Hypocrisy Of Calvinism Huxters' Talk Of Efficacy

[7djengo7]

In his Exposition Of The Epistle To The Romans, the Calvinist, Robert Haldane, wrote:

A just God cannot punish a second time for the same offence. If Christ has paid the debt of all sinners, there is nothing remaining to pay in the case of any man. Would it be just that any should be punished in hell for the sins for which Christ was punished on earth? If Christ bore the sins of all men in his own body on the tree, shall any man bear them a second time?

Yet, according to Calvinism's cherished Westminster Larger Catechism, even the ELECT, themselves, suffer at least some of the punishment due at least some of their sin:

Q. 28. What are the punishments of sin in this world?

A. The punishments of sin in this world are either inward, as blindness of mind, a reprobate sense, strong delusions, hardness of heart, horror of conscience, and vile affections; or outward, as the curse of God upon the creatures for our sakes, and all other evils that befall us in our bodies, names, estates, relations, and employments; together with death itself.

Would it be just that any ELECT person should be punished on earth (in his/her blindness of mind, reprobate sense, strong delusions, hardness of heart, horror of conscience, vile affections, and all the evils that befall the ELECT in their bodies, names, estates, relations, employments, and in death, itself)--would it be just that any ELECT person should be punished in suffering one or more of these things for the sins for which Christ was punished on earth?

We know that Robert Haldane died in 1842. According to the Westminster Larger Catechism, his death (among other things) was a punishment he, himself, suffered, in this world, for his own sin. So, in case Robert Haldane was one of the elect, it is clear that (as per the WLC) he, himself, was punished, in this world, for sins for which Christ had already been punished on earth.

According to Calvinism, Robert Haldane bore, in his own body, a second time, at least some of the sins which, some 1,800 years earlier, Christ had already borne, in His own body, on the tree.

So, according to Calvinism, to whatever end Christ's having been punished for His elect, Robert Haldane's sin, is said to have been efficacious, it is clear that, according to Calvinism, it failed to be efficacious for preventing His elect, Robert Haldane, from also being punished for his own sin.

A just God cannot punish a second time for the same offence. If Christ has paid the debt of [His ELECT, Robert Haldane], there is nothing remaining to pay in the case of [His ELECT, Robert Haldane]. Would it be just that [His ELECT, Robert Haldane] should be punished [in his own body, on earth] for the sins for which Christ was punished on earth? If Christ bore the sins of [His ELECT, Robert Haldane] in his own body on the tree, shall [His ELECT, Robert Haldane] bear them a second time?

And yet, the ELECT, Robert Haldane did die, and so, according to Calvinism, the ELECT, Robert Haldane, did bear his own sins a second time which Christ had already borne in His own body on the tree.

 

[GregoryN]

"A just God cannot punish a second time for the same offence. If Christ has paid the debt of all sinners, there is nothing remaining to pay in the case of any man. Would it be just that any should be punished in hell for the sins for which Christ was punished on earth?"

People in "hell" aren't being "punished...for sins for which Christ" died for them. People in "hell" are there to be corrected, humbled, repent & be saved.

1 Cor.5:3b I have already pronounced judgment on the one who did this, just as if I were present.
1 Cor.5:4 In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, 5 hand this man over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved on the day of the Lord.

1 Tim.1:19 holding on to faith and a good conscience, which some have rejected and so have suffered shipwreck with regard to the faith. 20 Among them are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have handed over to Satan to be taught not to blaspheme.…

Ecc 1:13 I applied my heart to inquiring and exploring by wisdom concerning all that is done under the heavens: it is an experience of evil Elohim has given to the sons of humanity to humble them by it.

Dan.4:33 The same hour was the thing fulfilled upon Nebuchadnezzar: and he was driven from men, and did eat grass as oxen, and his body was wet with the dew of heaven, till his hairs were grown like eagles' feathers, and his nails like birds' claws.
34a But at the end of that period, I, Nebuchadnezzar, raised my eyes toward heaven and my reason returned to me, and I blessed the Most High and praised and honored Him...

