], and nothing else.

    You wrote:



    But Spurgeon did not write:

    Calvinism is [that which contains] the gospel, and nothing else.

    Nor:

    Calvinism is [that which expresses fully] the gospel, and nothing else.

    I, for one, do not read any of these things into Spurgeon's quote; these are things that you are pretending to see in his quote.



    Are you saying what I think you are saying, here? One can agree with the gospel and not be saved? I, for one, do not see that there is any difference between agreeing with the gospel and believing the gospel, and so, it really looks as though you are saying that one can believe the gospel and not be saved. Are you saying that someone can believe the gospel, and yet not be saved?
    A man can agree that a chair has the capability to hold him up yet not sit on that chair. Likewise, a man can agree with what is told him about himself, about God and about God in Christ bringing salvation yet (honestly) state that he loves his sin and simply turn from the offer of the gospel. Such a man agrees with Christ but does not follow Him or trust him.

    EDIT: I just want to be clear that I see it as a matter of unbelief - agreement (as I understand it) is not necessarily consonant with salvific belief. Agreement is more superficial.
    Last edited by nikolai_42; November 1st, 2018 at 09:25 AM. Reason: Clarification
    If God promises life, He slayeth first; when He builds, He casteth all down first. God is no patcher; He cannot build on another's foundation. - William Tyndale

    The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?
    Jeremiah 17:9

    Who is among you that feareth the Lord, that obeyeth the voice of his servant, that walketh in darkness, and hath no light? let him trust in the name of the Lord, and stay upon his God.
    Behold, all ye that kindle a fire, that compass yourselves about with sparks: walk in the light of your fire, and in the sparks that ye have kindled. This shall ye have of mine hand; ye shall lie down in sorrow.

    Isaiah 50:10-11

  5. The Following User Says Thank You to nikolai_42 For Your Post:

    JudgeRightly (October 30th, 2018)

  6. #79
    TOL Legend Arthur Brain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Precariously balanced on top of a mineshaft
    Posts
    14,809
    Thanks
    8,990
    Thanked 7,073 Times in 4,708 Posts

    Mentioned
    22 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    2147749
    Quote Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
    God must intervene when it comes to grace and mercy. No one in Adam possesses the moral ability to choose wisely. God quickens those upon whom He has set His salvific preference, such that their own choice will be for the good. God is not doing the believing for those so quickened.

    AMR
    Again, there's no "choice" involved if God intervenes to ensure that a person makes a "decision" for the good.
    Well this is fun isn't it?


  7. The Following User Says Thank You to Arthur Brain For Your Post:

    JudgeRightly (October 30th, 2018)

  8. #80
    Over 1000 post club Idolater's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    1,017
    Thanks
    115
    Thanked 169 Times in 145 Posts

    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    21741
    Quote Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
    Yes, Romanists, indeed. If I recall, are you the fellow who is not actually in full communion with Rome, but merely one who really, really, likes them, yet unable to actually join them for "personal" reasons? I may have you confused with another.
    Who I am, or what my story is, is beside the point here. My position is Catholic in my theology, just as yours is Reformed, and as others' here's Open Dispensationalism. Which school of theological thought one subscribes to, does not require membership in any particular ecclesial community tradition. Catholicism does 'come with' an ecclesial community tradition, it is true, but this does not bear on whether or not a Christian can hold to Catholicism, theologically.

    fyi, I am a pastor of a small non-Catholic church, so my bodily conversion to Catholicism is not as simple for me, as it would be for most other Christians. I've done my duty as pastor of my small flock, and sought out the truth of our faith in order to teach the truth, and I've come up 'Catholic' in my quest. It's been through decades of prayerful Scripture study, theological study, and historical study, that I've arrived to where I have. Not that any of this bears on what we're talking about here, but just fyi.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
    We have but one infallible and final authority (Scripture) for life and faith, not the magisterium, nor the traditions claimed by Rome.
    Bald assertion, nowhere found in the Bible. What Is found in the Bible, are the Church's authentic pastors, the bishops (the whole of them called the Church's Magisterium, the episcopal office, that office tasked specifically with teaching our faith). Perhaps you're frightened that we ascribe to them too much power, and that they could use that power to supersede the Scripture, but that has never happened, not once, and nor could or would it, given the specific job description of the bishops, which is to teach us what the Apostles themselves taught the earliest Church, before there was ever even the hint of a 'New Testament,' back when the only scriptures were the Old Testament, and the only Apostolic teachings were from their own tongues (which could speak many different languages, but I digress).

