# Lifestyles & Discussion > Peace Through Religion >  Calvinists and being saved

## Brett85

In this thread, I'm not saying that all Calvinists are unsaved, because there certainly are Calvinists who don't have the three characteristics that I'm going to mention below.  But at least many of the most militant Calvinists I certainly believe are unsaved for several reasons.  This is why:

1)  They're the most arrogant, egotistical people on the face of the earth, and the Bible makes it clear that God opposes the proud and gives grace to the humble.  Since these people have an enormous amount of pride and aren't at all humble, how is it possible for them to ever receive grace from God?  It isn't, which is why it's clear that these people have never been regenerated.  Here are just a few verses in the Bible about humility.

2 Chronicles 7:14 if my people who are called by my name humble themselves, and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and heal their land.

Psalms 25:9 He leads the humble in what is right, and teaches the humble his way.

Psalms 55:19 God will give ear and humble them, he who is enthroned from of old, Selah because they do not change and do not fear God.

1 Peter 5:5 Likewise, you who are younger, be subject to the elders. Clothe yourselves, all of you, with humility toward one another, for “God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble.”

2)  They bear absolutely no good fruit at all.  This goes back to what I was saying in the first point, which is that they show no humility and only pride and arrogance.  There's no sign at all that these people bear any good fruit and are Christians.  The Bible is also clear that a true Christian will love their neighbors, and the goal that these people have in life seems to be to spread hate, not love.  Here are a few verses regarding bearing fruit and spreading love to others.

Matthew 7:16-20

You will know them by their fruits. Grapes are not gathered from thorn bushes nor figs from thistles, are they? 17"So every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit. 18"A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor can a bad tree produce good fruit.  A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor can a bad tree produce good fruit. 19"Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20"So then, you will know them by their fruits.

Mark 12:31

The second is this: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no commandment greater than these.

3)  Since they believe that their works play absolutely no role at all in where they go when they die, they believe that they don't even have to try to do what's right.  They don't believe that they're required to follow any laws or any rules.  They believe that since they're one of the "elect" and saved by grace, nothing they do or don't do can change that.  The 10 commandments are completely obsolete, so it's no longer wrong for them to commit murder, commit adultery, use the Lord's name in vain, etc.  That causes many of them to live a life completely full of sin, because they believe that they're elect and saved solely through their belief.  Obedience towards God isn't a requirement to make it into heaven.  They actually encourage disobedience, because if you try to be obedient towards God, it means that you're relying on your own good works to make it to heaven and are thus damned to hell.  But this is obviously not what the Bible actually teaches.  Paul certainly taught that no one who lives a life of willful, intentional sin will make it to heaven.

1 Corinthians 6:9-10

Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.

Hebrews 10:26-27

If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God.

----------


## Christian Liberty

I don't see how you could possibly know that anyone here is in category #2 (you aren't with us our whole lives) and #3 is a blatant strawman.

I can see why you'd think point #1, and I can't speak for anyone other than myself, but its easy for passion for truth to be confused as pride.  We know that God alone saves us, thus we are NOT self-righteous.

----------


## Christian Liberty

That said, I did lol at the title

----------


## Brett85

> and #3 is a blatant strawman.


Maybe so, but it isn't any more of a straw man than the way that Arminianism and other non Calvinistic theologies are often characterized on this forum.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Maybe so, but it isn't any more of a straw man than the way that Arminianism and other non Calvinistic theologies are often characterized on this forum.


I don't really see how.  At any rate, I believe that a person who is saved by God's grace CANNOT HELP but to do good works out of gratitude for what Christ did for him.  Where I disagree with some here is that I do not believe it is these works that are the ground for a Christian's acceptance before God, but Christ's perfect works.

----------


## Brett85

> Where I disagree with some here is that I do not believe it is these works that are the ground for a Christian's acceptance before God, but Christ's perfect works.


No one can be accepted by God solely through works or how we live our lives, as even one sin separates us from God.  When we mess up, we're saved and forgiven by the blood of Christ.  But we're still called to give our best effort to be obedient to God and follow his commandments.  We can't just use our salvation as a license to sin.  We're called to do our best to do what's right, and then repent when we mess up, and at that point Christ's blood covers us.  But no one can make it to heaven if they simply have the attitude that all their sins are covered, so they're just going to sin as much as they want to and still make it into heaven.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> No one can be accepted by God solely through works or how we live our lives, as even one sin separates us from God.  When we mess up, we're saved and forgiven by the blood of Christ.  But we're still called to give our best effort to be obedient to God and follow his commandments.  We can't just use our salvation as a license to sin.  We're called to do our best to do what's right, and then repent when we mess up, and at that point Christ's blood covers us.  But no one can make it to heaven if they simply have the attitude that all their sins are covered, so they're just going to sin as much as they want to and still make it into heaven.


