The Slaying of Reformed Theology (Calvinism)

[Brother Ducky]

[MENTION=10685]Brother Ducky[/MENTION]

I was wrong. You are a Calvinist. You have limited the scope of God's Love to All humanity and declared election the cause of salvation. You have attributed cold heartedness towards God.

I never said otherwise.

You have forgotten "what" measure He divides His sheep from the goats with.

Mat. 25:37-40

37 “Then the righteous will answer Him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry and feed You, or thirsty and give You drink? 38 When did we see You a stranger and take You in, or naked and clothe You? 39 Or when did we see You sick, or in prison, and come to You?’ 40 And the King will answer and say to them, ‘Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these My brethren, you did it to Me.’

5: God is Love
Scripture for 5
6: Love knows no limit to its endurance, no end to its trust, no fading of its hope; it can outlast anything. It is, in fact, the one thing that still stands when all else has fallen.
Scripture for 6

Jesus who said "Love your enemies" would not hold a single human to His contempt, before birth. If election saves us instead of faith, hope, Love and grace, then we are doomed.

Election does not save. Election is God picking some to save. No one deserves salvation. Those passed over are punished for their sin only. God is just in this punishment. It seems to most that God is unjust if he punishes any when he could save. One might think God was unjust in the use of Assyria or Babylonia to punish Israel. Since he did it, it must be within the realm of what God can do in righteousness. Does not seem loving, and yet God did it.

You have limited the scope of God's Love because of your choice addition to the pure scriptural water.

I do not limit it. I believe that God himself limits it. His universe, his rules. If the love of God is not limited why does he not save all. Jesus is sufficient for same.

It is with heavy heart that I assert you have validated points 5 and 6 of the OP. You cannot limit the scope of God's Love. This will impact the way you treat your fellow man. We all have fallen short and are all forgiven, but to limit Love in reference to God has a catastrophic impact on one's personal Love towards those perceived as "reprobate".

If the dogs are the least, then even the dog's are loved. 2 Peter 3:9

Mat. 15:10-20

21 Leaving that place, Jesus withdrew to the district of Tyre and Sidon. 22And a Canaanite woman from that region came to Him, crying out, “Lord, Son of David, have mercy on me! My daughter is miserably possessed by a demon.”
23 But Jesus did not answer a word. So His disciples came and urged Him, “Send her away, for she keeps crying out after us.”
24 He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”
25 The woman came and knelt before him. “Lord, help me!” she said.
26 But Jesus replied, “It is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to the dogs.”
27“Yes, Lord,” she said, “even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their master’s table.”

28“O woman,” Jesus answered, “your faith is great! Let it be done for you as you desire.” And her daughter was healed from that very hour.

-I am still open for dialogue, but your answer is telling of your scriptural lens.

-I count you my sibling in Christ, but you have brought the very points upon you that I thought you would never fall under.

[MENTION=17195]daqq[/MENTION]... if you have time to exegete portions of your choice from 1 John 4, 1 Cor. 13 and John 3, or anywhere you feel impressed, to assert the call, I would appreciate it. If you don't have the time... it's ok. The writing is on the wall.

 

[Evil.Eye.<(I)>]

[MENTION=10685]Brother Ducky[/MENTION]

You have just said "God Limits His Love". OP point 6 is there for that very reason.

I appreciate your reply and understand your views. Respect for your response.

[MENTION=18375]Evil.Eye.<(I)>[/MENTION]

 

[Brother Ducky]

Hello BD,

Adding to my recent post here,

Why wouldn't Love act as Love to all, 'God' being the Universal Creator, Originator of all things and beings? Why would God's love be partial, imperfect, exclusively divided, misproportionally distributed? The rain falls and sun shines on ALL.

Seems to be a grace/justice balance that we do not fully understand.

 

[freelight]

Seems to be a grace/justice balance that we do not fully understand.

What is Love's will? Why would Universal Love, what God IS,...desire anything that is unloving towards any sentient being?

 

[nikolai_42]

I actually understand what you are saying. Jesus is the True Living Word. However, He affirms the scriptures by proclaiming that they testify of Him. Cannon is special. It condemns and saves simultaneously. With the addition of the Spirit of Christ or (The Holy Spirit) in-dwelling us, the Spirit teaches us. I beleave you are attempting to work this into your verbiage.

Please correct me if I am misunderstanding your intended assertion.

No. Not really what I'm trying to say. There's a much finer distinction between the Word and the word in terms of scripture (if that makes any sense...)