    It was ancient bishops who finalized the New Testament, and in fact the canon of Sacred Scripture. They drew upon what they knew the Apostles taught, wrt specific doctrines, and also wrt which writings were authorized Scripture, and which were not.

    All New Testament books present authentic Apostolic teachings unvarnished, that's why they're Scripture. And all Old Testament books (including the seven ones missing from the Protestant Bibles) are authorized as Scripture by the Apostles as well. The fact of the canon of Scripture testifies to the authority given to the Apostles by Christ Himself when He commissioned them.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
    Romanists advocate three authorities: Scripture, the teaching office of the church, and tradition.
    And I've set out precisely how those three relate with each other. The ultimate authority is Christ Himself, and He gave His authority to administrate His Church directly to His Apostles. He handpicked each of them, including the Apostle Paul.

    These men instituted Holy Orders, by which they ordained men as bishops, who are the Church's authentic 'senior' pastors, through the imposition of their own hands. The bishops hold the same office as the Apostles did as 'senior' pastors of the Church, and this is why we talk about 'Apostolic succession,' since all bishops were holding that same office.

    The Apostles possessed Christ's pastoral and teaching authority, and they gave His authority to the bishops that they consecrated themselves. Furthermore, they instructed these bishops to continue Holy Orders, and to consecrate new bishops themselves. All Catholic (and Orthodox) bishops today are men who've been consecrated just as that 'second generation' of bishops were; by bishops who were previously consecrated. This line of bishops has continued from the beginning of the Church, unceasingly, until today.

    Some famous ancient bishops: Timothy and Titus, Ignatius, Clement, Polycarp, Jerome, Augustine, Pope Gregory the Great, etc. All these bishops were Catholic in their theology.

    The relationship between "Scripture, the teaching office of the church, and [Sacred] tradition," is that the bishops (the teaching office) confirmed what writings there are, that are Scripture, and Sacred Tradition are all the Apostolic teachings that are not found in Scripture, not through any design, but through happenstance. No matter what the New Testament wound up containing, does not change Sacred Tradition. In the earliest years of the Church, Scripture was just the Old Testament, just the Apostles were the teaching office, and just what they taught then through word-of-mouth, was Sacred Tradition.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
    The Catholic Catechism says, "The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone." The faithful should receive all their teaching "with docility" (par. 85, 95). Tradition, Scripture "and the Magisterium of the Church" work together for "the salvation of souls."
    Right.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
    Thus the Romanists affirms prima scripture, the primacy of Scripture.
    I would say that Sacred Tradition is partially recorded in the New Testament, so Scripture is Sacred Tradition, just that portion of Sacred Tradition that was committed to writing, by either Apostles themselves, or by writers who composed writings that went on to be authorized as Scripture by the Apostles.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
    Scripture is the primary source for theology, but not the final source. Tradition and church teaching effectively limit Scripture's authority.
    No, they don't. In fact, Scripture authenticates the teaching office of the Church, since its beginning is recorded there. I got that through following 'Sola Scriptura,' and I don't believe that 'Sola Scriptura' will lead astray an honest student of Scripture. It will lead them right to the bishops, who continue to be among us today.

    The New Testament Was Sacred Tradition, before it was written down.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
    If a matter is uncertain in Scripture, and tradition has an authoritative interpretation, then tradition has the final word.

    Nonsense abounds.
    Where is this nonsense? Is it in these matters, which are uncertain in Scripture? Abortion, pornography, the Trinity, the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

    Oops, that last one; the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, isn't uncertain at all in Scripture. Four times in Scripture, our Lord is quoted as saying, "This is My body," wrt 'this bread.' There is only a certain type of pastor who teaches this as plainly as it is taught in Scripture, and they are the Catholic (and Orthodox) bishops.
    "Those who believe in Christ" are all the Christians, Catholic or not.

    @Nee_Nihilo

  9. #81
    Journeyman
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    130
    Thanks
    15
    Thanked 45 Times in 30 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    6459
    Quote Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
    It matters not whether I am a Calvinist or Baptist, etc. I can say this now that I am saved and assured of the same. Before that moment, over 50 years ago, I could not say this, for I certainly did not want it and hated God with every breath I drew.