You're responding to a strawman here...

Nobody is saying that you can just sin as much as you want and be unrepentant and still make it to heaven.  Nobody who has been exposed to God's grace will do that.  But it is not on the BASIS of our imperfect efforts that we are saved, rather the imperfect efforts are a RESULT of being saved, and these works also come from God himself (Ephesians 2:10.)

----------


## Brett85

> You're responding to a strawman here...
> 
> Nobody is saying that you can just sin as much as you want and be unrepentant and still make it to heaven.  Nobody who has been exposed to God's grace will do that.  But it is not on the BASIS of our imperfect efforts that we are saved, rather the imperfect efforts are a RESULT of being saved, and these works also come from God himself (Ephesians 2:10.)


I think that the imperfect efforts are a result of the Holy Spirit coming into us and dwelling within us.  Still, since I believe in the concept of free will, I believe that we have the free will to disobey the Holy Spirit.  We certainly do, since all of us sin after we become Christians.  And we aren't going to lose our salvation every time we sin, but at some point if we choose to just willingly disobey the Holy Spirit over years and years, and never feel sorry or repent of that sin, at some point we get cut off from the vine.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I think that the imperfect efforts are a result of the holy spirit coming into us and dwelling within us.  Still, since I believe in the concept of free will, I believe that we have the free will to disobey the holy spirit.  We certainly do, since all of us sin after we become Christians.  And we aren't going to lose our salvation every time we sin, but at some point if we choose to just willingly disobey the holy spirit over years and years, and never feel sorry or repent of that sin, at some point we get cut off from the branch.


OK, now you're being clearer about what you believe.  We may be getting somewhere now

I don't really like the term "free will", but I do believe people make real choices.  I also believe that God predestines our choices.  This whole thing goes back to God's "prescriptive" will vs his "declarative will" (that term may be wrong, but the concept is intact regardless.  God's "prescriptive" will is certainly resistible, but God's declarative will is not resistible, if that makes sense.

As for salvation, if you believe that you can lose your salvation, you do not have a high view of Christ's death, and I have to question whether you really know grace at all.  Your view makes it out that Christ's death was not enough, and that something in the sinner is needed to complete the work.  This is dangerous.

By contrast, God will glorify all of his people for whom Christ died (Romans 8:28-35.)

But then you might say "people can just sin all they want and still get to heaven?"

Well... no, because those who would do that have not been transformed by God in the first place, as per James 2.

----------


## Brett85

> As for salvation, if you believe that you can lose your salvation, you do not have a high view of Christ's death, and I have to question whether you really know grace at all.  Your view makes it out that Christ's death was not enough, and that something in the sinner is needed to complete the work.  This is dangerous.


This is just the conclusion I came to after reading the New Testament and studying it for two or three weeks.  The verse about the vine and the branches are one example.  Jesus said that "he cuts off every branch IN ME that bears no fruit."  When he said "in me," that makes it clear that these branches were part of the vine to begin with.  When we accept Christ, we become a branch on Christ's vine.  That verse goes on to say that we're supposed to bear fruit after we become a branch on the vine, and if we don't, we'll be cut off from the branch.  You can't get cut off from the branch if you were never on the branch to begin with.  I just don't see how to get around that.  That's just one example out of many.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> This is just the conclusion I came to after reading the New Testament and studying it for two or three weeks.  The verse about the vine and the branches are one example.  Jesus said that "he cuts off every branch IN ME that bears no fruit."  When he said "in me," that makes it clear that these branches were part of the vine to begin with.  When we accept Christ, we become a branch on Christ's vine.  That verse goes on to say that we're supposed to bear fruit after we become a branch on the vine, and if we don't, we'll be cut off from the branch.  You can't get cut off from the branch if you were never on the branch to begin with.  I just don't see how to get around that.  That's just one example out of many.


Yet your conclusion cannot stand up to the rest of scripture.

----------


## eduardo89

> At any rate, I believe that a person who is saved by God's grace CANNOT HELP but to do good works out of gratitude for what Christ did for him.


Are you calling yourself unsaved?

