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

[7djengo7]

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"?

 

[john w]

Here are common synonyms for duty:

• burden
• business
• charge
• chore
• commission
• commitment
• contract
• function
• job
• need
• obligation
• office
• role
• service
• task
• work
• calling
• committal
• devoir
• dues
• engagement
• hook
• load
• millstone
• mission
• must
• occupation
• onus
• pains
• part
• province
• station
• string
• trouble
• trust
• undertaking
• weight
• minding the store
• ought

So to promote duty faith or repentance for salvation is promoting salvation by works, by obligatory law keeping !

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?

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

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

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

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

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

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

 

[Idolater]

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.

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.

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.

Your username fits.

You never covet? Not even once?

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.

 

[7djengo7]

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!

 

[7djengo7]

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.

 

[Arthur Brain]

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.

 

[MennoSota]

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.

 

[MennoSota]

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.

Is God obligated to care about humans who are by nature in rebellion to His Sovereign rule?
Is He obligated? If so...why? If not...why?

 

[Arthur Brain]

Is God obligated to care about humans who are by nature in rebellion to His Sovereign rule?
Is He obligated? If so...why? If not...why?

Somehow, I think you'd be singing a different tune if you were the one on the cusp of such torment as you glibly prescribe for others who don't inform the "elect". Do you think your posts reflect the Biblical definition of love? You're no more deserving or worthy of being spared such are you?

 

[MennoSota]

Somehow, I think you'd be singing a different tune if you were the one on the cusp of such torment as you glibly prescribe for others who don't inform the "elect". Do you think your posts reflect the Biblical definition of love? You're no more deserving or worthy of being spared such are you?

Answer my question please.
Is God obligated to care about humans who are by nature in rebellion to His Sovereign rule?

Is He obligated? If so...why? If not...why?

 

[7djengo7]

Mercy is getting what you do not deserve.

Like when a man who has never committed a crime is convicted of the crime of, say, burglary, and sentenced to prison. He didn't commit the crime, he doesn't deserve the time, but he gets the time. That's what you call "mercy", really?

 

[Idolater]

Idol, you, yourself made the claim that you were duping your congregation

:AMR: You go right ahead and show us all where I said anything like that.

, which does not hold your theology.

You don't even know that.

You have been fairly called out by your own admission.

False. Supra.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Answer my question please.
Is God obligated to care about humans who are by nature in rebellion to His Sovereign rule?

Is He obligated? If so...why? If not...why?

If He really is a God of love then obligation wouldn't even come into it, else is He obliged to spare you?

 

[MennoSota]

If He really is a God of love then obligation wouldn't even come into it, else is He obliged to spare you?

You didn't answer my question. Please try again.

Is God obligated to care about humans who are by nature in rebellion to His Sovereign rule?

Is He obligated? If so...why? If not...why?

 

[MennoSota]

Art, do you love ISIS? Do you invite them into your home and bid them eat at your table with all their weapons in hand while you tell them why they need you?
Are you obligated to love ISIS exactly as they are, with no expectations that they will change?
Are you a man of love, Art? Go to ISIS and prove it to us. Or...are you not obligated?

 

[7djengo7]

Do you often speak in double negatives?

What, if anything, do you mean by the phrase "double negatives"? Do you mean something like what Ask Mr. Religion wrote:

...man's moral inability for all in Adam. They cannot not sin.

where he said "they cannot not sin"?

Forgive me, but I do not follow you. Can you please try to explain what (if anything) you were trying to say?

Here is the sentence I wrote, which you quoted, typing the phrase, "double negatives":

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?

Are you saying that there is something I wrote, therein, to which you are, for some reason,trying to relate your phrase, "double negative"? Indeed, the word 'not' is a word of negation, and, sleuth that you are, you noticed that I had written it twice--that is, doubly--in the sentence you have quoted. Is that why you used the phrase "double negative" in reaction to what I wrote in my post?

I, personally, don't see anything, in the sentence which you quoted from my post, to which the phrase "double negative" could have any relevance. So, what (if anything) were you trying to say, exactly?

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

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,

If this is the way things will go, count me out. No one is obliged to meet your standards and tenor of discourse. Nor mine for that matter. You have been answered and I will leave things at that. If you would rather not engage me then refrain from doing so. Instead why not just make it clear that you are content to use me as a foil to continue your rhetoric for the hoi polloi. I have no problem being personally held up to ridicule. That said, I suspect the purpose of this forum is not for mere caviling, but actual reasoned dialog concerning sacred matters.

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.

Regeneration does not result in complete understanding of all that Scripture teaches. Sanctification is the process by which one grows in their understanding in their walk of faith. Some will come to know more than others by their due diligence, gifts, capabilities, etc.

Like when a man who has never committed a crime is convicted of the crime of, say, burglary, and sentenced to prison. He didn't commit the crime, he doesn't deserve the time, but he gets the time. That's what you call "mercy", really?

If you are carefully reading me "mercy is getting what you do not deserve" implies righteous desserts. Accordingly, your example is a category error. :AMR:

AMR