    All covenanted members of the church militant are presumed to be among the elect. This is right and proper to assume absent evidence to the contrary.

    If you have a point you are wanting to make, rather than "twenty-questions", or Whack-A-Mole, it would further the discussion to just make your point.

    AMR
    So, regarding the individuals whom you presently assume to be elect, and not non-elect, would you have any qualm with stating, to any of them, "I assume that Jesus loves you, and that Jesus died for you, since I am not aware of evidence to the contrary"?

  10. The Following User Says Thank You to 7djengo7 For Your Post:

    Rosenritter (November 1st, 2018)

  11. #82
    TOL Legend john w's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Heavenly Places
    Posts
    17,439
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 12,205 Times in 8,531 Posts

    Mentioned
    100 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147850
    Quote Originally Posted by beloved57 View Post
    Here is a complete list of synonyms, for "non elect," lost," "child of the devil:


    beloved57, AKA, dedeviled666


    So there.

    PS: What is a synonym, for synonym?
    Last edited by john w; October 30th, 2018 at 04:42 PM.
    Saint John W

  12. #83
    ☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) ☜☜☜☜☞☞☞☞ A Calvinist! ☜☜☜☜☜ Ask Mr. Religion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Chandler, Arizona USA
    Posts
    6,792
    Thanks
    4,477
    Thanked 3,954 Times in 2,266 Posts

    Blog Entries
    148
    Mentioned
    88 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)



    Rep Power
    2147691
    Quote Originally Posted by Arthur Brain View Post
    Again, there's no "choice" involved if God intervenes to ensure that a person makes a "decision" for the good.
    When an insurmountable obstacle stands in your way, you have no choice, other than an obvious negative choice.
    When that insurmountable obstacle is removed you now have a choice, a positive one.

    That "insurmountable obstacle" is man's moral inability for all in Adam. They cannot not sin.
    Quickening by God replaces that "heart," metaphorically the seat of one's will, with a new "heart."
    Thus, once so instantaneously quickened by the power of the Holy Spirit, the man will not not want to choose aright.

    Man is doing the choosing, the believing. God is not. Rather, God is restoring the nature of man wholly corrupted in the fall of Adam to one that is now morally capable of choosing for the good.

    It is futile to repeat this to those that deny the extent of the fall of Adam. Those that assume there remains in all fallen men some "seed" of righteousness, such that they are morally able to choose wisely, are assuming something unique exists within themselves that distinguishes them from their neighbors who chose badly. They are in effect adding to the efficacious grace God extends to His children, a super-added grace, contrary to Scripture. Thus, despite their lachrymose or strident claims they do not merit anything by their wise choice, the facts stand against them.

    If all in Adam are equally granted the same "seed" of grace—a level playing field—permitting one to choose wisely or unwisely, then those that choose wisely need examine themselves more carefully in hopes of determining what was it in and of themselves that led them to the right choice. It is a fool's errand, for no answer by those that believe this "in Adam, yet not totally corrupt" view will escape the proper charge that they themselves have contributed to their newfound state of re-birth.

    The only answer to the plain question: "Why you and not your neighbor?" is

    "God did it, all of it. I did not want it. I hated God and certainly did not see any choice other than to continue in my hatred. Yet, for reasons known only to Him and not based upon anything meritorious foreseen in me, God changed my nature such that I then genuinely wanted to believe and could not do other than believe. Thanks be to God!"

    AMR
    Embedded links in my posts or in my sig below are included for a reason. Tolle Lege.



    Do you confess?
    Founder, Reformed Theology Institute
    AMR's Randomata Blog
    Learn Reformed Doctrine
    I fear explanations explanatory of things explained.
    Christian, catholic, Calvinist, confessional, Presbyterian (PCA).
    Lex orandi, lex credenda: everyone is a Calvinist on their knees.
    The best TOL Social Group: here.
    If your username appears in blue and you have over 500 posts:
    Why?



