ECT There is only one Gospel

[Clete]

How so?



Nonsense . . the definition of Just has to do with righteous character of God that only wills and performs good.

I seriously don't know how you Calvinists do this. Inside of one sentence, you say that something is nonsense and then affirm the very thing you just said was nonsense!

:bang:

The definition of just and the definition of righteous is the same definition, Nang. The two words mean the same thing. In Hebrew, they don't even use two different words.

Hebrew word for Justice

Hebrew word for Righteousness

God's justice has nothing to do with any hypotheticals, corrupt man might conjure up.

Does this include predestination?

Does this include punishing people for things when they were not capable of doing otherwise by your god's own decree?

A reasonable, logical man deals with reality . . not "what ifs."

Is Hell a reality, Nang?

You believe that God REALLY will send people to Hell for NO REASON other than that it's what God wants to do!!!

A faithful man deals with the tangible history of what God has actually accomplished and done, and he worships the divine attributes of God, which includes perfect righteousness and perfect grace as well as justice dispensed upon mankind.

So are you saying that what justice is for man is not necessarily justice for God?

What if a man punished another person for something they had no control over. Let's say a king passes a law that states that all men, past the age of 30, are to be executed if they were born on a Thursday. Would that be just?

How do you know?

You are attempting to redefine an attribute of God, while blaming such a blasphemous horror on me.

I'm doing no such thing!

I am directly responding to what you said, Nang!

You DO NOT believe that God is justice, you believe that God is super-just. That is to say that you believe that God is an antecedent to justice, not the other way around. "Just" doesn't describe God, God decrees what justice is. That is specifically what Clark believed (I can quote him if you like) and is what most, if not all of Reformed theology teaches. You simply lack the understanding of your own doctrine and/or the linguistic skill required to articulate it. But I know your doctrine better that you do, your constant insistence to the contrary notwithstanding.

I will not accept what you want to project upon me, nor will I ever admit to what unbelief and criticisms you harbor against God in your own heart. You will have to answer to God for your doubts and invented scenarios that attempt to put blame upon His holy Person . . not me.

If your doctrine is correct, everything I think, say, believe, type or accuse you of thinking, saying or believing was all predestined, unalterably by your god before I ever existed and every syllable that appears on this website is part of your god's eternal plan and decree such that I could not do otherwise.

If you have a problem with what I say, take it up with your god.

No, the Calvinist does not believe God could or has a part with any of such sins.

Really?

You don't believe that God created billions of creatures and will send them to burn alive forever in Hell for no reason at all (aside from that it pleased him to do so)?

Are you denying that you believe that, Nang?

Clark believed it! Calvin believed it. Every Calvinist you can name believed/believes it!

As for the other two, of course, no one believes that and I wasn't suggesting that you do. I said that IF you did believe that your god had done such things, it wouldn't alter your belief that he is just. The concept of justice would simply we widened sufficiently to allow for the inclusion of such actions on your god's part.

There's no point in denying it, Nang. I've been debating Calvinist for decades and this is always the argument they put forward. Whatever God does, is just because justice does not define God, God defines justice - by decree.

"Christians generally, even uneducated Christians, understand that water, milk, alcohol, and gasoline freeze at different temperatures because God created them that way. God could have made an intoxicating fluid freeze at zero Fahrenheit and he could have made the cow’s product freeze at forty. But he decided otherwise. Therefore behind the act of creation there is an eternal decree. It was God’s eternal purpose to have such liquids, and therefore we can say that the particularities of nature were determined before there was any nature.
Similarly in all other varieties of truth, God must be accounted sovereign. It is his decree that makes one proposition true and another false. Whether the proposition be physical, psychological, moral, or theological, it is God who made it that way. A proposition is true because God thinks it so." - Gordon H. Clark; The Trinity Review, Dec. 1980​

According to Calvinism, God is NOT moral (i.e. just/righteous - same thing)! "Just" does not describe (define) God's character but rather the other way around. God is supra-moral, supra-righteous, supra-just.

Interestingly, Clark does not say that God is supra-logic! Rather, he rightly proclaims that Logic is God (John 1). A great many Calvinists wanted to boot him from their ranks for this idea but they failed primarily on the basis of being unable to deny that this is precisely what the first chapter of John explicitly states. Nevertheless, the vast majority of Calvinists place God above logic in the same manner that Clark places Him above every other idea. What he should have realized is that justice and all things moral are nothing but a derivative of Logic. God is morality in the same manner in which He is Logic because Morality is Logic and Logic is Morality. The difference lies only in the application of the same concept.