 

[Evil.Eye.<(I)>]

No. Not really what I'm trying to say. There's a much finer distinction between the Word and the word in terms of scripture (if that makes any sense...) John 5:39? Or Hebrews 4:12? <~ [MENTION=5671]nikolai_42[/MENTION]

Indeed. I don't want to counter debate until you feel I fully understand you. I did post some points I thought I understood. I'll link them...

I want to ensure that I fully understand your perspective before I counter debate. This response is my "making sure I understand your assertion" response. Please tweak me and aid me until I express your assertions correctly as you are asserting them.

-You are asserting that exegesis and prophecy are different matters.
-You are asserting that the Spirit Lives and Works through us to this very day
-You are suggesting that just as Paul exegetes in scripture, we may, as well.
-You are asserting that men the Holy Spirit speaks through "post-cannon" to clearify matters may record assistant texts that the "Church" may draw from to further understand scripture.
-You are suggesting that "post-cannon" exegesis on cannon isn't the same as cannon, but can become tangent to Cannon to assist the church in "understanding cannon".
-You assert that "gifts of the Spirit" allow people to write and assert extra-canonical exegete on Cannon and it be a sort of holy-writ to the church

Please check all of my assumed statements in attempt to ensure I fully understand your thrust, because you're sure to see them again.

Ensure you add to my assertions if I missed anything, or set me straight on others if I misunderstood.

I'm off for the night.

[MENTION=5671]nikolai_42[/MENTION] Edit Complete

 

[daqq]

Jesus who said "Love your enemies" would not hold a single human to His contempt, before birth. If election saves us instead of faith, hope, Love and grace, then we are doomed.

You have limited the scope of God's Love because of your choice addition to the pure scriptural water.

That's the eye poker right there and tells you this is nothing more than man's inventive ideas for the purposes of the establishment of a new religious-political body in medieval times; for if you will join up and become Calvinist or Reform then you will suddenly become not quite so "doomed", (lol), although no doubt this goes unsaid because they do not need to say it out loud to believe it. And of course when you are teaching predestination and-or double predestination then you are going to avoid openly stating that you believe your church to be the only place where the elect may congregate. Every church or denomination that teaches eternal conscious torment and hell fire believes themselves to be the saved or elect whether they are willing to openly admit it or not. Reform gets away with many things by saying "we never actually said that", ("we don't want to be presumptive"), when in reality their preaching and even their very existence automatically implies that if you join you are considered on your way to election through "perseverance of the saints", (and of course remaining a member in good standing in their church). But they cannot openly tell you that because you do not actually have the free will to choose to join their church. :crackup:

 

[Eagles Wings]

First and Foremost...

I am pleased to receive your carefully written response. You have gone to great lengths to share your convictions on this matter. Anyone who sees this should understand the difficult, painstaking efforts you placed into writing this.

I will not be a horses rear and childishly counter debate every line of your submission... yet.

First... I want to congruently understand what you have submitted with my own mind. I challenge even those who appose Nikolai_42's perspective to do so as well. This is a scholarly submission and deserves scholarly respect!

I would like to log in later and see "everyone" asking questions to [MENTION=5671]nikolai_42[/MENTION] that help them understand every word of what he has written.

That's right! You heard me. Counter debate needs to be placed on pause! Respect and ears must now be applied.

Until this has sufficiently happened, we will not pick apart [MENTION=5671]nikolai_42[/MENTION]'s submission.
[MENTION=17195]daqq[/MENTION], [MENTION=16942]JudgeRightly[/MENTION], [MENTION=3698]Tambora[/MENTION], [MENTION=15338]Right Divider[/MENTION], [MENTION=16629]patrick jane[/MENTION]...

You do not have to assist in this matter, but as I'm away, I would appreciate it if you and anyone else strong in the ability to keep an OP on track ensure the following occurs. I want no attack of what [MENTION=5671]nikolai_42[/MENTION] has taken the time to write.
[MENTION=18164]Eagles Wings[/MENTION], if you have time, please help in this matter as well.

Respect to [MENTION=5671]nikolai_42[/MENTION] for this worthy submission.

Peace

#If we don't evaluate this in prayer and with respect... we're doing it wrong.

Do I get a thread helper reward?

