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

Ask Mr. Religion

☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) &#9
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
I thought that, according to Cavinism, the two types of persons are the ELECT, on the one hand, and the NON-ELECT, a.k.a. THE REPROBATE, on the other hand.
Those that love God are the regenerated elect.
Those that hate God are the unregenerated elect or the reprobate.


Were you, Ask Mr. Religion, ever unregenerate? Yes or No?

Were you, Ask Mr. Religion, ever a God-hater? Yes or No?

Were you, Ask Mr. Religion, ever IN ADAM? Yes or No?

Yes
Yes
Yes

http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...-Faith-Alone&p=4870220&viewfull=1#post4870220
http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...-Faith-Alone&p=4869475&viewfull=1#post4869475

Is there are point in all your above to be made?

AMR
 
Last edited:

Ask Mr. Religion

☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) &#9
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Now, how do you determine whether this or that particular rain event is an act of God's MERCY, OR, an act of God's GRACE?
How about you doing some heavy-lifting and answering your own question(s) and I will let you know where we are aligned or not?

AMR
 

Ask Mr. Religion

☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) &#9
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
You just judged her to be a non-believer.

Or, did you really mean "for it is but a rationale all non-believers [as well as at least some believers, like you, glorydaz] use to lessen their guilt and deserving of eternal punishment"?

You know what you did, there. We know, too.
Please don't put words into my mouth. Non-believers (unregenerated elect or reprobate) will always deny their dire state of affairs. They cannot not sin.

AMR
 

Idolater

"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
http://theologyonline.com/entry.php...not-Pejorative-Except-to-the-Overly-Sensitive

The term Romanist is not normally used as a pejorative, despite the claims of the Roman Catholic.
Sigh. You can't link to a blog entry, written by yourself, to support a point.

And if you're referring to people as something other than that as which those same people refer to themselves, and those same people 'claim' that your term that refers to them, is pejorative, then your claim, that it is not pejorative, stinks, of something like patriarchy, of something like disrespect, of something like elitism, of something very much like gas lighting.

Actually it's precisely gas lighting. It's precisely relieving oneself upon the back of another, and telling that other, that's it's only warm rain, and to not get upset, or be too sensitive.

So we'll just stick with Clavinism apparently. That's your choice.
Romanist is but a normative term for Roman Catholics, just as Calvinist is a loose synonym for the Reformed that espouse a particular view of the doctrines of grace, among many other things particular to the Reformed, yet not held by all Calvinists.

AMR
Clavinists. That's what I call em. We can engage in fruitful discussion, or we can call names. You pick. I'm fine, either way; but I do believe, that it'd be better for all involved if we can drop the name calling, and engage each other with more respect than that.

You don't have to call my theological position 'Catholic,' but 'Romanist,' 'Romish,' or things like this, are disrespectful, no matter what your own personal blog entry says from two years ago.
 

Ask Mr. Religion

☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) &#9
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Sigh. You can't link to a blog entry, written by yourself, to support a point.

The blog entry also included an external link, wherein Romanism is clearly stated to imply, contrary to the pejoratives you assume:

"Today the term is normally used to designate Roman Catholicism."

:AMR:

No matter, have at it as you are inclined. Now that you have made it clear you are a Roman Catholic occupying a Protestant pulpit, there are more fittingly appropriate labels that could be used. But I will demur as this will be the last communication from me to you moving forward.

AMR
 

Idolater

"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
The blog entry also included an external link, wherein Romanism is clearly stated to imply, contrary to the pejoratives you assume:

"Today the term is normally used to designate Roman Catholicism."

:AMR:
Clavinist, it is.

No Catholic has ever called themselves Romanist or Romish, that's Protestant speak, and it is pejorative, and if you persist in using it, in the face of being told that it is offensive, then it is pejorative with deliberate intent on your part, and plainly.

The accusation that I'm being too sensitive is gas lighting.
No matter, have at it as you are inclined.
Well, what else would I do? What else would you do?
Now that you have made it clear you are a Roman Catholic occupying a Protestant pulpit
False. I am not a Catholic. I am of the Catholic school of theology. And I'm not on a Protestant pulpit, I am anti-Protestant, without being overtly pro-episcopacy. I didn't ask to become persuaded to Catholicism, I did seek the truth diligently, as I continue to, and I also did fight against Catholicism as a theology stridently. I'm doing the honest thing, and being the best non-Catholic non-Orthodox pastor that I can be. Every one of us holds to some school of theological thought, mine is the Catholic one, and my vocation happens to be a counterfeit pastor of the Church, according to Catholic theology. You're going to have to explain what's so wrong with that.
, there are more fittingly appropriate labels that could be used.
Oh, let's explore some of them.
But I will demur as this will be the last communication from me to you moving forward.

AMR
Gas lighting is a particularly dark form of passive aggression.

We are free to join any theological school of thought that we prefer, just as you have freely joined the Clavinist school of thought. It's a human right.

So I'll take this farewell of yours as a 'tap out.' 'Seems about right, Clavinist.
 

MennoSota

New member
Sigh. You can't link to a blog entry, written by yourself, to support a point.

