The LORD is not willing that any should perish

beameup

New member
The Lord is not slow about His promise,
as some count slowness, but is patient
toward you, not wishing for any to perish :burnlib:
but for all to come to repentance.

1 Peter 3:9

The LORD descended in the cloud and stood there with him [Moses] as he called upon the name of the LORD. Then the LORD passed by in front of him and proclaimed, “The LORD, the LORD God, compassionate and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in lovingkindness and truth; who keeps lovingkindness for thousands, who forgives iniquity, transgression and sin; yet He will by no means leave the guilty unpunished
Exodus 34:5-7a
 

Nanja

Well-known member
The Lord is not slow about His promise,
as some count slowness, but is patient
toward you, not wishing for any to perish :burnlib:
but for all to come to repentance.

1 Peter 3:9


The "any" that God is not wlling to perish in 2 Pet. 3:9 are all the ones the Father had given to the Son:

John 6:37-39
All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out. For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me. And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.


However, all the rest of mankind are the non- elect, the ungodly, which are being reserved for punishment in that last Day of Judgment.


2 Pet. 2:9
The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished:


Rev. 22:11
He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still.
 

beloved57

Well-known member
Exactly, those that the Father draws to the Son shall be raised up on the Last Day John 6:44!

Amen, thats why Christ died and rose for them, to give them repentance Acts 5:31

[FONT=&quot]Him hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins.

​Those are the ones God wants to come to repentance, those Christ was raised a Saviour for ![/FONT]
 

Nanja

Well-known member
Amen, thats why Christ died and rose for them, to give them repentance Acts 5:31

[FONT="]Him hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins.

​Those are the ones God wants to come to repentance, those Christ was raised a Saviour for ![/FONT]


Yes, and He was raised a Saviour for His Chosen People Eph. 1:4-5 Israel Is. 45:17, jew and Gentile.
 

beloved57

Well-known member
The "elect" refers to the "elect" of Israel, which are Hebrews of the 12 Tribes of Israel.
The "Body of Christ" is a wholly different and separate entity.

That is the Church. For Israel according to the flesh, are not the children of God Rom 9:8 so they can't be elect.
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
The Lord is not slow about His promise,
as some count slowness, but is patient
toward you, not wishing for any to perish :burnlib:
but for all to come to repentance.

1 Peter 3:9

The LORD descended in the cloud and stood there with him [Moses] as he called upon the name of the LORD. Then the LORD passed by in front of him and proclaimed, “The LORD, the LORD God, compassionate and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in lovingkindness and truth; who keeps lovingkindness for thousands, who forgives iniquity, transgression and sin; yet He will by no means leave the guilty unpunished
Exodus 34:5-7a

God doesn't always get what He wants...

Luke 7:30 But the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the will of God for themselves, not having been baptized by him.

Isiah 5:5 Now let me sing to my Well-beloved
A song of my Beloved regarding His vineyard:

My Well-beloved has a vineyard
On a very fruitful hill.
2 He dug it up and cleared out its stones,
And planted it with the choicest vine.
He built a tower in its midst,
And also made a winepress in it;
So He expected it to bring forth good grapes,
But it brought forth wild grapes.

3 “And now, O inhabitants of Jerusalem and men of Judah,
Judge, please, between Me and My vineyard.
4 What more could have been done to My vineyard
That I have not done in it?
Why then, when I expected it to bring forth good grapes,
Did it bring forth wild grapes?
5 And now, please let Me tell you what I will do to My vineyard:
I will take away its hedge, and it shall be burned;
And break down its wall, and it shall be trampled down.
6 I will lay it waste;
It shall not be pruned or dug,
But there shall come up briers and thorns.
I will also command the clouds
That they rain no rain on it.”