----------


## Brett85

> Yet your conclusion cannot stand up to the rest of scripture.


Well, your conclusion can't stand up to the parable of the vine and the branches, the parable of the talents, and many other Biblical teachings.

----------


## Brett85

Um, why was the title of my thread changed when the title of Sola Fide's thread about Arminians hasn't been changed?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Um, why was the title of my thread changed when the title of Sola Fide's thread about Arminians hasn't been changed?



I don't know, but I'm getting more and more sick of the moderation here every day.  I think we'd be better off with no moderation of this subforum at all than the way its been going.

It may be because SF's title was the title of an off-site article.  Or they may be about to change it.  Either way, its incredibly stupid.  And I can absolutely guarantee you that SF is going to agree with me that its stupid.  And whoever decided to do it is an idiot that I have no respect for, whether the forum admin or not.

I'm so sick of this.  We need a new forum for these discussions.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Are you calling yourself unsaved?


No.

----------


## eduardo89

> No.


Well then, where are you good words which you should be overflowing with since you claimed to be 'saved?'

From your posts on here, all you sow is disunity and discord between Christians. You constantly insult, judge, and degrade. You are full of pride, arrogance, and malice towards others. You continually lie and mock the beliefs of others. You lack a shred of compassion, kindness, or charity to those who you feel are in error.

So by your own post, you judge yourself as unsaved.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Well then, where are you good words which you should be overflowing with since you claimed to be 'saved?'
> 
> From your posts on here, all you sow is disunity and discord between Christians. You constantly insult, judge, and degrade. You are full of pride, arrogance, and malice towards others. You continually lie and mock the beliefs of others. You lack a shred of compassion, kindness, or charity to those who you feel are in error.
> 
> So by your own post, you judge yourself as unsaved.


By this post you show you don't really understand me.  And I do not make discord between true Christians.  Jesus was the harshest with the Pharisees, and your church is the modern day Pharisees.

Of course, you'll probably just report this post rather than discussing the issue, the moderation is getting to the point where we can't seriously discuss anything anymore.

----------


## eduardo89

> By this post you show you don't really understand me.  And I do not make discord between true Christians.  Jesus was the harshest with the Pharisees, and your church is the modern day Pharisees.


Jesus chastised the Pharisees and their arrogance and hypocrisy, not for their theology. St. Paul was a Pharisee. Are you saying he was unsaved?




> Of course, you'll probably just report this post rather than discussing the issue, the moderation is getting to the point where we can't seriously discuss anything anymore.


The problem isn't the moderation, the problem is you and your arrogance and insults towards others.

----------


## erowe1

What's the basis for the points made in the OP?

I see nothing in this wikipedia article about egotism or not bearing fruit being parts of Calvinism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calvinism

----------


## erowe1

> The 10 commandments are completely obsolete, so it's no longer wrong for them to commit murder, commit adultery, use the Lord's name in vain, etc.  That causes many of them to live a life completely full of sin, because they believe that they're elect and saved solely through their belief.


Source?

----------


## Christian Liberty

@eduardo- Did the Pharisees believe the same theology that Paul believed?  Obviously not.  He was a Pharisee in opposition to the Saducees...

----------


## eduardo89

> @eduardo- Did the Pharisees believe the same theology that Paul believed?  Obviously not.  He was a Pharisee in opposition to the Saducees...


No, they did not believe the same theology, but that is because God has not yet revealed Himself to the Pharisees in the manner in which He later did to Paul. 

But where did Jesus chastise the Pharisees for their theology?

----------


## Deborah K

> I don't see how you could possibly know that anyone here is in category #2 (you aren't with us our whole lives) and #3 is a blatant strawman.
> 
> I can see why you'd think point #1, and I can't speak for anyone other than myself, but its easy for passion for truth to be confused as pride.  We know that God alone saves us, thus we are NOT self-righteous.



Calling people names isn't a "passion for truth".

----------


## Christian Liberty

That was the VERY reason he condemned them, they thought their works merited acceptance before God.  So do you, otherwise you wouldn't be a baptismal regenerationist or a sacramentalist.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Calling people names isn't a "passion for truth".


Was John the Baptist sinning when he called the Pharisees "vipers"?

Was David sinning when he called God's enemies "brutish men"?

Was Jesus sinning when he called the Pharisees "Whitewashed tombs"?

Was Paul sinning when he called the Galatians "anathema"?

