Calvinism & "Smile, Jesus Loves You!"

[7djengo7]

I have used some of Ask Mr. Religion's unbiblical, and just plain absurd, statements to create some custom "Smile, Jesus loves you" slogans for use by the discriminating Calvinism huckster who just cannot tell which particular persons Jesus particularly atoned for (because, according to Calvinism, "God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain" that Calvinists should be thoroughly ignorant, in this world, at least, as to which persons are elect and which persons are non-elect).

God does not love the reprobate as such, for reprobation required perfect hatred.

"Smile, Jesus (in some sense) loves you, and He also may or may not perfectly hate you"

God must have loved men as men, otherwise He would not have made them men.

"Smile, Jesus (in some sense) loves you as a man"

The love God shows to men as men is as effectual as the love He shows the elect.

"Smile, Jesus loves you as effectually as He loves the elect, and He also may or may not have predestined you to burn in hell"

It is simply that God does not purpose to express His love in a saving way to all men.

"Smile, Jesus loves you, although He may or may not purpose to express to you His love in a saving way"

He purposes to make some men objects of wrath...

"Smile, Jesus loves you, and He may or may not have purposed to make you an object of wrath"

He also, of course, hates Esau (Romans 9:6-13), meaning that God does not love the reprobate with a peculiar redeeming love as He does the elect, whom He delights to save.

"Smile, Jesus loves you, but He may or may not love you with a peculiar redeeming love"

"Smile, Jesus loves you, but He may or may not delight to save you"

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Wonderful examples of what can be accomplished by quote mining absent context.

Call out threads. Sigh.

:AMR:

AMR

 

[Idolater]

Wonderful examples of what can be accomplished by quote mining absent context.

Call out threads. Sigh.

:AMR:

AMR

'People ask me, show me God is real. We talk about the historicity of the Resurrection. We're soon reasoning together, we can establish some rapport just around them agreeing to reason together. Any other questions they have, when they start to reason together with me, are always answerable starting from the Resurrection, like from the vantage point of the Resurrection. It organizes and focuses with proper weighting. You don't ignore the important things, but you don't overblow them either. Besides, the bishops have told us that the Apostles' teaching on Divine Providence is perfect, by expressing it to us in the 'Catechism of the Catholic Church.' No Reformer can outdo what the Apostles taught. They taught what the Lord taught them. He's better at theology than any Reformer, better than anybody. That's why the Church is Apostolic, because the Church believes what the Apostles taught is what Christ Jesus taught them, and He is God's only begotten Son, and whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. That's the perfect verse to raise, once you've established rapport through gaining their consent to reason together with you wrt the Resurrection's historicity. Well, why. Then you can talk about sin. It's all built on the Resurrection. Why should I care what God's law says about morality. Because the Resurrection proves God and His law are real, is why. Oh yeah, I forgot. Happens all the time. I just think preaching and centering around the Resurrection is like the Lord 'planting evidence' for us to handily use to preach the Gospel. I'm having a really productive and rewarding time myself. I don't hardly ever have to talk about my Catholic theology, because I can confidently teach Catholic theology oftentimes, without having to divulge its origin, because it's frequently exactly the same as 'orthodox' Protestants are teaching anyway. Thanks for the thread Djengo

 

[MennoSota]

Wonderful examples of what can be accomplished by quote mining absent context.

Call out threads. Sigh.

:AMR:

AMR

Yep.
It surprises me how much the OP hates election, predestination and God's Sovereignty, exercised in His choosing.