7 For the vineyard of the Lord of hosts is the house of Israel,
And the men of Judah are His pleasant plant.
He looked for justice, but behold, oppression;
For righteousness, but behold, a cry for help.
 

beloved57

Well-known member
In light of 2 Pet 3:9 and God not willing that any should perish, what according to scripture has God done to prevent them from perishing that He's not willing should perish ?
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
In light of 2 Pet 3:9 and God not willing that any should perish, what according to scripture has God done to prevent them from perishing that He's not willing should perish ?

He gave His life for them.
 

Idolater

Well-known member
In light of 2 Pet 3:9 and God not willing that any should perish, what according to scripture has God done to prevent them from perishing that He's not willing should perish ?
If God doesn't will someone to perish, then He doesn't work to make that death happen, but what if He doesn't stop the death from occurring? Is He thereby guilty of the death anyway? The Calvinist and correct answer is no, of course not. God is not responsible for something coming to be if He Himself did not work to bring it about; and if someone else works to bring about a foul ending, but God opts to not intercede, then He is still not guilty of that foul ending that someone else brought about. If someone decides that they're going to stubbornly refuse to believe in Christ, and God doesn't intercede, then that fool will get his wish, and he will perish, but it was not because God was willing that he perish, it was only that God in His wisdom did not see fit to intercede, and instead opted to let this fool have his wish, even though it was contrary to his own prosperity, the fool didn't care, and God in this hypothetical case has the right to let him have his wish. In so doing, or rather in so abstaining, God is not willing that this fool should perish, He's just not opting to intercede. If we were to hold God to the standard that, if He is able to convert every soul to Christ, but He chooses not to, then He is somehow diminished in holiness or glory, then we are putting ourselves over God, because only God can judge God, and the Calvinists in their logic do honestly endeavor to render unto God all the glory that is due Him, even to the point of making it sound as if they simply assign the blame for those in hell on God Himself, because He had the power to convert each of them, but chose not to. This is just corollary with the notion that the only way that anybody comes to believe in Christ is through divine intervention, every saved soul was uniquely chosen by God, because that is the only way that that soul could ever come to believe in Christ. We are Totally Depraved, iow, so in order for us to come to believe in Christ, that total depravity must be overcome through particular divine intervention, rather than a general intervention that overcomes all our total depravity at once. This is based upon nothing, Unconditional Election. The Limited Atonement is just because God knew whom He foreknew when His Son offered Himself as sacrifice upon the altar of the cross, the eternal sacrifice, slain from the foundation of the world. As a result of our depravity being total, and it requiring a particular divine intervention to overcome, God the Spirit's work upon the soul ("Grace") must be Irresistible. And then once we come to faith (once we become Saints) through our own free choice, made possible by the direct work of God, we are eternally Preserved and Persevere. We are a new creation.

But I'm Catholic, and you all should go to Mass.
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
If God doesn't will someone to perish, then He doesn't work to make that death happen, but what if He doesn't stop the death from occurring? Is He thereby guilty of the death anyway? The Calvinist and correct answer is no, of course not. God is not responsible for something coming to be if He Himself did not work to bring it about; and if someone else works to bring about a foul ending, but God opts to not intercede, then He is still not guilty of that foul ending that someone else brought about. If someone decides that they're going to stubbornly refuse to believe in Christ, and God doesn't intercede, then that fool will get his wish, and he will perish, but it was not because God was willing that he perish, it was only that God in His wisdom did not see fit to intercede, and instead opted to let this fool have his wish, even though it was contrary to his own prosperity, the fool didn't care, and God in this hypothetical case has the right to let him have his wish. In so doing, or rather in so abstaining, God is not willing that this fool should perish, He's just not opting to intercede. If we were to hold God to the standard that, if He is able to convert every soul to Christ, but He chooses not to, then He is somehow diminished in holiness or glory, then we are putting ourselves over God, because only God can judge God, and the Calvinists in their logic do honestly endeavor to render unto God all the glory that is due Him, even to the point of making it sound as if they simply assign the blame for those in hell on God Himself, because He had the power to convert each of them, but chose not to. This is just corollary with the notion that the only way that anybody comes to believe in Christ is through divine intervention, every saved soul was uniquely chosen by God, because that is the only way that that soul could ever come to believe in Christ. We are Totally Depraved, iow, so in order for us to come to believe in Christ, that total depravity must be overcome through particular divine intervention, rather than a general intervention that overcomes all our total depravity at once. This is based upon nothing, Unconditional Election. The Limited Atonement is just because God knew whom He foreknew when His Son offered Himself as sacrifice upon the altar of the cross, the eternal sacrifice, slain from the foundation of the world. As a result of our depravity being total, and it requiring a particular divine intervention to overcome, God the Spirit's work upon the soul ("Grace") must be Irresistible. And then once we come to faith (once we become Saints) through our own free choice, made possible by the direct work of God, we are eternally Preserved and Persevere. We are a new creation.