 

[freelight]

That's the eye poker right there and tells you this is nothing more than man's inventive ideas for the purposes of the establishment of a new religious-political body in medieval times; for if you will join up and become Calvinist or Reform then you will suddenly become not quite so "doomed", (lol), although no doubt this goes unsaid because they do not need to say it out loud to believe it. And of course when you are teaching predestination and-or double predestination then you are going to avoid openly stating that you believe your church to be the only place where the elect may congregate. Every church or denomination that teaches eternal conscious torment and hell fire believes themselves to be the saved or elect whether they are willing to openly admit it or not. Reform gets away with many things by saying "we never actually said that", ("we don't want to be presumptive"), when in reality their preaching and even their very existence automatically implies that if you join you are considered on your way to election through "perseverance of the saints", (and of course remaining a member in good standing in their church). But they cannot openly tell you that because you do not actually have the free will to choose to join their church. :crackup:

Its a self-serving system, by merely assuming its God serving.

 

[daqq]

Its a self-serving system, by merely assuming its God serving.

Yes, I agree, and that is why it is so complicated; for there appear to be many things which cannot be openly stated because of doctrine. For instance, the above, if they admit that they are offering you the free gift of salvation, (by joining their sect), and you accept; then you have demonstrated freewill by choosing to accept their offer. Therefore they cannot admit that they are offering you the free gift of God at the door because if you accept then by default every member of their congregation violates one of their highly esteemed doctrines. So they merely "preach", (what they believe), and all those whom "God draws" will come, (to them and their elect teachers). I do not need to have formerly been a member of their sect to be able to see this kind of reasoning flowing from the minds of their adherents. It's all an insidious shell game to avoid the glaring contradictions in an obviously concocted elitist medieval doctrine.

 

[freelight]

Yes, I agree, and that is why it is so complicated; for there appear to be many things which cannot be openly stated because of doctrine. For instance, the above, if they admit that they are offering you the free gift of salvation, (by joining their sect), and you accept; then you have demonstrated freewill by choosing to accept their offer. Therefore they cannot admit that they are offering you the free gift of God at the door because if you accept then by default every member of their congregation violates one of their highly esteemed doctrines. So they merely "preach", (what they believe), and all those whom "God draws" will come, (to them and their elect teachers). I do not need to have formerly been a member of their sect to be able to see this kind of reasoning flowing from the minds of their adherents. It's all an insidious shell game to avoid the glaring contradictions in an obviously concocted elitist medieval doctrine.

:thumb:

Also, TULIP needs every one of its petals to stand, since one petal cannot without the other in place,...its a 'compact' deal. With "T" (total depravity) as the head-thought, you cant really expect too much goodness from thereon out, that is, unless 'God' chooses to save you by some whim, since no one really knows why he chooses some and PASSES OVER others :idunno:

 

[daqq]

:thumb:

Also, TULIP needs every one of its petals to stand, since one petal cannot without the other in place,...its a 'compact' deal. With "T" (total depravity) as the head-thought, you cant really expect too much goodness from thereon out, that is, unless 'God' chooses to save you by some whim, since no one really knows why he chooses some and PASSES OVER others :idunno:

Yep, and the big "T" was already demolished by the Father Himself in His Word:

Your "original sin" happened the first time you willfully sinned, just as everyone else, and before that day you were innocent. Just because all sin, and all fall short, does not translate into the "original sin" doctrine which most use primarily for theologic purposes.

Deuteronomy 1:39 ASV
39 Moreover your little ones, that ye said should be a prey, and your children, that this day have no knowledge of good or evil, they shall go in thither, and unto them will I give it, and they shall possess it.

This is yet again the same kind of typology and analogy where the "old man" dies off in the wilderness and the "new man" enters into the promised inheritance. It is not that anyone is "perfect" but that the mind of Messiah, (his Testimony), must be put on while the old man must be cut off and allowed to die off in the wilderness along the way to the promised land. When you cross the Jordan you will see a hill of foreskins: leave the foreskin of your heart there, on the mountain of flesh, as you enter into the Land. :chuckle:

Deut 24:16, Jer 31:29-31, (New Covenant Language), Eze 18:1-20, (New Covenant Language).

Deuteronomy 24:16 KJV
16 The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.

Jeremiah 31:29-31 KJV
29 In those days they shall say no more, The fathers have eaten a sour grape, and the children's teeth are set on edge.
30 But every one shall die for his own iniquity: every man that eateth the sour grape, his teeth shall be set on edge.
31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:

What is this proverb of which he speaks, "The fathers have eaten the sour grape: the children's teeth are set on edge"? No doubt this concerns a more ancient version of the so-called original sin doctrine which was held among some Israelites because of the creation narrative. The Prophet Jeremiah says it will not stand because, as the Torah clearly states, every one will die for his own sin. Moreover this is the famous Jeremiah passage concerning the New Covenant which is quoted in Hebrews chapter eight. And what does the Prophet Ezekiel say about it?