36 At that time my reason returned to me. And my majesty and splendor were restored to me for the glory of my kingdom, and my counselors and my nobles began seeking me out; so I was reestablished in my sovereignty, and surpassing greatness was added to me.
37 Now I, Nebuchadnezzar, praise, exalt and honor the King of heaven, for all His works are true and His ways just, and He is able to humble those who walk in pride.

Isa.57:17 “Because of the iniquity of his unjust gain I was angry and struck him;
I hid My face and was angry, And he went on turning away, in the way of his heart.

18“I have seen his ways, but I will heal him;
I will lead him and restore comfort to him and to his mourners,

Mat 18:34 And his lord was wroth, and delivered him to the tormentors, till he should pay all that was due unto him.

Because I have sinned against him, I will bear the LORD’s wrath, until he pleads my case and upholds my cause. He will bring me out into the light;I will see his righteousness. (Micah 7:9)

http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?130333-The-Restitution-Of-All-Things-AKA-Universalism

 

[MennoSota]

"A just God cannot punish a second time for the same offence. If Christ has paid the debt of all sinners, there is nothing remaining to pay in the case of any man. Would it be just that any should be punished in hell for the sins for which Christ was punished on earth?"

People in "hell" aren't being "punished...for the sins for which Christ" died for them, namely all the sins of all fallen beings of all time. People in "hell" are there to be corrected, humbled, repent & be saved.

1 Cor.5:3b I have already pronounced judgment on the one who did this, just as if I were present.
1 Cor.5:4 In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, 5 hand this man over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved on the day of the Lord.

1 Tim.1:19 holding on to faith and a good conscience, which some have rejected and so have suffered shipwreck with regard to the faith. 20 Among them are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have handed over to Satan to be taught not to blaspheme.…

Ecc 1:13 I applied my heart to inquiring and exploring by wisdom concerning all that is done under the heavens: it is an experience of evil Elohim has given to the sons of humanity to humble them by it.

Dan.4:33 The same hour was the thing fulfilled upon Nebuchadnezzar: and he was driven from men, and did eat grass as oxen, and his body was wet with the dew of heaven, till his hairs were grown like eagles' feathers, and his nails like birds' claws.
34a But at the end of that period, I, Nebuchadnezzar, raised my eyes toward heaven and my reason returned to me, and I blessed the Most High and praised and honored Him...

36 At that time my reason returned to me. And my majesty and splendor were restored to me for the glory of my kingdom, and my counselors and my nobles began seeking me out; so I was reestablished in my sovereignty, and surpassing greatness was added to me.
37 Now I, Nebuchadnezzar, praise, exalt and honor the King of heaven, for all His works are true and His ways just, and He is able to humble those who walk in pride.

Isa.57:17 “Because of the iniquity of his unjust gain I was angry and struck him;
I hid My face and was angry, And he went on turning away, in the way of his heart.

18“I have seen his ways, but I will heal him;
I will lead him and restore comfort to him and to his mourners,

Mat 18:34 And his lord was wroth, and delivered him to the tormentors, till he should pay all that was due unto him.

Because I have sinned against him, I will bear the LORD’s wrath, until he pleads my case and upholds my cause. He will bring me out into the light;I will see his righteousness. (Micah 7:9)

Christ didn't die for all sinners. Christ died for those the Father has given Him. The all is all the elect.
Under your view, humans can be atheists and mockers of God, yet they are atoned for. You preach cheap grace.

 

[Idolater]

Yeah but you're proving something wrong. Why don't you prove something right instead? If Clavinism is incorrect, then what is correct?

 

[GregoryN]

Under your view, humans can be atheists and mockers of God, yet they are atoned for. You preach cheap grace.