  13. The Following User Says Thank You to Ask Mr. Religion For Your Post:

    MennoSota (October 30th, 2018)

  14. #84
    ☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) ☜☜☜☜☞☞☞☞ A Calvinist! ☜☜☜☜☜ Ask Mr. Religion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Chandler, Arizona USA
    Posts
    6,792
    Thanks
    4,477
    Thanked 3,954 Times in 2,266 Posts

    Blog Entries
    148
    Mentioned
    88 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)



    Rep Power
    2147691
    Quote Originally Posted by Idolater View Post
    fyi, I am a pastor of a small non-Catholic church, so my bodily conversion to Catholicism is not as simple for me, as it would be for most other Christians. I've done my duty as pastor of my small flock, and sought out the truth of our faith in order to teach the truth, and I've come up 'Catholic' in my quest. It's been through decades of prayerful Scripture study, theological study, and historical study, that I've arrived to where I have. Not that any of this bears on what we're talking about here, but just fyi.
    You are a pastor outside the bounds of the leadership of the elders. Your duty is to inform them of your views and, if they are doing their duty, you will be removed forthwith. You mount the pulpit as a hypocrite to that which you are proclaiming, if you are exhorting and celebrating sacraments other than that which has bound your conscience (Roman Catholicism).

    Your username fits. Remove yourself and free those in the pews from unwittingly participating in your odious sins.

    AMR
    Embedded links in my posts or in my sig below are included for a reason. Tolle Lege.



    Do you confess?
    Founder, Reformed Theology Institute
    AMR's Randomata Blog
    Learn Reformed Doctrine
    I fear explanations explanatory of things explained.
    Christian, catholic, Calvinist, confessional, Presbyterian (PCA).
    Lex orandi, lex credenda: everyone is a Calvinist on their knees.
    The best TOL Social Group: here.
    If your username appears in blue and you have over 500 posts:
    Why?



  15. The Following User Says Thank You to Ask Mr. Religion For Your Post:

    MennoSota (October 30th, 2018)

  16. #85
    ☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) ☜☜☜☜☞☞☞☞ A Calvinist! ☜☜☜☜☜ Ask Mr. Religion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Chandler, Arizona USA
    Posts
    6,792
    Thanks
    4,477
    Thanked 3,954 Times in 2,266 Posts

    Blog Entries
    148
    Mentioned
    88 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)



    Rep Power
    2147691
    Quote Originally Posted by 7djengo7 View Post
    So, regarding the individuals whom you presently assume to be elect, and not non-elect, would you have any qualm with stating, to any of them, "I assume that Jesus loves you, and that Jesus died for you, since I am not aware of evidence to the contrary"?
    As I stated:
    "If you have a point you are wanting to make, rather than "twenty-questions", or Whack-A-Mole, it would further the discussion to just make your point."

    Also, feel free to include the question above when you lay out your arguments. I have no problems dealing with these things in a substantial context rather than being led around by some ring my nose. I need to be a good steward of the time granted me by God for internet discussions. Make and argue whatever points you are hoping to make and relieve me of the burden of trying to read your mind.

    No more questions and answers in many posts. Just make your full argument or positions clear. I will be happy to interact with them afterwards.

    AMR
    Embedded links in my posts or in my sig below are included for a reason. Tolle Lege.



    Do you confess?
    Founder, Reformed Theology Institute
    AMR's Randomata Blog
    Learn Reformed Doctrine
    I fear explanations explanatory of things explained.
    Christian, catholic, Calvinist, confessional, Presbyterian (PCA).
    Lex orandi, lex credenda: everyone is a Calvinist on their knees.
    The best TOL Social Group: here.
    If your username appears in blue and you have over 500 posts:
    Why?



  17. The Following User Says Thank You to Ask Mr. Religion For Your Post:

    MennoSota (October 30th, 2018)

  18. #86
    Over 1000 post club Idolater's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    1,017
    Thanks
    115
    Thanked 169 Times in 145 Posts

    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    21741
    Quote Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
    You are a pastor outside the bounds of the leadership of the elders.
    How would you possibly know that, based on anything I've posted.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
    Your duty is to inform them of your views and, if they are doing their duty, you will be removed forthwith.
    I'm fresh out of taking orders from people who hold no authority over me, corporeal or spiritual.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
    You mount the pulpit as a hypocrite to that which you are proclaiming, if you are exhorting and celebrating sacraments other than that which has bound your conscience (Roman Catholicism).
    I'd agree with you if that's what I was doing.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
    Your username fits.
    You never covet? Not even once?
    Quote Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
    Remove yourself and free those in the pews from unwittingly participating in your odious sins.
    Which, 'odious,' sins. ?