Exekiel 18:1-4 KJV
1 The word of the LORD came unto me again, saying,
2 What mean ye, that ye use this proverb concerning the land of Israel, saying, The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge?
3 As I live, saith the Lord GOD, ye shall not have occasion any more to use this proverb in Israel.
4 Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die.

There is therefore no choice but to part oneself asunder and put to death the "old man" nature because the soul that sins shall die. It is therefore just as I said to you previously herein, Crucible, and as I also said, Yeshua teaches these things in his doctrine:

Matthew 10:38-39
38 And the one not taking up his cross and following after me is not worthy of me.
39 The one finding his soul shall apollumi-destroy it: and the one apollumi-destroying his soul for my sake shall find it.

Matthew 16:23-26
23 But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: you are an offense unto me: for you savor not the things that be of Elohim, but those that be of men.
24 Then said Yeshua to his disciples, If anyone will come after me, let him utterly-disown himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.
25 For whosoever will save his soul shall apollumi-destroy it: and whosoever will apollumi-destroy his soul for my sake shall find it.
26 For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and zemiow-lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?

Luke 9:23-25
23 And he said to them all, If anyone will come after me, let him utterly-disown himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me.
24 For whosoever will save his soul shall destroy it: but whosoever will destroy his soul for my sake, the same shall save it.
25 For what is a man advantaged, if he gain the whole world, and lose himself, or be cast away?

Luke 14:26-27
26 If anyone come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, even his own soul also, he cannot be my disciple.
27 And whosoever does not bear his cross and come after me cannot be my disciple.

It is just as Paul likewise teaches throughout: putting to death or mortifying your own "members" which are upon your own land, or mortifying the deeds of the body, that is, cutting off sin from your household-body-temple which is no more your own when you enter into Yeshua faithfulness.

This is the old parable of the original sin doctrine:

"Adam ate the sour grape, the children's teeth are set on edge!"

This is what the Father says about it:

"As I live, says Adonai YHWH, you shall not have occasion any more to use this proverb in Yisrael."

Jeremiah 31:29-31 = New Covenant Language = Ezekiel 18:1-4

The old proverb-parable of the original sin total depravity doctrine:

"Adam ate the sour grape, the children's teeth are set on edge!"

What the Father says about that proverb-doctrine in New Covenant language:

"As I live, says Adonai YHWH, you shall not have occasion any more to use this proverb in Yisrael."

 

[freelight]

Re-turn 2 Source.................

Re-turn 2 Source.................

Yep, and the big "T" was already demolished by the Father Himself in His Word:

----------------------------


Jeremiah 31:29-31 = New Covenant Language = Ezekiel 18:1-4

The old proverb-parable of the original sin total depravity doctrine:

"Adam ate the sour grape, the children's teeth are set on edge!"

What the Father says about that proverb-doctrine in New Covenant language:

"As I live, says Adonai YHWH, you shall not have occasion any more to use this proverb in Yisrael."

The Spirit agrees then, that we can toss out the sour grapes

The rotten wine of 'total depravity' attacks from the beginning the 'free agency' of man, by describing/assuming his core-nature as sinful (totally corrupt). He is therefore not accountable for his sins, since hes assumed to not be able to choose to behave otherwise, being a slave to sin (a genetic predisposition/corruption of the genes passed down thru Adam/Eve). He's assumed totally helpless, unless God steps in to save him, but there is no guarantee that one is 'saved' or 'damned', and no one by any rightdoing or good merits can earn or acquire salvation, making all responsibility to fall on God Alone. Man has no part to play in this system,...but is merely a recipient of 'election' or 'non-election'....a 'ticket' or 'non-ticket' holder. You're either one of the two, by no choice of your own which is a system more or less of fatalism, not a creative venture of 'free agency'.

Man is deprived at having any 'stake' in anything, so is deprived of all freedom to engage, covenant with, partnership with God, in any real meaningful way, unless he is 'elected' and moved upon to obey, and even then, hes NOT there with God by any choice or earning on his own part (an actual original volitional move on his part), since its all God doing and willing, he just happens to be a 'puppet' or 'prop' used by this 'god' to glorify himself. This sounds like a one-personality-ego-drama-play,...its just 'God' self aggrandizing himself, at the expense of his own offspring (electing some, ABANDONING all others).

Metaphysically, of course,....all is God engaging himself within creation, and this Universal Consciousness is interacting in all space and time at various intervals and dimensions, so from a higher cosmic context,....God is all in all. But the 'total depravity' concept assumes the worse in man to an exaggerated degree, not recognizing the original image and likeness of Deity in man's creation and constitution. This original image/likeness includes similitude, attributes, qualities, function....the faculties of soul and spirit, 'freedom of choice', individual liberty, creative vocation, potential genius, etc. Total depravity desecrates 'original innocence' & 'original blessing'. I recommend 'Original Blessing' by Matthew Fox, a primer in 'Creation Spirituality' .