When someone repetitively and stubbornly rejects the truth, and tries to encourage other people to accept the false gospel, "name calling" can be appropriate.

----------


## erowe1

> But where did Jesus chastise the Pharisees for their theology?


Mark 7:1-20



> The Pharisees and some of the teachers of the law who had come from Jerusalem gathered around Jesus 2 and saw some of his disciples eating food with hands that were defiled, that is, unwashed. 3 (The Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they give their hands a ceremonial washing, holding to the tradition of the elders. 4 When they come from the marketplace they do not eat unless they wash. And they observe many other traditions, such as the washing of cups, pitchers and kettles.)
> 
> 5 So the Pharisees and teachers of the law asked Jesus, “Why don’t your disciples live according to the tradition of the elders instead of eating their food with defiled hands?”
> 
> 6 He replied, “Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you hypocrites; as it is written:
> 
> “‘These people honor me with their lips,
>     but their hearts are far from me.
> 7 They worship me in vain;
> ...

----------


## Deborah K

> Um, why was the title of my thread changed when the title of Sola Fide's thread about Arminians hasn't been changed?


Probably because someone cried about it.  And the reason SF's thread isn't changed is probably because Arminians haven't cried about it.

Would you Calvies like some cheese with that whine?

----------


## Deborah K

> Was John the Baptist sinning when he called the Pharisees "vipers"?
> 
> Was David sinning when he called God's enemies "brutish men"?
> 
> Was Jesus sinning when he called the Pharisees "Whitewashed tombs"?
> 
> Was Paul sinning when he called the Galatians "anathema"?
> 
> When someone repetitively and stubbornly rejects the truth, and tries to encourage other people to accept the false gospel, "name calling" can be appropriate.


**yawn**

I know, I know.  You can always find a Bible verse to justify your twisted thinking and actions.  I can find just as many that refute yours.  And I've already done so in the past, as well as explained the contradictory nature of the Bible so I'm not going to do it again because it bores me to do so.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Probably because someone cried about it.  And the reason SF's thread isn't changed is probably because Arminians haven't cried about it.
> 
> Would you Calvies like some cheese with that whine?


Check the vent.  I complained to the mods because they changed the title of this thread

I guarantee you that SF didn't complain about it, since he doesn't want any moderation at all.  Maybe one of the other Calvinists did it, but I hope not.

----------


## eduardo89

> That was the VERY reason he condemned them, they thought their works merited acceptance before God.


Jesus condemned them for not keeping the Law yet claiming that they did.




> So do you, otherwise you wouldn't be a baptismal regenerationist or a sacramentalist.


You are the one who believes baptism depends on you and not on the Holy Spirit's power, since you claim to have been baptised twice and one was not valid.

No Church Father ever said that baptism did not regenerate, that has always been the Christian understanding. Why do you believe you and your sect are correct and the rest of Christianity wrong? Again, this comes down to your remnant claim. What makes your belief any different from Arianism, Nestorianism, and the other heresies condemned over the centuries by the universal Church? Why is the Church wrong and you right?

With regards to the Sacraments. It is not our own work that merits acceptance before God. The graces dispensed through the Sacraments are entirely from God and are unmerited by us.

----------


## Todd

How about if both Calvinists and Arminians can be saved and both just don't have all the answers?

----------


## Deborah K

> Check the vent.  I complained to the mods because they changed the title of this thread
> 
> I guarantee you that SF didn't complain about it, since he doesn't want any moderation at all.  *Maybe one of the other Calvinists did it, but I hope not*.


Well it's probably a good guess that an Arminian didn't complain about it.

----------


## eduardo89

> Was John the Baptist sinning when he called the Pharisees "vipers"?


Are you John the Baptist?




> Was David sinning when he called God's enemies "brutish men"?


Are you David?




> Was Jesus sinning when he called the Pharisees "Whitewashed tombs"?


Are you Jesus?




> Was Paul sinning when he called the Galatians "anathema"?


Are you St. Paul?


Do you seriously consider what you do on here to be in any way equivalent to what God and those Saints did? Do you consider yourself worthy to be even compared to God Himself and those Saint?

----------


## Deborah K

> How about if both Calvinists and Arminians can be saved and both just don't have all the answers?


Not on this forum by God!  We MUST - at all costs - have winners and losers.  Even if it's just in our own minds.

----------


## eduardo89

> How about if both Calvinists and Arminians can be saved and both just don't have all the answers?