What you are claiming, is that IF many sinners go to hell, it is God's fault.

Who else is going to have sent them there?

And your doctrine specifically teaches that people are not sent to Hell because of what they have done but because God chose to overlook them when he arbitrarily elected those who won't go to Hell.

“God is moved to mercy for no other reason but that he wills to be merciful.” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 22, Paragraph 8)

“… predestination to glory is the cause of predestination to grace, rather than the converse.” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 22, Paragraph 9)

“Therefore, those whom God passes over, he condemns; and this he does for no other reason than that he wills to exclude them from the inheritance which he predestines for his own children.” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christia/n Religion, Book 3, Chapter 23, Paragraph 1)
​

Calvinists teach it is the fault of the sinner if he is condemned to hell by God.

No, you do not!

I can quote these all day long if you like....

“We cannot assign any reason for his bestowing mercy on his people, but just as it so pleases him, neither can we have any reason for his reprobating others but his will.” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 22, Paragraph 11)​

And even if God condemned all to hell, it would still be the fault of the sinners . . not God. God would be just to condemn all of us to hell because we have all fallen short of His glory.

If that falling short was something we had chosen to do, this would be an accurate statement but that isn't what you believe. If a man falls short it's because God decreed that he would do so before he ever existed. His fall has been, since eternity past, part of God's unalterable, sovereign plan and the man had no choice but to do that which God had decreed a billion trillion years 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)​

But God, through the sacrifice of the life of His Son, saved many from their deserved fate and everlasting death.

Meaningless in the Calvinist worldview. God, according to your doctrine, could have accomplished the same by snapping His fingers.

Why do you not focus on His grace, rather than find fault with God for executing justice upon reprobates?

I do not find fault with God but with the idiotic, unjust, unwise, unkind, unhealthy, irrational bully idol that you worship.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[jamie]

There's an "Army" of false believers, false doctrines and false gospels being presented on TOL. They need to hear the Gospel (The Grace Gospel) and place ALL their faith in Christ.

The "grace" gospel? There is nothing new about the grace gospel.

For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures. (1 Corinthians 15:3-4)​

There was nothing new about Paul's gospel, he taught about Christ from the Hebrew scriptures.

Jesus taught the same thing.

Then He said to them, "Thus it is written and thus it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead the third day..."
(Luke 24:46)​

 

[Clete]

There was nothing new about Paul's gospel...

If so, then where is the need for Paul in the first place?

Did all the Twelve Apostles call in sick?

Where is the need for a thirteenth Apostle?

 

[Interplanner]

If so, then where is the need for Paul in the first place?

Did all the Twelve Apostles call in sick?

Where is the need for a thirteenth Apostle?

Well, Peter had trouble staying on track, didn't he? And of course, the best possible defender of the faith would be a person who was trying to exterminate it!

Also God wanted someone with both Roman and Jewish pedigrees.

There seems to be something in Paul's background that helped him explain justification clearly as well.

There are good theological treatments of 'why did God raise up Paul?' that not only deal with these things but also why justification was to be the truly distinctive doctrine. It is an eschaological term, and of course the drift of modern eschatology into knowing-world-events-ahead-of-time has completely ruined what was being said and why.

 

[Danoh]

Well, Peter had trouble staying on track, didn't he? And of course, the best possible defender of the faith would be a person who was trying to exterminate it!

Also God wanted someone with both Roman and Jewish pedigrees.

There seems to be something in Paul's background that helped him explain justification clearly as well.

There are good theological treatments of 'why did God raise up Paul?' that not only deal with these things but also why justification was to be the truly distinctive doctrine. It is an eschaological term, and of course the drift of modern eschatology into knowing-world-events-ahead-of-time has completely ruined what was being said and why.

Are you sure you are reasoning your above THROUGH the Scripture's take on things, and not through your OWN ABOUT the Scripture's (take)?

Paul's own "Interplanner moment" proves otherwise...

Acts 22:17 And it came to pass, that, when I was come again to Jerusalem, even while I prayed in the temple, I was in a trance; 22:18 And saw him saying unto me, Make haste, and get thee quickly out of Jerusalem: for they will not receive thy testimony concerning me. 22:19 And I said, Lord, they know that I imprisoned and beat in every synagogue them that believed on thee: 22:20 And when the blood of thy martyr Stephen was shed, I also was standing by, and consenting unto his death, and kept the raiment of them that slew him. 22:21 And he said unto me, Depart: for I will send thee far hence unto the Gentiles. 22:22 And they gave him audience unto this word, and then lifted up their voices, and said, Away with such a fellow from the earth: for it is not fit that he should live.