But I'm Catholic, and you all should go to Mass.
You have no idea what you're talking about. There is no "opt" in the Calvinist worldview, not for people or for God. God does NOT "opt to not intercede" there is nothing for Him to not interceded into because He didn't just plan it all, He ordained it all, He predestined it all and is actively making it all happen. There isn't a rouge electron in all of the universe according to the Calvinist.

“The devil, and the whole train of the ungodly, are in all directions, held in by the hand of God as with a bridle, so that they can neither conceive any mischief, nor plan what they have conceived, nor how muchsoever they may have planned, move a single finger to perpetrate, unless in so far as he permits, nay unless in so far as he commands, that they are not only bound by his fetters but are even forced to do him service” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 1, Chapter 17, Paragraph 11)​
“thieves and murderers, and other evildoers, are instruments of divine providence, being employed by the Lord himself to execute judgments which he has resolved to inflict.” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 1, Chapter 17, Paragraph 5)​


Not that you Catholics are much better. Calvin and Luther both got all this nonsense from one of YOUR church fathers. Augustin of Hippo is where all of this unbiblical theological nonsense comes from and he imported it from Plato.

Augustine was the only Christian bishop in history known to have been heavily influenced as a young man by participating in the three most highly deterministic systems that have ever existed—Gnostic Manichaeism, Neoplatonism, and Stoicism. Augustine's deterministic ideas did not come from the apostle Paul (a Pharisee who believed in free choice). Over fifty earlier Christian authors fought against those fated philosophies by teaching free choice. This new knowledge of how and why Augustine moved back into pagan determinism should greatly concern us. When these facts are combined with the knowledge that both Luther and Calvin mistakenly believed [along with countless reformed pastors today, that] Augustine was merely teaching what all the earliest church fathers taught, Augustinian-Calvinism is exposed as built upon an unstable foundation of pagan sand. Beginning with "God is sovereign" is not a Christian, but a Stoic foundation of philosophical theology.​
- Oxford Ph.D. expert on Augustine, Ken Wilson, 2019, PROOF: The Foundation of Augustinian-Calvinism p. 94​

"...what was the cause of evil. Whatever that cause might be, I saw that no explanation would do which would force me to believe the immutable God mutable. -Augustine, Confessions Book 7 Sect. III (4)

Clete
 
Last edited:

Idolater

Well-known member
You have no idea what you're talking about.
Untrue.
There is no "opt" in the Calvinist worldview, not for people or for God.
Untrue. God chooses according to His good pleasure.
God does NOT "opt to not intercede" there is nothing for Him to not interceded into because He didn't just plan it all, He ordained it all, He predestined it all and is actively making it all happen.
The last part is Calvinism, the other stuff you just imported your own faulty notion of Calvinism. Where you say ordain and predestine, you do not mean what the Calvinists mean by those words, they simply mean choice. God has the sovereign choice, He reserves the right to dictate what occurs in His creation, which is simply His property right, if you are so inclined. Him reserving His property right and exercising it is all that the cogent Calvinists think is going on, God requires no justification or defense for His choices and actions.