Then do you also "preach cheap grace"? Is it not true that "Under your view, humans can be atheists and mockers of God, yet they are atoned for." Was not even a Christ blaspheming serial killer of Christians atoned for (1 Tim.1:12-16)? Or do you deny this? Or just not know what your own doctrine says?

http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?130333-The-Restitution-Of-All-Things-AKA-Universalism

 

[john w]

Christ didn't die for all sinners. Christ died for those the Father has given Him. The all is all the elect.
Under your view, humans can be atheists and mockers of God, yet they are atoned for. You preach cheap grace.

Cheap grace, you mumble? Vs. Calvinism's satanic easy workism-"perserverance of the saints."

So there.

 

[7djengo7]

Yeah but you're proving something wrong. Why don't you prove something right instead? If Clavinism is incorrect, then what is correct?

I beg your pardon, but, are you addressing me?

 

[7djengo7]

Christ didn't die for all sinners. Christ died for those the Father has given Him. The all is all the elect.
Under your view, humans can be atheists and mockers of God, yet they are atoned for. You preach cheap grace.

Although your post in this thread which I started is irrelevant to this thread which I started, I, nevertheless, will take the opportunity to say thanks to you for the (unsolicited, yet welcome) further revelation regarding your irrational ideology!

Clearly, you take issue against someone saying that a person who is an atheist can become converted from being an atheist to being a Christian. In other words, according to you, no person who is a Christian could ever have been an atheist, even before he/she was converted to Christianity, and regenerated by the Holy Spirit. That is, no Christian is a former atheist. Same for persons who are mockers of God; you think that no person who is a Christian can have, in time past, been a mocker of God. No Christian is a former God-mocker.

What were you before you became a Calvinist? A Hallmark Precious Moments artist?

 

[7djengo7]

Then do you also "preach cheap grace"? Is it not true that "Under your view, humans can be atheists and mockers of God, yet they are atoned for." Was not even a Christ blaspheming serial killer of Christians atoned for (1 Tim.1:12-16)? Or do you deny this? Or just not know what your own doctrine says?

http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?130333-The-Restitution-Of-All-Things-AKA-Universalism

MennoSota, like most Calvinism hucksters, will NEVER answer questions directed to him regarding what, exactly, he will deny and what, exactly, he will affirm. He will ALWAYS stonewall against every question you ask him about Calvinism, and he will ALWAYS try to divert your attention to anything other than the fact that he is incapable of defending Calvinism against what you have stated or asked. He will NEVER deal honestly with you while trying to push his ideology. He got so angry at me, for asking him simple questions which necessarily pitted Calvinism against Calvinism, that he started calling me "twisted". And, it got to the point where, apparently (and, understandably) finding no personal satisfaction in doing that, he desperately started repeatedly submitting posts with a picture of a pretzel, and no text, hoping that he might, therein, be able to satisfy some of his wrath.

In the present scene, in this thread, he has, as you are aware, just stated that Jesus never died for mockers of God, which necessarily implies that no person who has ever been converted to Christianity was ever a mocker of God, even before his/her conversion! Amazing!

MennoSota, like most Calvinists, doesn't think in terms of the necessary consequences of the things he affirms/denies while trying to push Calvinism, which is why, when you point out those necessary consequences, he plays dumb, and stonewalls against your question as to whether he affirms or denies those entailed propositions. MennoSota, like most Calvinists, is addicted to irrationality, and bristles when someone shines light on just how destructively his tenets grind against themselves.

 

[Idolater]

I beg your pardon, but, are you addressing me?

Yes. You're going really hard at the Clavinist school of theological thought. What's your own school? Once you burn down Clavinism, until it's ashes, then to which theological school do Clavinists go?

 

[7djengo7]

Yes. You're going really hard at the Clavinist school of theological thought. What's your own school? Once you burn down Clavinism, until it's ashes, then to which theological school do Clavinists go?

I've been pitting tenets of Calvinism against tenets of Calvinism...or, at least, I've been pitting tenets of purported apologists for Calvinism against tenets of purported apologists for Calvinism. To what, exactly, are you referring by the term, "Clavinism"? I'm not familiar with that term.