And if you're referring to people as something other than that as which those same people refer to themselves, and those same people 'claim' that your term that refers to them, is pejorative, then your claim, that it is not pejorative, stinks, of something like patriarchy, of something like disrespect, of something like elitism, of something very much like gas lighting.

Actually it's precisely gas lighting. It's precisely relieving oneself upon the back of another, and telling that other, that's it's only warm rain, and to not get upset, or be too sensitive.

So we'll just stick with Clavinism apparently. That's your choice.
Clavinists. That's what I call em. We can engage in fruitful discussion, or we can call names. You pick. I'm fine, either way; but I do believe, that it'd be better for all involved if we can drop the name calling, and engage each other with more respect than that.

You don't have to call my theological position 'Catholic,' but 'Romanist,' 'Romish,' or things like this, are disrespectful, no matter what your own personal blog entry says from two years ago.
You must hate Cheers.
f48030b9ebf51b0d413fe9f6cdb67b6e.jpg
 

Grosnick Marowbe

New member
Hall of Fame
Please don't put words into my mouth. Non-believers (unregenerated elect or reprobate) will always deny their dire state of affairs. They cannot not sin.

AMR

Until you mentioned the word 'ELECT' you were making good sense. I align my beliefs with the 'Gospel of the grace of God' as taught/preached by the Apostle Paul. I realize you and I will NEVER have a 'meeting of the minds' concerning faith and grace.
 

Hawkins

Active member
The big picture,

The question is rather what is His Elect.

God's Elect refers to how God foresaw with His foreknowledge that who are eligible to live an eternity with Him, based on how freewill works. He knew before hand who shall be saved. He knew before hand who is who. He knew who each of us is by our very nature that whether each of us can or cannot live an eternity with Him. Thus He wrote our ID in the Book of Life of the Lamb.

However it's not legitimate for God save anyone at will, or else Jesus is not required. Jesus is a must for redemption simply because God can't legitimately save at will. If a ruler can save at will, it only means that his realm is a lawless realm. You can imagine that if your city mayor can grant a pardon to any criminal at will, it only says that your city is lawless realm.

God thus needs to set a standard in order to identify or qualify with this standard to save anyone at all. This standard (applicable to humans only but not the angels) is commonly referred to as a covenant. In a nutshell, earth is for God to show that His Elect is the qualified, openly under witnessing (of the angels and chosen saints such as Moses).

John 5:45 (NIV2011)
But do not think I will accuse you before the Father. Your accuser is Moses, on whom your hopes are set.

Moses is not sleeping in grave, he's keeping an eye all the times. (so is Satan)

Revelation 12:10 (NIV2011)
Then I heard a loud voice in heaven say: “Now have come the salvation and the power and the kingdom of our God, and the authority of his Messiah. For the accuser of our brothers and sisters, who accuses them before our God day and night, has been hurled down.

On earth, humans' freewill are to be fully exercised to demonstrate who they actually are. It is much easier for the unsaved or wicked to show who they are. It is however difficult in a wicked world for the righteous to demonstrate to be the righteous. The righteous also sin on earth. Predestination is to provide a fate to the righteous such that they can be fully demonstrated as the qualified in their short life in a wicked world. To put it another way, without predestination, it's difficult or even impossible to distinguish the righteous from the wicked, or the saved from the unsaved. Predestination facilitates critical choices made by a freewill, such that a human can be fully demonstrated who he is. He thus can be judged by the covenant he is subject to.

Jesus' crucifixion simply made a covenant (including each and every covenant ever granted in the history of humanity) to be a possible and legitimate way of judging humans. Without a covenant in place, every human will have to be judged by God's absolute Law (which applies to angels all the times) thus not a single human is savable in this case. By the judgment of this absolute set of Law, some angels will be qualified, angels are living in the realm of God. When this same set of Law applies to humans no one can pass, as humans are literally living in a realm whether Satan can be referred to as the god of this world.

In effect, Jesus' crucifixion regained the right of judgment from the hands of the Law. This actually makes Him able to "grant a pardon to any criminal". However this is not done at will but by paying a dear price. Now Jesus Christ and God can legitimately grant such a pardon to anyone Jesus sees fit. We trust that He's a fair God to do so. This can be seen as a subjective judgment by Jesus Christ. Those disqualified (i.e., the unsaved or wicked) now can be judged by Law alone. It is now an objective judgment where no humans are expected to pass. The Final Judgment is two-layered, that is, a judgment of covenant followed by the judgment of God's absolute Law, with the saved exempted from the latter.
 

Idolater

"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
Until you mentioned the word 'ELECT' you were making good sense. I align my beliefs with the 'Gospel of the grace of God' as taught/preached by the Apostle Paul. I realize you and I will NEVER have a 'meeting of the minds' concerning faith and grace.
It's characteristic of Clavinists to read into the word 'elect' wherever it's found in Scripture, their own private interpretation of what it means. They say the 'elect' are even those who aren't yet, but will be, members of the Body of Christ, through faith in Christ and believing the Gospel. But I don't think that there's a single time where it makes any sense to read it as anything other than simply being synonymous with the Church herself, the Body of Christ as it is, not as it will become in the future. I.e., 'the elect' = the Body of Christ; the Church.

fwiw.
 