And His activity to the cogent Calvinist involves influencing our decisions based on Him knowing who we are as people, combined with our circumstances that are beyond our control but not beyond His control. When He makes something happen, it can be very passive on His part, if He were to simply permit someone with a certain nature or personality, to do what they deliberately intend to do.
There isn't a rouge [sic] electron in all of the universe according to the Calvinist.
Nor to the physicist.
“The devil, and the whole train of the ungodly, are in all directions, held in by the hand of God as with a bridle, so that they can neither conceive any mischief, nor plan what they have conceived, nor how muchsoever they may have planned, move a single finger to perpetrate, unless in so far as he permits, nay unless in so far as he commands, that they are not only bound by his fetters but are even forced to do him service” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 1, Chapter 17, Paragraph 11)​
Nobody cares what Calvin said. And I mean it in the meaningful way to you: no Calvinist cares what Calvin said. Calvin sparked a movement, sort of like Darwin did, but neither Calvin nor Darwin speaks for the movement today. Calvinists are beyond Calvin, they took the logic that Calvin proffered, and they've run with it. And the closest thing to a canon of Calvinism is the Westminster catechisms and statement of faith. And Westminster does not subject itself to Calvin's teaching authority either.
“thieves and murderers, and other evildoers, are instruments of divine providence, being employed by the Lord himself to execute judgments which he has resolved to inflict.” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 1, Chapter 17, Paragraph 5)​
This is literally what God said He did, in Isaiah for one example.
Not that you Catholics are much better.
We are categorically better. The Apostolic teaching, on divine providence finishes what Calvinist teaching, on divine sovereignty, sets out to do, but failed to accomplish.
Calvin and Luther both got all this nonsense from one of YOUR church fathers. Augustin of Hippo is where all of this unbiblical theological nonsense comes from and he imported it from Plato.

Augustine was the only Christian bishop in history known to have been heavily influenced as a young man by participating in the three most highly deterministic systems that have ever existed—Gnostic Manichaeism, Neoplatonism, and Stoicism. Augustine's deterministic ideas did not come from the apostle Paul (a Pharisee who believed in free choice). Over fifty earlier Christian authors fought against those fated philosophies by teaching free choice. This new knowledge of how and why Augustine moved back into pagan determinism should greatly concern us. When these facts are combined with the knowledge that both Luther and Calvin mistakenly believed [along with countless reformed pastors today, that] Augustine was merely teaching what all the earliest church fathers taught, Augustinian-Calvinism is exposed as built upon an unstable foundation of pagan sand. Beginning with "God is sovereign" is not a Christian, but a Stoic foundation of philosophical theology.​
- Oxford Ph.D. expert on Augustine, Ken Wilson, 2019, PROOF: The Foundation of Augustinian-Calvinism p. 94​
Failed appeal to authority. This is the logical fallacy of the invalid appeal to authority. There is no such man who's word alone establishes and sustains any charge made against Augustine, including such a statement as I emphasized above, that somehow anyone else would agree, who doesn't have an axe to grind (who isn't biased), that "Augustine moved back into pagan" anything.

You'd have to demonstrate the whole field of PhD experts on Augustine basically uniformly believed the same thing, for this to be possibly a valid appeal to authority, but you haven't done that, you've only quoted a "PhD expert on Augustine".

This is a non-authoritative opinion, offered by a Noncatholic, of a Catholic bishop. Everybody's got opinions. Calling this guy an Oxford PhD and an expert on Augustine as if his opinion is weightier than anybody else's is, is a fallacy.
"...what was the cause of evil. Whatever that cause might be, I saw that no explanation would do which would force me to believe the immutable God mutable. -Augustine, Confessions Book 7 Sect. III (4)

Clete
That has nothing do with Calvinism, red herring.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lon

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
Saying it doesn't make it so.
Untrue. God chooses according to His good pleasure.
Not according to Calvin.

According to Calvin (and Augustine) there is no choosing. God is immutable. There is NO potentiality of any sort in God - period. Any talk of God's good pleasure is some sort of figure of speech and is only said so as to communicate something about God that our puny human minds can comprehend.