But to be fair, what the Acts 28ers and SOME MADs have erroneously concluded from verse 21, is also the result of your same kind of reasoning ABOUT rather than THROUGH...the Scripture's OWN take on a thing...

 

[jamie]

If so, then where is the need for Paul in the first place?

Did all the Twelve Apostles call in sick?

Where is the need for a thirteenth Apostle?

There are thirteen tribes of Israel, an apostle for each tribe.

Because of the seven day feast of Passover Jews from all the areas listed in Acts 2:9-11 were in Jerusalem and knew about Jesus' execution and empty tomb. (Matthew 28:11-15)

There were several reasons why Paul was called: he grew up in a large Gentile city, he knew the Hebrew scriptures, he was a Roman citizen, he knew several languages, he had a trade and was able to support himself, and he was single and free to travel without a family.

He was well qualified to be an apostle.

 

[musterion]

There are thirteen tribes of Israel, an apostle for each tribe.

How many tribes?

And who is the thirteenth apostle, and for which tribe?

 

[jamie]

How many tribes?

And who is the thirteenth apostle, and for which tribe?

Joseph got a double portion. (Genesis 48:22)

Levi did not receive a portion, their inheritance was the tithes of the other tribes.

 

[Tambora]

There are thirteen tribes of Israel, an apostle for each tribe.

Joseph is one of the twelve tribes.
Is Joseph one of the thirteen tribes?

 

[jamie]

Joseph is one of the twelve tribes.
Is Joseph one of the thirteen tribes?

Joseph received a double portion of the land promised to Abraham.

Ephraim and Manasseh received Joseph's portion. Levi did not receive a portion so there are twelve tribes who received land portions.

 

[musterion]

Joseph got a double portion. (Genesis 48:22)

Levi did not receive a portion, their inheritance was the tithes of the other tribes.

How many tribes signified in Revelation 7:5-8 and 21:12?

And who was that 13th apostle again?

 

[Tambora]

Joseph got a double portion. (Genesis 48:22)

Levi did not receive a portion, their inheritance was the tithes of the other tribes.

Joseph and Levi were both of the twelve tribes.

Genesis 49:28 KJV
(28) All these are the twelve tribes of Israel: and this is it that their father spake unto them, and blessed them; every one according to his blessing he blessed them.​

James 1:1 KJV
(1) James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad, greeting.​

Which one of the 13 tribes did James not write to?




Does anyone else find it interesting that scripture never used the term "thirteen tribes" of Israel?

 

[steko]

Does anyone else find it interesting that scripture never used the term "thirteen tribes" of Israel?

Probably means somethin'!

 

[jamie]

How many tribes signified in Revelation 7:5-8 and 21:12?

And who was that 13th apostle again?

Paul said he was equal to the Twelve. (2 Corinthians 11:5)

How many tribes are identified in the law?

Let's count them: 1)Reuben, 2)Simeon, 3)Levi, 4)Judah, 5)Zebulun, 6)Issachar, 7)Dan, 8)Gad, 9)Asher, 10)Naphtali, 11)Joseph, 12)Benjamin.

With regard to Ephraim and Manasseh Jacob said, "Let my name be named upon them, and the name of my fathers Abraham and Isaac." (Genesis 48:16)

So Jacob adopted Joseph's two Egyptian born sons making fourteen.

For the tithes of the children of Israel, which they offer up as a heave offering to the LORD, I have given to the Levites as an inheritance; therefore I have said to them, "Among the children of Israel they shall have no inheritance." (Numbers 18:24)​

The tithes were the inheritance of the tribe of Levi, so we have thirteen tribes who inherit land.

 

[Clete]

Well, Peter had trouble staying on track, didn't he?

Umm, no!

Peter had no such trouble after being indwelt by the Holy Spirit.

And of course, the best possible defender of the faith would be a person who was trying to exterminate it!

One might expect that Jesus would have thought of that in advance and spent His time training truly qualified Apostles.

Also God wanted someone with both Roman and Jewish pedigrees.

One might expect that Jesus would have thought of that in advance and spent His time training truly qualified Apostles.

There seems to be something in Paul's background that helped him explain justification clearly as well.

Quite true but, one might expect that Jesus would have thought of that in advance and spent His time training truly qualified Apostles.

There are good theological treatments of 'why did God raise up Paul?' that not only deal with these things but also why justification was to be the truly distinctive doctrine. It is an eschaological term, and of course the drift of modern eschatology into knowing-world-events-ahead-of-time has completely ruined what was being said and why.

This is a topic for anyother thread so I'll let it go for now.