 

[MennoSota]

'People ask me, show me God is real. We talk about the historicity of the Resurrection. We're soon reasoning together, we can establish some rapport just around them agreeing to reason together. Any other questions they have, when they start to reason together with me, are always answerable starting from the Resurrection, like from the vantage point of the Resurrection. It organizes and focuses with proper weighting. You don't ignore the important things, but you don't overblow them either. Besides, the bishops have told us that the Apostles' teaching on Divine Providence is perfect, by expressing it to us in the 'Catechism of the Catholic Church.' No Reformer can outdo what the Apostles taught. They taught what the Lord taught them. He's better at theology than any Reformer, better than anybody. That's why the Church is Apostolic, because the Church believes what the Apostles taught is what Christ Jesus taught them, and He is God's only begotten Son, and whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. That's the perfect verse to raise, once you've established rapport through gaining their consent to reason together with you wrt the Resurrection's historicity. Well, why. Then you can talk about sin. It's all built on the Resurrection. Why should I care what God's law says about morality. Because the Resurrection proves God and His law are real, is why. Oh yeah, I forgot. Happens all the time. I just think preaching and centering around the Resurrection is like the Lord 'planting evidence' for us to handily use to preach the Gospel. I'm having a really productive and rewarding time myself. I don't hardly ever have to talk about my Catholic theology, because I can confidently teach Catholic theology oftentimes, without having to divulge its origin, because it's frequently exactly the same as 'orthodox' Protestants are teaching anyway. Thanks for the thread Djengo

I agree, the Reformed Church teaches what the Apostles taught.
You can't find the veneration of relics and places in the Apostles teaching, but Rome worships anyone they venerate, just like pagans of old.

 

[Idolater]

I agree, the Reformed Church teaches what the Apostles taught.

I didn't say that at all. 'Orthodox' reformers start at what the Apostles wrote down, and other things written down that they themselves approved (the rest of Scripture), and then through illicit and invalid biblical interpretation, arrive at their views, which are not always authentic Christian doctrine or morals. Even when they do teach what happens to be authentic Christian faith and morals, 1. they are plagiarizing the valid bishops of the Church, and 2., they do so illicitly and invalidly, placing themselves as biblical interpreters, on a level with Apostolic authority.

You can't find the veneration of relics and places in the Apostles teaching

Perhaps not in the New Testament, but the NT is but some of Apostolic teaching. They had pens, they had eyes, and they also had mouths, by which they uttered more teachings than just those committed to writing in the NT. A similar thing is said at the end of John's Gospel about Christ Himself, and none of that should be surprising.

, but Rome worships anyone they venerate, just like pagans of old.

Not like pagans of old, at all. Nobody offers sacrifices to saints or to relics. That's what the pagans of old did.

 

[MennoSota]

I didn't say that at all. 'Orthodox' reformers start at what the Apostles wrote down, and other things written down that they themselves approved (the rest of Scripture), and then through illicit and invalid biblical interpretation, arrive at their views, which are not always authentic Christian doctrine or morals. Even when they do teach what happens to be authentic Christian faith and morals, 1. they are plagiarizing the valid bishops of the Church, and 2., they do so illicitly and invalidly, placing themselves as biblical interpreters, on a level with Apostolic authority.
Perhaps not in the New Testament, but the NT is but some of Apostolic teaching. They had pens, they had eyes, and they also had mouths, by which they uttered more teachings than just those committed to writing in the NT. A similar thing is said at the end of John's Gospel about Christ Himself, and none of that should be surprising.
Not like pagans of old, at all. Nobody offers sacrifices to saints or to relics. That's what the pagans of old did.

When the writers, after the Apostles, came along, they wrote with no more authority than you or me. Just because their local group did something it doesn't mean it was biblical or worthy of being copied. For instance, it's likely that Origen wasn't even a Christian so why venerate his writings?
Let scripture be our guide and then hold everything that comes afterward up to the standard of scripture. Hold every tradition up against God's word and toss out everything that goes against God's word. Toss out infant baptism, it's not biblical. Toss out indulgences, they're not biblical. Toss out the veneration of saints and relics, they are not only not biblical, they are idols in the church...condemned in the Bible.
Your church left the body of Christ and replaced it with an idol, just like Jereboam left the Temple in Jerusalem to worship an idol in Bethel he called Yahweh in the Northern Kingdom. The path of the Northern Kingdom of Israel and the Roman church is very similar. You should flee your church rather than call others to its paganism.

 

[7djengo7]

Wonderful examples of what can be accomplished by quote mining absent context.

Call out threads. Sigh.