The last part is Calvinism, the other stuff you just imported your own faulty notion of Calvinism.
Saying it doesn't make it so.

Where you say ordain and predestine, you do not mean what the Calvinists mean by those words, they simply mean choice.
This was simple lie or you've been lied to and are simply repeating it. I do mean PRECISELY what Calvinists mean by them. (By "Calvinists" I mean educated Calvinists, not pew sitting Christians who don't think for more than an hour and a half a week about these issues.)

I have the quotes both from prominent Calvinists and from Calvin himself to prove what I've said, not to mention going on three decades of personal experience debating these exact issues with Calvinists. What have you got, your bald claim to the contrary?

I don't know what you think Calvinism is and I don't really care. I'm telling you that Calvinist theologians DO NOT believe that God actually chooses anything because if He did it would introduce potentialities in God which would mean He is mutable and thus wouldn't be perfect and thus wouldn't be God - a line of thinking straight out of Plato's writings, by the way.

God has the sovereign choice, He reserves the right to dictate what occurs in His creation, which is simply His property right, if you are so inclined. Him reserving His property right and exercising it is all that the cogent Calvinists think is going on, God requires no justification or defense for His choices and actions.
There isn't any such thing as a Calvinist that would agree with a syllable of any of this.

They do not believe that God has "rights" or that God even makes decisions in the way you are suggesting. Any such talk is considered an anthropomorphism at most.
And His activity to the cogent Calvinist involves influencing our decisions based on Him knowing who we are as people, combined with our circumstances that are beyond our control but not beyond His control.
This is laughably wrong! This is what open theists teach, not Calvinists! Calvin would flip over in his grave if anyone taught such a thing in his name. Calvinism's God does not influence, He determines, He does not help, He ordains, He does not wish, He commands.

When He makes something happen, it can be very passive on His part, if He were to simply permit someone with a certain nature or personality, to do what they deliberately intend to do.
Now this sort of comment I have heard Calvinist say but it's double talk. They do not mean what the words would mean in ANY other context because in Calvinism "what they deliberately intend to do" is precisely and only what God predestined them to intend. In the Calvinist system it isn't merely our actions that are predestined, it is everything we think, everything we feel, every intent of our heart, thought in our mind or deed of our hands has been immutably fixed by God's fiat command before time began!

“The devil, and the whole train of the ungodly, are in all directions, held in by the hand of God as with a bridle, so that they can neither conceive any mischief, nor plan what they have conceived, nor how muchsoever they may have planned, move a single finger to perpetrate, unless in so far as he permits, nay unless in so far as he commands, that they are not only bound by his fetters but are even forced to do him service” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 1, Chapter 17, Paragraph 11)​

That quote is aimed at the evil doer but it applies equally to any action whether good or evil. Nothing happens, nothing whatsoever, that God did not command. And this is not some anomalous quote that was cherry picked from some obscure section of Calvin's writings. I've shown that quote to literally hundreds of Calvinists and not a single one of them deny believing it. Not a single solitary one! None of them even wanted to modify it, never mind deny it outright.
Not only that, but the doctrine flows inexorably from their theological foundations, including the doctrine of immutability and absolute sovereignty, indeed, that is THE Calvinist doctrine of absolute sovereignty.

Nor to the physicist.
NOT SO!!!

Physicists believe that the electron itself existence as probability wave function. The absolute polar opposite of the hard determinism that is Calvinist Cosmology. What is an electron.
Nobody cares what Calvin said.
Look, we can have a substantive discussion about a rather complex topic if you want, or you can say stupidly unfounded nonsense like this and get made fun of and insulted.

Choose!

And no, God hasn't made the choice for you.
And I mean it in the meaningful way to you: no Calvinist cares what Calvin said.
Oh yes, they most certainly do.