I choose to celebrate original goodness and blessing - that which is inherent in original creation. - this doesn't mean I reject all redemption/salvation myths or processes of transformation, for these have their place in man's return to Spirit, but let us not loose our essential roots in Spirit as spirit. This One Spirit is LIFE. Its about re-turning, because we turned away or from the original reality. 'Repentance' is returning the mind or consciousness back into its very source.

 

[Evil.Eye.<(I)>]

Yes, I agree, and that is why it is so complicated; for there appear to be many things which cannot be openly stated because of doctrine. For instance, the above, if they admit that they are offering you the free gift of salvation, (by joining their sect), and you accept; then you have demonstrated freewill by choosing to accept their offer. Therefore they cannot admit that they are offering you the free gift of God at the door because if you accept then by default every member of their congregation violates one of their highly esteemed doctrines. So they merely "preach", (what they believe), and all those whom "God draws" will come, (to them and their elect teachers). I do not need to have formerly been a member of their sect to be able to see this kind of reasoning flowing from the minds of their adherents. It's all an insidious shell game to avoid the glaring contradictions in an obviously concocted elitist medieval doctrine.

#Spot on!

 

[Evil.Eye.<(I)>]

Do I get a thread helper reward?

Quietly Whispering........ you're welcome.

 

[Evil.Eye.<(I)>]

!!!Morning Tally!!!

OP is being contested at point 2 by [MENTION=5671]nikolai_42[/MENTION]. Of all that have stepped up, he is currently the sole challenge to the OP. We currently have an open dialogue to fully convey his side of the issue.

I will provide a link to our last dialogue... Edit to come

Hint to [MENTION=5671]nikolai_42[/MENTION] and anyone assisting him... I will be building a case around 2 Peter 1:19-21 to fully assert 1 John 2:27's actual verbiage.

Additional note to [MENTION=5671]nikolai_42[/MENTION]... In this LINK I have attempted to assist in your scriptural search. This links to our current conversational progression.

There will be MUCH more, but I will not respond until Nikolai_42 is comfortable with my understanding of his scriptural assertions.

[MENTION=17195]daqq[/MENTION] remains the Deadliest Swordsman

 

[Evil.Eye.<(I)>]

In the meantime, while we are waiting...

Enjoy this dancing robot...

 

[Eagles Wings]

Quietly Whispering........ you're welcome.

I was thinking of this on a weekly basis, or as long as you keep rallying and tallying this thread.

http://www.salsadelivery.com/

 

[Brother Ducky]

[MENTION=10685]Brother Ducky[/MENTION]

You have just said "God Limits His Love". OP point 6 is there for that very reason.

I appreciate your reply and understand your views. Respect for your response.

[MENTION=18375]Evil.Eye.<(I)>[/MENTION]

Let me ask you this: Do you hold to some sort of Hell, a place of punishment for the unsaved? Do you believe that there there are those that are/will be unsaved?

 

[Evil.Eye.<(I)>]

Let me ask you this: Do you hold to some sort of Hell, a place of punishment for the unsaved? Do you believe that there there are those that are/will be unsaved?

Hell? Hell is in the Bible... right? Perhaps there is a Jewish word for Hell? [MENTION=10685]Brother Ducky[/MENTION], was the word "Hell" used in scripture, or is it actually another word?

The state of eternal punishment is a more divisive topic than the name of this OP. But, correct me if I'm wrong... you are now arguing that God is going to eternally torture humanity, that He made and predestined for an eternity of punishment for a max of 120 years of sin... while alive in the flesh. Do you, [MENTION=10685]Brother Ducky[/MENTION], believe in eternal, conscious torture?

... I believe in Gehenna or (Gehinnom Valley) and the way it presents itself in Old Testament prophecies that directly correlate with all New Testament verbiage.

But... I promised to maintain yes or no honesty and not wild goose chase verbiage. So...

Let me ask you this: Do you hold to some sort of Hell,

Yes

a place of punishment for the unsaved?

Yes

Do you believe that there there are those that are/will be unsaved?

Yes

Note... I have not fully answered this complex matter, but I left hints to the complexity we may encounter if you desire to assert this argument.

I'll bite and persist.

But I still maintain that we are discussing this matter. My call on your falling under contradiction to points 5 and 6 remains.