Also, what do you mean by "burn down" in regards to a school of theological thought? What, exactly, would it be for a school of theological thought to be burned down?

 

[Idolater]

I've been pitting tenets of Calvinism against tenets of Calvinism...or, at least, I've been pitting tenets of purported apologists for Calvinism against tenets of purported apologists for Calvinism.

I know; I've been watching, participating some.

To what, exactly, are you referring by the term, "Clavinism"? I'm not familiar with that term.

'Clavinism' is to reformed theology, what 'Romanism' or 'papism' is to Catholic theology.

It's a barb. Turnabout being fair play and all that.

Also, what do you mean by "burn down" in regards to a school of theological thought? What, exactly, would it be for a school of theological thought to be burned down?

It would be utterly discredited. Only wonton fools would subscribe. Like flat earth.

But I still want to know, once you're successful, what is your opinion, about where those then formerly of that theological school, should instead turn?

What is your theological position? Which school? I'm of the Catholic school.

 

[7djengo7]

It would be utterly discredited. Only wonton fools would subscribe.

Mmmm. Now I'm hungry for Chinese food.

Anyway, what is your take on those who presently "subscribe" to reformed theology, since what you said implies that reformed theology has yet to be burned down? Would you say that those who presently "subscribe" to reformed theology, which has not yet been burned down, are not "wonton [sic] fools"?

 

[meshak]

Yes. You're going really hard at the Clavinist school of theological thought. What's your own school? Once you burn down Clavinism, until it's ashes, then to which theological school do Clavinists go?

don't you mean Calvinism?

 

[Idolater]

Mmmm. Now I'm hungry for Chinese food.

Who needs editors.

Anyway, what is your take on those who presently "subscribe" to reformed theology, since what you said implies that reformed theology has yet to be burned down?

They're mistaken.

Would you say that those who presently "subscribe" to reformed theology, which has not yet been burned down, are not "wonton [sic] fools"?

You're supposed to italicize the 'sic.'

Now, what are you again? I've asked twice.

 

[Idolater]

don't you mean Calvinism?

Obviously. And I'm now on record as saying it. I'm not being subtle in stealing 'Clavin' from St. John W. He invented it, and I blatantly plagiarize him, in his honor. I never thought that it wasn't very clear what I mean by 'Clavin:' John "Cliff/Cliffy" Clavin.

 

[7djengo7]

'Clavinism' is to reformed theology, what 'Romanism' or 'papism' is to Catholic theology.

It's a barb. Turnabout being fair play and all that.

Exactly how is referring to the Vatican's teachings and practices as "Romanism" to be understood as a barb? People who conscientiously use the term "Romanism", as opposed to the terms "Roman Catholicism" and "Catholicism", are saying, in it, that

1. the teachings and practices to which they are referring, by it, proceed from the Vatican, in Rome, the city of the Roman(s) (hence, "Roman-ism"), and that

2. those teachings and practices are not rightly to be called 'catholic' (let alone with a capital C).

You consider their stating their honest disagreement with a certain manner of using the word, 'catholic', to be a barb? To whom do you consider it to be a barb, and why?

Since, obviously, the terms "Roman Catholicism" and "Catholicism" are out of the question for them (as these terms are freighted with implication in direct conflict with what they believe), exactly what term would you recommend they use, instead of 'Romanism', whereby they need not pretend to approve of a usage of the word 'catholic' which they honestly do not accept, and whereby they will not be considered as guilty of laying a barb by those who consider the term 'Romanism' to be a barb?

 

[7djengo7]

Who needs editors.

With this one, you could plausibly claim that the period instead of a question mark was a deliberate joke. Perhaps it was.

 

[7djengo7]

You're supposed to italicize the 'sic.'

Supposed? By whom?

 

[7djengo7]

Now, what are you again? I've asked twice.

I'm a jazz guitarist, still.