Of late, they try to distance themselves from the man because he was a horrible despotic human being and because they cannot defend his doctrine rationally but it doesn't matter because everything they say they believe was written down by Calvin and they believe it because Calvin taught it, whether they know it or not. In other words, saying that they don't care what Calvin taught is just their attempt to have their cake and eat it too. It doesn't work. They believe Calvin's core beliefs and thus accepts his ancillary doctrines which follow logically from that core. Calling a turd a rose, doesn't make the stink go away.

Calvin sparked a movement, sort of like Darwin did, but neither Calvin nor Darwin speaks for the movement today.
Bull.

Calvin's writings are routinely read, taught and studied by every Calvinist student in any, (and by "any" I mean "EVERY") Calvinist seminary in existence all day every day.
Calvinists are beyond Calvin, they took the logic that Calvin proffered, and they've run with it. And the closest thing to a canon of Calvinism is the Westminster catechisms and statement of faith. And Westminster does not subject itself to Calvin's teaching authority either.
Name one currently accepted Calvinist distinctive doctrine that is not taught in Calvin's writings.

Which of the TULIP doctrines does any modern main stream Calvinist reject?
Which of the TULIP doctrines did Calvin not teach in one form or another?
Which of the divine attributes (Immutability, Impassibility, Omnipotence, Omniscience, Omnipresence, Absolute Sovereignty, etc) that Calvin taught do modern Calvinists reject or that have even been substantively altered away from what Calvin wrote?

This is literally what God said He did, in Isaiah for one example.
Blasphemy.

Do you understand what confirmation bias and paradigm blindness is?

We are categorically better. The Apostolic teaching, on divine providence finishes what Calvinist teaching, on divine sovereignty, sets out to do, but failed to accomplish.
Saying it doesn't make it so.

Failed appeal to authority. This is the logical fallacy of the invalid appeal to authority. There is no such man who's word alone establishes and sustains any charge made against Augustine, including such a statement as I emphasized above, that somehow anyone else would agree, who doesn't have an axe to grind (who isn't biased), that "Augustine moved back into pagan" anything.
Nonsense.

History is history. The fact is that Calvin got his doctrine from the same place that Luther did, namely the Classics (i.e. Plato) and Augustine who intentionally, purposely and gleefully imported the teaching of Aristotle and Plato (i.e. the so called Classics) into the Catholic Church. That IS where these ideas came from - period. You can stick your head in the sand if you want but facts are facts, history is history.

You'd have to demonstrate the whole field of PhD experts on Augustine basically uniformly believed the same thing, for this to be possibly a valid appeal to authority, but you haven't done that, you've only quoted a "PhD expert on Augustine".
No, you just missed the point. It isn't even a disputed point of history that Luther, AN AUGUSTINIAN MONK, left most of what the Catholic Church taught at the time concerning the attributes of God alone and that the Reformation was about removing the influence of Rome from the Christian faith but left the influence of pagan Greek philosophy fully intact. That most certainly includes the influence that Calvin had on the Reformation movement. Indeed, what Calvin did was to basically put in writing the Reformation doctrines which Luther had been teaching since he nailed that piece of paper to the church door. There's hardly a dimes worth of difference between what the two men believed in regards to the issues we are discussing.

This is a non-authoritative opinion, offered by a Noncatholic, of a Catholic bishop. Everybody's got opinions. Calling this guy an Oxford PhD and an expert on Augustine as if his opinion is weightier than anybody else's is, is a fallacy.
That's great, except that I didn't do any such thing. I couldn't really care less whether he's got a PhD or not. He is at least expert enough to have earned a PhD and published a book on the subject of Augustine which is far more credibility as an expert on the matter than you have.

And what he said was not opinion anyway. Take the first sentence - "Augustine was the only Christian bishop in history known to have been heavily influenced as a young man by participating in the three most highly deterministic systems that have ever existed—Gnostic Manichaeism, Neoplatonism, and Stoicism." The only portion of that sentence that could be construed as opinion is the designation of "the three most highly deterministic systems". Someone might think that there some other system that was even more deterministic than those three but NO ONE could rationally defend the position that those three systems were not deterministic at all nor that Augustine is the only Christian bishop in history known to have been heavily influenced as a young man by participating in those three systems.