:AMR:

AMR

Wonderful example (yet again) of you admitting that you have nothing, whatsoever, to say in defense of the absurdities you wrote. Thank you for it!

By the way, why didn't you read the title of the thread to which you pointlessly sent me two links?

Thread: Naming Members in Thread Titles

Here's the title of THIS thread, the one I started, and the one to which you have just amusingly reacted:

Thread: Calvinism & "Smile, Jesus Loves You!"

 

[7djengo7]

Wonderful examples of what can be accomplished by quote mining absent context.

Call out threads. Sigh.

:AMR:

AMR

You are already on record as having stated that God (in some sense) loves those whom Calvinism refers to as "the non-elect" or "the reprobate":

...insofar as men are still the image of God in a broader sense, it is acceptable to speak, in a qualified sense, of God loving all men without drawing distinctions between elect and reprobate.

and

The simple answer is "Yes, God does have a love that extends even to the reprobate," since He has a love of benevolence over all His creation, which, obviously, includes the reprobate (Matthew 5:43-48, Acts 14: 14-18).

So, you make God to be simultaneously BOTH loving these non-elect AND hating them:

He also, of course, hates Esau (Romans 9:6-13), meaning that God does not love the reprobate with a peculiar redeeming love as He does the elect, whom He delights to save.

and

God does not love the reprobate as such, for reprobation required perfect hatred.

So, you cannot rationally have the least qualm against the slogans I came up with, since you have already affirmed that

1. God loves the elect,
2. God does not hate the elect,
3. God loves the non-elect,
4. God hates the non-elect.

Since, as a Calvinist, you admit your ignorance as to whether this or that individual is elect or not, then, though you can, in every case, state that God loves him/her, you are prohibited, in every case, from stating that

1. God hates him/her,

and, that

2. God does not hate him/her.

Thus, it follows from your own statements that, whereas Calvinists like to whine against people telling other people, "Smile, Jesus Loves You", one of the things a Calvinist can have no rational reservations against saying, to any random Joe in the street, indiscriminately, is

"Smile, Jesus (in some sense) loves you, and He also may or may not perfectly hate you"

Everybody reading this thread knows that you have NOTHING rational to say against these deductions from your own written statements. That is why you are forced to resort to your useless incantations, such as "quote mining absent context".

 

[Idolater]

When the writers, after the Apostles, came along, they wrote with no more authority than you or me.

Bishops were to preserve and teach just what the Apostles taught. The reason that we know today, just what the Apostles taught (who taught what Jesus commanded them to teach), is because of the bishops. They're in the Bible. They published the Bible. The bishops were Jesus's brilliant idea, and the Apostles implemented the office brilliantly. They've preserved the whole Word of God for going on 2000 years, and it is now available throughout the world.

Just because their local group did something it doesn't mean it was biblical or worthy of being copied. For instance, it's likely that Origen wasn't even a Christian so why venerate his writings?

I don't, venerate Origen's writings.

Let scripture be our guide and then hold everything that comes afterward up to the standard of scripture. Hold every tradition up against God's word and toss out everything that goes against God's word.

Of course.

Toss out infant baptism, it's not biblical. Toss out indulgences, they're not biblical. Toss out the veneration of saints and relics, they are not only not biblical, they are idols in the church...condemned in the Bible.

I disagree with your statements here. Also, automobiles are not biblical. Toss out cars. You don't drive a car, right? Not biblical.

Your church left the body of Christ and replaced it with an idol, just like Jereboam left the Temple in Jerusalem to worship an idol in Bethel he called Yahweh in the Northern Kingdom. The path of the Northern Kingdom of Israel and the Roman church is very similar. You should flee your church rather than call others to its paganism.

Jesus is quoted four times as saying, when He instituted the Eucharist, "This is My body." Catholics take Him at His word. Does your church? No. It doesn't. "Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, 'This is My body?'"

Flee your disobedient pagan church. They're lying to you.