I want to reinterate my question with what I've said above in mind because your answers seem to have misunderstood the point. I wasn't asking for Paul's qualifications, I was asking what was wrong with the Twelve.

Jesus already had Twelve Apostles, all of whom had received the Holy Spirit (Acts 2). He had given the Twelve all athority to act on His behalf even to the point of forgiving or refusing to forgive sins (John 20).

Israel seems to half twelve of everything. Twelve patriarchs, twelve, tribes, twelve apostles, the New Jerusalem will have twelve gates and twelve foundations. The Twelve Apostles will sit on twelve throne and each will have his name on one of the twelve foundation (Rev. 21).

There aren't thirteen of anything! In fact thirteen seems to be associated with curses and judgment in the bible.

So why Paul?

If your understanding of Paul's teaching is correct and there is no difference, then why even bother with Paul? The Twelve are good enough to rule over the New Jerusalem so what makes you think Paul was better? And if Paul is just another Apostle, why aren't there thirteen foundations and thirteen gates and thirteen thrones? What is Paul, chopped liver?

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Clete]

There are thirteen tribes of Israel, an apostle for each tribe.

Because of the seven day feast of Passover Jews from all the areas listed in Acts 2:9-11 were in Jerusalem and knew about Jesus' execution and empty tomb. (Matthew 28:11-15)

There were several reasons why Paul was called: he grew up in a large Gentile city, he knew the Hebrew scriptures, he was a Roman citizen, he knew several languages, he had a trade and was able to support himself, and he was single and free to travel without a family.

He was well qualified to be an apostle.

This is simple stupidity.

Do you suppose the God just forgot that there were thirteen tribes or is it that He miscounted when He had John write the book of Revelation?

9 Then one of the seven angels who had the seven bowls filled with the seven last plagues came to me and talked with me, saying, “Come, I will show you the bride, the Lamb’s wife.” 10 And he carried me away in the Spirit to a great and high mountain, and showed me the great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God, 11 having the glory of God. Her light was like a most precious stone, like a jasper stone, clear as crystal. 12 Also she had a great and high wall with twelve gates, and twelve angels at the gates, and names written on them, which are the names of the twelve tribes of the children of Israel: 13 three gates on the east, three gates on the north, three gates on the south, and three gates on the west.

14 Now the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb. 15 And he who talked with me had a gold reed to measure the city, its gates, and its wall. 16 The city is laid out as a square; its length is as great as its breadth. And he measured the city with the reed: twelve thousand furlongs. Its length, breadth, and height are equal. 17 Then he measured its wall: one hundred and forty-four cubits [twelve time twelve], according to the measure of a man, that is, of an angel. 18 The construction of its wall was of jasper; and the city was pure gold, like clear glass. 19 The foundations of the wall of the city were adorned with all kinds of precious stones: the first foundation was jasper, the second sapphire, the third chalcedony, the fourth emerald, 20 the fifth sardonyx, the sixth sardius, the seventh chrysolite, the eighth beryl, the ninth topaz, the tenth chrysoprase, the eleventh jacinth, and the twelfth amethyst. 21 The twelve gates were twelve pearls: each individual gate was of one pearl. And the street of the city was pure gold, like transparent glass.​

 

[jamie]

This is simple stupidity.

I don't know that it is simple.

:think:

 

[musterion]

Paul said he was equal to the Twelve. (2 Corinthians 11:5)

How many tribes are identified in the law?

Let's count them: 1)Reuben, 2)Simeon, 3)Levi, 4)Judah, 5)Zebulun, 6)Issachar, 7)Dan, 8)Gad, 9)Asher, 10)Naphtali, 11)Joseph, 12)Benjamin.

With regard to Ephraim and Manasseh Jacob said, "Let my name be named upon them, and the name of my fathers Abraham and Isaac." (Genesis 48:16)

So Jacob adopted Joseph's two Egyptian born sons making fourteen.

For the tithes of the children of Israel, which they offer up as a heave offering to the LORD, I have given to the Levites as an inheritance; therefore I have said to them, "Among the children of Israel they shall have no inheritance." (Numbers 18:24)​

The tithes were the inheritance of the tribe of Levi, so we have thirteen tribes who inherit land.

12 =/= 13, or 14, or 3,212.

Who is this apostle to the 13th tribe? You haven't said yet.

 

[Nang]

The definition of just and the definition of righteous is the same definition, Nang. The two words mean the same thing.

What I say . . .

So are you saying that what justice is for man is not necessarily justice for God?

God is just and all justice issues forth from His hand, but God is not subject to any just retribution, because there are no legal grounds under which He is subjected or found guilty.