    To repeat. Who I am, or what my story is, is beside the point here. My position is Catholic in my theology, just as yours is Reformed, and as others' here's Open Dispensationalism. Which school of theological thought one subscribes to, does not require membership in any particular ecclesial community tradition. Catholicism does 'come with' an ecclesial community tradition, it is true, but this does not bear on whether or not a Christian can hold to Catholicism, theologically.

    So, care to actually address Any of the points I made, or are you too busy being a busybody, concerning yourself and insinuating yourself in matters that are none of your business.

    Pick any of them. See if your view holds any water. We'll all benefit from it.
    "Those who believe in Christ" are all the Christians, Catholic or not.

    @Nee_Nihilo

  19. #87
    Journeyman
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    130
    Thanks
    15
    Thanked 45 Times in 30 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    6459
    Quote Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
    As I stated:
    "If you have a point you are wanting to make, rather than "twenty-questions", or Whack-A-Mole, it would further the discussion to just make your point."

    Also, feel free to include the question above when you lay out your arguments. I have no problems dealing with these things in a substantial context rather than being led around by some ring my nose. I need to be a good steward of the time granted me by God for internet discussions. Make and argue whatever points you are hoping to make and relieve me of the burden of trying to read your mind.

    No more questions and answers in many posts. Just make your full argument or positions clear. I will be happy to interact with them afterwards.

    AMR
    OK, just for the readers' convenience, here, again is the question I asked you:

    So, regarding the individuals whom you presently assume to be elect, and not non-elect, would you have any qualm with stating, to any of them, "I assume that Jesus loves you, and that Jesus died for you, since I am not aware of evidence to the contrary"?
    So, anyway, is that a NO? A YES? Be a good steward of your time by answering the question I asked you with a simple NO or YES. Be an even better steward of your time by simply giving the initial N or Y. See, you spent more time writing a three-paragraph post in reaction to my question--which post amounts to an admission that you can't answer it--than you would have spent simply not writing it at all.

    If, as a Calvinism huckster, it is embarrassing to you to be asked such a simple question, then, be my guest, and continue to stonewall against it. I know of certainty that you would gain the time, because you see the question is embarrassing to Calvinism. You just haven't had enough time to calculate on how you might answer it sans inviting additional unwelcome scrutiny upon your ideology. Of course, the question is not going to go away, but your going away from the question speaks for itself.

    If you don't wish to be asked questions about the propositions you affirm, and their necessary consequences, your best bet is simply to avoid affirming them publicly. And you, so conscientious of being a good steward of your time, what with your long, rambling quasi-dissertation posts--you go whole, ring-nosed hog with your affirmations!

  20. The Following User Says Thank You to 7djengo7 For Your Post:

    Rosenritter (November 1st, 2018)

  21. #88
    Journeyman
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    130
    Thanks
    15
    Thanked 45 Times in 30 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    6459
    Quote Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
    That is exactly what I am stating, not implying. The extent of the atonement is not part and parcel of that which saves someone. That those who are saved may never come to fully understand the distinctions between the extent of the atonement, versus its sufficient virtue, is not something that makes them "unsaved". Rather it makes them confused. Our Lord certainly knows for whom He came to redeem. Whether we know it (some of us do) or do not know it is not abrogating the promise that all who call upon the name of the Lord will be saved and not lost to Him. That is the duty of all. Do that. The rest will work out as the providence of God would have it.

    AMR
    Thank you.

    So, the proposition, 'Christ did not die for all mankind', you admit, is not a constituent proposition of the gospel! And, of course, it necessarily follows (as, I think, I already mentioned) from what you admit, that to believe that proposition's contradictory, viz., the proposition that 'Christ died for all mankind', is not to contradict the gospel. That is, a person, elect or non-elect, can state, as loudly and as often as he/she wants to, that Christ died for all mankind, and, in doing so, he/she will never have contradicted the gospel.

    It is clear, now, that when the Holy Spirit regenerates a person--thereby (as per Calvinism) causing that person to believe the gospel--He, in that act of regenerating, does not cause the person to believe the non-gospel proposition, 'Christ did not die for all mankind'; otherwise, every person who believes the gospel must believe, also, that 'Christ did not die for all mankind'. It's just a special, extra, optional thing that a few elites (yourself being one) will somehow come to believe, on your own, later on after you've already believed the gospel.