 

[MennoSota]

Bishops were to preserve and teach just what the Apostles taught. The reason that we know today, just what the Apostles taught (who taught what Jesus commanded them to teach), is because of the bishops. They're in the Bible. They published the Bible. The bishops were Jesus's brilliant idea, and the Apostles implemented the office brilliantly. They've preserved the whole Word of God for going on 2000 years, and it is now available throughout the world.
I don't, venerate Origen's writings.
Of course.
I disagree with your statements here. Also, automobiles are not biblical. Toss out cars. You don't drive a car, right? Not biblical.
Jesus is quoted four times as saying, when He instituted the Eucharist, "This is My body." Catholics take Him at His word. Does your church? No. It doesn't. "Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, 'This is My body?'"

Flee your disobedient pagan church. They're lying to you.

Sadly, your church failed miserably and just made stuff up. Worshipping relics was never taught by the Apostles thus the Bishops could not have preserved such paganism.

Augustine would leave the church of Rome today and call it a pagan organization that followed Pelagius.

 

[7djengo7]

Jesus is quoted four times as saying, when He instituted the Eucharist, "This is My body." Catholics take Him at His word. Does your church? No.

Now, to what, exactly, would you say Jesus was referring by the word 'this' in "This is my body"?

 

[Idolater]

Sadly, your church failed miserably and just made stuff up.

You describe Your "church."

Worshipping

Speaking of which, the Apostles authorized one 'worship service,' which is Mass. Acts 2:42 KJV, and the Eucharist is valid when ordained ministers celebrated this sacrament.

relics was never taught by the Apostles thus the Bishops could not have preserved such paganism.

Nobody worships relics.

Augustine would leave the church of Rome today and call it a pagan organization that followed Pelagius.

No he would not. He was a faithful bishop, and faithful Christian, he would not leave God's own Church. It's silliness at best, and slanderous at worst, to suggest that Augustine would not be faithful, holding the office of Bishop of Hippo. And wrt Pelagianism, the Church specifically rejects it, and her authorized teaching on the matter of divine providence fully explains in a brief paragraph, what many feet of shelf space worth of reformed theology books cannot.

 

[MennoSota]

You describe Your "church."
Speaking of which, the Apostles authorized one 'worship service,' which is Mass. Acts 2:42 KJV, and the Eucharist is valid when ordained ministers celebrated this sacrament.
Nobody worships relics.
No he would not. He was a faithful bishop, and faithful Christian, he would not leave God's own Church. It's silliness at best, and slanderous at worst, to suggest that Augustine would not be faithful, holding the office of Bishop of Hippo. And wrt Pelagianism, the Church specifically rejects it, and her authorized teaching on the matter of divine providence fully explains in a brief paragraph, what many feet of shelf space worth of reformed theology books cannot.

No, I'm describing your church at Rome. History reveals it's failure to follow Christ and God's word through the Apostles. The promotion of idol worship is lead by the church at Rome.

 

[Idolater]

Now, to what, exactly, would you say Jesus was referring by the word 'this' in "This is my body"?

Probably whatever it was that people found, after raiding churches looking for cannibalism.

 

[7djengo7]

Probably whatever it was that people found, after raiding churches looking for cannibalism.

In other words, you do not wish to try to answer the question I asked you. OK.

 

[Idolater]

No, I'm describing your church at Rome. History reveals it's failure to follow Christ and God's word through the Apostles. The promotion of idol worship is lead by the church at Rome.

smh. 'So ignorant. You flap your gums too much about something you know nothing about, nothing. It's not even superficial, it's just lies, and wrong. Incorrect. Error.

 

[Idolater]

In other words, you do not wish to try to answer the question I asked you. OK.

Oh sorry. I thought you were being coy.

The answer is "this bread" 1Co11:26-27KJV.

 

[MennoSota]

smh. 'So ignorant. You flap your gums too much about something you know nothing about, nothing. It's not even superficial, it's just lies, and wrong. Incorrect. Error.

Idol, there are 1500 years supporting me regarding your churches utter abandonment of Christ. Keep closing your eyes and plugging your ears. 1500 years of pushing pedophiles as priests and you ignore it.

 

[7djengo7]

Oh sorry. I thought you were being coy.

The answer is "this bread" 1Co11:26-27KJV.

Which bread?