Jesus Christ was sent into this world and volitionally demonstrated the sinlessness of God in human form.

You DO NOT believe that God is justice, you believe that God is super-just. That is to say that you believe that God is an antecedent to justice, not the other way around. "Just" doesn't describe God, God decrees what justice is.

Yes, I do believe God is just and the author of justice. I have no idea what you mean by "super-just." And God is described as just and God did decree justice would be met. Being just and righteous is an attribute of God, and only a just and righteous God could ever decree a truly righteous act of justice imposed. Remember, the only reason a single sinner has ever been saved, is because the righteous justice of God was imposed upon Jesus Christ, in order that His righteousness might be imputed to His spiritual children.

"For Christ also suffered once for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the Spirit." I Peter 3:18

If your doctrine is correct, everything I think, say, believe, type or accuse you of thinking, saying or believing was all predestined, unalterably by your god before I ever existed and every syllable that appears on this website is part of your god's eternal plan and decree such that I could not do otherwise.

The above does not represent the Reformed view. Reformers believe God has ordained and decreed all things, but we also believe and teach human responsibility and moral accountability. You are omitting this fact, which perverts your understanding of the Calvinistic beliefs into a philosophical form of fatalism.

You don't believe that God created billions of creatures and will send them to burn alive forever in Hell for no reason at all (aside from that it pleased him to do so)?

God ordained the punishment of all things wicked and unjust. See Revelation 22:11 and 15

By faith, regenerated sinners praise God for this . . they would never find fault in God for so doing, or attempt to blame Him for working an injustice. Never.

There's no point in denying it, Nang.

There is no point in telling me what I believe, Clete. Especially when you do not fully grasp Reformed doctrine. Keep reading Gordon Clark . . maybe his fine logical approach can help you understand fully the whole of what we believe.

According to Calvinism, God is NOT moral (i.e. just/righteous - same thing)!

This is just nonsense . . blasphemous nonsense, at that! All the attributes of God existed in God prior to His creating this world . . meant to manifest His attributes amongst men created in His image.

Interestingly, Clark does not say that God is supra-logic! Rather, he rightly proclaims that Logic is God (John 1). A great many Calvinists wanted to boot him from their ranks for this idea but they failed primarily on the basis of being unable to deny that this is precisely what the first chapter of John explicitly states.

The Logos ("logic of God")is an attribute of God, as are all the other attributes of God that existed as God, before the world was formed. I am glad you can understand and accept this much, at least.

Nevertheless, the vast majority of Calvinists place God above logic in the same manner that Clark places Him above every other idea. What he should have realized is that justice and all things moral are nothing but a derivative of Logic. God is morality in the same manner in which He is Logic because Morality is Logic and Logic is Morality. The difference lies only in the application of the same concept.

There is no such thing as one divine attribute being higher than another. They are all equal for that is the simplicity of the Godhead.

And your doctrine specifically teaches that people are not sent to Hell because of what they have done but because God chose to overlook them when he arbitrarily elected those who won't go to Hell.

No, our doctrine specifically teaches a remnant of the human race will not suffer God's wrath, Judgment, the second death, and hellfire ONLY because Jesus Christ justly suffered all such in their stead. Reformers teach the Gospel of Jesus Christ crucified

If that falling short was something we had chosen to do, this would be an accurate statement but that isn't what you believe.

I believe, that because of Adam's original sin, there is no ability or spiritual capacity inherent in men, by which they can choose any different. Adam corrupted the human nature, which all humanity has inherited, and the will of man cannot choose righteousness. You would do well to review the doctrine of Adamic Federal Headship and Total Depravity, before you spout off further. You cannot possibly understand the various quotes you present out of context, apart from grasping the import of these two doctrines first.

If a man falls short it's because God decreed that he would do so before he ever existed. His fall has been, since eternity past, part of God's unalterable, sovereign plan and the man had no choice but to do that which God had decreed a billion trillion years before time began.

Again, you revert to only seeing the error of fatalism, which does not come close to discussion of the eternal attributes of God; manifested in this creation; come in bodily form in Jesus Christ. Colossians 1:9-23

 

[jamie]

Who is this apostle to the 13th tribe? You haven't said yet.

I said, "Paul said he was equal to the Twelve (2 Corinthians 11:5)."

I'll do the math for you: if there were twelve apostles and we add one we now have thirteen.

12 + 1 = 13.

Paul was the thirteenth apostle and he was equal to the Twelve.

Paul was a tier one apostle, he was equal to the other twelve.

Don't believe me, believe your Bible.