In other words, his comments are matters of historical fact, not opinion. Augustine was either heavily influenced by them or he wasn't and there is no rational way to deny that he was! He absolutely was! There isn't a single dissenting voice from any theological historian anywhere in the world on that point.

Further, if you would like to present any evidence that what this man claims to be true is, in fact, false, then present the evidence. Otherwise, I really couldn't care less what you think about the guy who made the claims.

That has nothing do with Calvinism, red herring.
It has everything to do with it and your asinine claim that it's a red herring is proof positive that I was right when I said you don't know what you're talking about.

Calvinism IS reformed Augustinian doctrine. That's what it is whether you want to acknowledge it or not and Augustine came right out and stated as plain as day that he didn't care what argument was made, nor did he care what the bible seemed to teach, no explanation would do which would force him to believe that Aristotle was wrong about God being immutable. Immutability was Augustine's bed rock doctrine and it is as clear as it is possible to be that he learned that doctrine from Plato. When he was younger, he refused even to consider Christianity as a viable religious option precisely because the God of Genesis was mutable. That is THE reason that Augustine himself states is the reason he rejected his mother's faith. It wasn't until Bishop Ambrose taught him how to interpret the bible in light of the Classics that Augustine even considered becoming a Christian and the rest is history. History that is clearly documented and not the least bit disputed.

Clete
 
Last edited:

beloved57

Well-known member
If God doesn't will someone to perish, then He doesn't work to make that death happen, but what if He doesn't stop the death from occurring? Is He thereby guilty of the death anyway? The Calvinist and correct answer is no, of course not. God is not responsible for something coming to be if He Himself did not work to bring it about; and if someone else works to bring about a foul ending, but God opts to not intercede, then He is still not guilty of that foul ending that someone else brought about. If someone decides that they're going to stubbornly refuse to believe in Christ, and God doesn't intercede, then that fool will get his wish, and he will perish, but it was not because God was willing that he perish, it was only that God in His wisdom did not see fit to intercede, and instead opted to let this fool have his wish, even though it was contrary to his own prosperity, the fool didn't care, and God in this hypothetical case has the right to let him have his wish. In so doing, or rather in so abstaining, God is not willing that this fool should perish, He's just not opting to intercede. If we were to hold God to the standard that, if He is able to convert every soul to Christ, but He chooses not to, then He is somehow diminished in holiness or glory, then we are putting ourselves over God, because only God can judge God, and the Calvinists in their logic do honestly endeavor to render unto God all the glory that is due Him, even to the point of making it sound as if they simply assign the blame for those in hell on God Himself, because He had the power to convert each of them, but chose not to. This is just corollary with the notion that the only way that anybody comes to believe in Christ is through divine intervention, every saved soul was uniquely chosen by God, because that is the only way that that soul could ever come to believe in Christ. We are Totally Depraved, iow, so in order for us to come to believe in Christ, that total depravity must be overcome through particular divine intervention, rather than a general intervention that overcomes all our total depravity at once. This is based upon nothing, Unconditional Election. The Limited Atonement is just because God knew whom He foreknew when His Son offered Himself as sacrifice upon the altar of the cross, the eternal sacrifice, slain from the foundation of the world. As a result of our depravity being total, and it requiring a particular divine intervention to overcome, God the Spirit's work upon the soul ("Grace") must be Irresistible. And then once we come to faith (once we become Saints) through our own free choice, made possible by the direct work of God, we are eternally Preserved and Persevere. We are a new creation.

But I'm Catholic, and you all should go to Mass.
This sounds crazy friend. What has God done to accomplish that He doesnt want to occur ?
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
Okay, so does that accomplish His objective?

His objective was to provide a means of reconciliation for mankind.

So yes, He accomplished that goal on the cross.

He made the first move, now man has to respond, when he hears the message of the good news, either by believing, or by rejecting it.
 
Top