  22. #89
    TOL Legend Arthur Brain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Precariously balanced on top of a mineshaft
    Posts
    14,809
    Thanks
    8,990
    Thanked 7,073 Times in 4,708 Posts

    Mentioned
    22 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    2147749
    Quote Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
    When an insurmountable obstacle stands in your way, you have no choice, other than an obvious negative choice.
    When that insurmountable obstacle is removed you now have a choice, a positive one.

    That "insurmountable obstacle" is man's moral inability for all in Adam. They cannot not sin.
    Quickening by God replaces that "heart," metaphorically the seat of one's will, with a new "heart."
    Thus, once so instantaneously quickened by the power of the Holy Spirit, the man will not not want to choose aright.

    Man is doing the choosing, the believing. God is not. Rather, God is restoring the nature of man wholly corrupted in the fall of Adam to one that is now morally capable of choosing for the good.

    It is futile to repeat this to those that deny the extent of the fall of Adam. Those that assume there remains in all fallen men some "seed" of righteousness, such that they are morally able to choose wisely, are assuming something unique exists within themselves that distinguishes them from their neighbors who chose badly. They are in effect adding to the efficacious grace God extends to His children, a super-added grace, contrary to Scripture. Thus, despite their lachrymose or strident claims they do not merit anything by their wise choice, the facts stand against them.

    If all in Adam are equally granted the same "seed" of grace—a level playing field—permitting one to choose wisely or unwisely, then those that choose wisely need examine themselves more carefully in hopes of determining what was it in and of themselves that led them to the right choice. It is a fool's errand, for no answer by those that believe this "in Adam, yet not totally corrupt" view will escape the proper charge that they themselves have contributed to their newfound state of re-birth.

    The only answer to the plain question: "Why you and not your neighbor?" is

    "God did it, all of it. I did not want it. I hated God and certainly did not see any choice other than to continue in my hatred. Yet, for reasons known only to Him and not based upon anything meritorious foreseen in me, God changed my nature such that I then genuinely wanted to believe and could not do other than believe. Thanks be to God!"

    AMR
    Okay, let's just break this down to basics again. Adam transgresses and because of that all of mankind from that point forward is cursed or subject to condemnation, from then until the present day and beyond. If Adam hadn't messed up in the garden then nobody would be under such a sentence and all would be pretty much rosy?

    Anyway, he didn't and as a result then God decides not to abandon everyone to such a fate but chooses some to be spared from it and others to be condemned to it aka "vessels of wrath" or some such. Therefore, those who are chosen can't help but make the "moral choice" because of God's intervention and those not chosen can't do anything other than not make the same because of God's lack of intervention. There's no choice in any of it. You can wrap it up in all sorts of verbiage but in essence this is the crux of the Calvinist view isn't it?

    Pretty much a roll of a dice as you could so easily be one who wasn't granted the "quickening" as no one is more or less deserving of being the elect after Adam's transgression, correct? Yet you and the rest of the chosen are spared the suffering that is deemed righteous to the ones who aren't.
    Well this is fun isn't it?


  23. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Arthur Brain For Your Post:

    JudgeRightly (October 30th, 2018),Rosenritter (November 1st, 2018)

  24. #90
    Over 1500 post club
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    1,522
    Thanks
    140
    Thanked 174 Times in 149 Posts

    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Idolater View Post
    How would you possibly know that, based on anything I've posted.
    I'm fresh out of taking orders from people who hold no authority over me, corporeal or spiritual.
    I'd agree with you if that's what I was doing.
    You never covet? Not even once?
    Which, 'odious,' sins. ?

    To repeat. Who I am, or what my story is, is beside the point here. My position is Catholic in my theology, just as yours is Reformed, and as others' here's Open Dispensationalism. Which school of theological thought one subscribes to, does not require membership in any particular ecclesial community tradition. Catholicism does 'come with' an ecclesial community tradition, it is true, but this does not bear on whether or not a Christian can hold to Catholicism, theologically.

    So, care to actually address Any of the points I made, or are you too busy being a busybody, concerning yourself and insinuating yourself in matters that are none of your business.

    Pick any of them. See if your view holds any water. We'll all benefit from it.
    Idol, you, yourself made the claim that you were duping your congregation, which does not hold your theology. You have been fairly called out by your own admission.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
About us
Since 1997 TheologyOnline (TOL) has been one of the most popular theology forums on the internet. On TOL we encourage spirited conversation about religion, politics, and just about everything else.

follow us