MennoSota

New member
The big picture,

The question is rather what is His Elect.

God's Elect refers to how God foresaw with His foreknowledge that who are eligible to live an eternity with Him, based on how freewill works. He knew before hand who shall be saved. He knew before hand who is who. He knew who each of us is by our very nature that whether each of us can or cannot live an eternity with Him. Thus He wrote our ID in the Book of Life of the Lamb.

However it's not legitimate for God save anyone at will, or else Jesus is not required. Jesus is a must for redemption simply because God can't legitimately save at will. If a ruler can save at will, it only means that his realm is a lawless realm. You can imagine that if your city mayor can grant a pardon to any criminal at will, it only says that your city is lawless realm.

God thus needs to set a standard in order to identify or qualify with this standard to save anyone at all. This standard (applicable to humans only but not the angels) is commonly referred to as a covenant. In a nutshell, earth is for God to show that His Elect is the qualified, openly under witnessing (of the angels and chosen saints such as Moses).

John 5:45 (NIV2011)
But do not think I will accuse you before the Father. Your accuser is Moses, on whom your hopes are set.

Moses is not sleeping in grave, he's keeping an eye all the times. (so is Satan)

Revelation 12:10 (NIV2011)
Then I heard a loud voice in heaven say: “Now have come the salvation and the power and the kingdom of our God, and the authority of his Messiah. For the accuser of our brothers and sisters, who accuses them before our God day and night, has been hurled down.

On earth, humans' freewill are to be fully exercised to demonstrate who they actually are. It is much easier for the unsaved or wicked to show who they are. It is however difficult in a wicked world for the righteous to demonstrate to be the righteous. The righteous also sin on earth. Predestination is to provide a fate to the righteous such that they can be fully demonstrated as the qualified in their short life in a wicked world. To put it another way, without predestination, it's difficult or even impossible to distinguish the righteous from the wicked, or the saved from the unsaved. Predestination facilitates critical choices made by a freewill, such that a human can be fully demonstrated who he is. He thus can be judged by the covenant he is subject to.

Jesus' crucifixion simply made a covenant (including each and every covenant ever granted in the history of humanity) to be a possible and legitimate way of judging humans. Without a covenant in place, every human will have to be judged by God's absolute Law (which applies to angels all the times) thus not a single human is savable in this case. By the judgment of this absolute set of Law, some angels will be qualified, angels are living in the realm of God. When this same set of Law applies to humans no one can pass, as humans are literally living in a realm whether Satan can be referred to as the god of this world.

In effect, Jesus' crucifixion regained the right of judgment from the hands of the Law. This actually makes Him able to "grant a pardon to any criminal". However this is not done at will but by paying a dear price. Now Jesus Christ and God can legitimately grant such a pardon to anyone Jesus sees fit. We trust that He's a fair God to do so. This can be seen as a subjective judgment by Jesus Christ. Those disqualified (i.e., the unsaved or wicked) now can be judged by Law alone. It is now an objective judgment where no humans are expected to pass. The Final Judgment is two-layered, that is, a judgment of covenant followed by the judgment of God's absolute Law, with the saved exempted from the latter.
Election is not dependent upon foreknowledge. Election is God sovereignly choosing as He wills, with no input or revelation as to why He made that particular choice.
God did what He did because He has the power and authority to do it. Human actions have no contingency upon God's choice. He is not constrained to wait upon the human will in order to make His decision. He decides because He is God and He can make the decision. God is not obligated.
 

nikolai_42

Well-known member
The big picture,

The question is rather what is His Elect.

God's Elect refers to how God foresaw with His foreknowledge that who are eligible to live an eternity with Him, based on how freewill works. He knew before hand who shall be saved. He knew before hand who is who. He knew who each of us is by our very nature that whether each of us can or cannot live an eternity with Him. Thus He wrote our ID in the Book of Life of the Lamb.

How and why did He know all this?
 

God's Truth

New member
And, that is 'The Gospel of the grace of God' as preached/taught by the Apostle Paul. (Romans through Philemon.)

It s the same gospel that Peter preached to Cornelius:

Acts 10

34 Then Peter began to speak: “I now realize how true it is that God does not show favoritism 35 but accepts from every nation the one who fears him and does what is right. 36 You know the message God sent to the people of Israel, announcing the good news of peace through Jesus Christ, who is Lord of all. 37 You know what has happened throughout the province of Judea, beginning in Galilee after the baptism that John preached— 38 how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and power, and how he went around doing good and healing all who were under the power of the devil, because God was with him.

39 “We are witnesses of everything he did in the country of the Jews and in Jerusalem. They killed him by hanging him on a cross, 40 but God raised him from the dead on the third day and caused him to be seen. 41 He was not seen by all the people, but by witnesses whom God had already chosen—by us who ate and drank with him after he rose from the dead. 42 He commanded us to preach to the people and to testify that he is the one whom God appointed as judge of the living and the dead. 43 All the prophets testify about him that everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name.”

44 While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit came on all who heard the message. 45 The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on Gentiles. 46 For they heard them speaking in tongues and praising God.
 
Top