I agree. Both have shreds of the Truth in their theology, but since they both rely on their fallible minds to interpret Scripture they are prone to errors.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Are you David?


Technically yes




> Do you seriously consider what you do on here to be in any way equivalent to what God and those Saints did? Do you consider yourself worthy to be even compared to God Himself and those Saint?


Of course not, but I don't see how this is relevant to anything.  I wasn't comparing myself to anyone, I was saying that "insults" are sometimes Biblical.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Well it's probably a good guess that an Arminian didn't complain about it.


Or the moderators just happened to see it.  Either way, I'm offended by whoever did it...

----------


## erowe1

> I agree. Both have shreds of the Truth in their theology, but since they both rely on their fallible minds to interpret Scripture they are prone to errors.


Whose fallible mind do you depend on to interpret Scripture?

----------


## Terry1

> Whose fallible mind do you depend on to interpret Scripture?


That's a good question since you all have to change so much of it to support your belief.  Have you noticed that none of us have had to do that and our interpretation reconciles with every single other scripture without having to change one letter of it?

----------


## eduardo89

> Whose fallible mind do you depend on to interpret Scripture?


The Holy Spirit isn't fallible.

----------


## Deborah K

> Whose fallible mind do you depend on to interpret Scripture?


Mine!  And I consistently ask God to guide me to the truth when studying the Bible.

In the end, we all depend upon our own minds to interpret Scripture.

----------


## eduardo89

> In the end, we all depend upon our own minds to interpret Scripture.


Or we can depend on the 2000 years of the Church and the Saints and Martyrs who lived and died to pass down the faith.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Probably because someone cried about it.  And the reason SF's thread isn't changed is probably because Arminians haven't cried about it.
> 
> Would you Calvies like some cheese with that whine?


Someone doesn't understand the concept of what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

----------


## eduardo89

> Someone doesn't understand the concept of what's good for the goose is good for the gander.


A always thought a gander was a female goose, but it is actually a male goose. I guess a female goose is a goosette?

----------


## acptulsa

> How about if both Calvinists and Arminians can be saved and both just don't have all the answers?


What if only those who don't think they have all the answers can be saved?

Would fit with something I heard somewhere about the meek inheriting the earth...

----------


## Deborah K

> Or we can depend on the 2000 years of the Church and the Saints and Martyrs who lived and died to pass down the faith.


Which is what I am referring to when I state that I ask God to guide me to the truth when studying the Bible - among other sources.  But in the end, our interpretation is reliant upon our minds.

----------


## erowe1

> The Holy Spirit isn't fallible.


But whose fallible mind do you use to interpret Scripture?

----------


## erowe1

> Or we can depend on the 2000 years of the Church and the Saints and Martyrs who lived and died to pass down the faith.


In passing down the faith, don't they use written and spoken words?

If so, then whose fallible mind do you use to interpret the words of the Church, the saints, and the martyrs?

----------


## Nang

> But whose fallible mind do you use to interpret Scripture?






> In passing down the faith, don't they use written and spoken words?
> 
> If so, then whose fallible mind do you use to interpret the words of the Church, the saints, and the martyrs?


Such is the exact revelation and explanation of* I Corinthians 2:10-16*

----------


## Brett85

> Source?


Sola Fide made a comment the other day that it's no longer necessary to try to follow the 10 commandments.

Post #9.  Also see Jmdrake's great response in post #29.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...rks-of-Charity

----------


## Brett85

> Was John the Baptist sinning when he called the Pharisees "vipers"?
> 
> Was David sinning when he called God's enemies "brutish men"?
> 
> Was Jesus sinning when he called the Pharisees "Whitewashed tombs"?
> 
> Was Paul sinning when he called the Galatians "anathema"?
> 
> When someone repetitively and stubbornly rejects the truth, and tries to encourage other people to accept the false gospel, "name calling" can be appropriate.


Do you view yourself as being on the same level as all those people?  Did you ever write a book in the Bible?

----------


## Christian Liberty

I'm curious if Sola ever answered post #27.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Do you view yourself as being on the same level as all those people?  Did you ever write a book in the Bible?


I already answered this question.  No.

----------


## Nang

> Sola Fide made a comment the other day that it's no longer necessary to try to follow the 10 commandments.


I did not read this thread, but I would agree with S_F that it is no longer *necessary* for justification before God to keep the Law.

See my post here.

Doesn't mean Christians don't live lawfully.  It is just the obligation and requirement of the Holy Law has been met by Jesus Christ on our behalf.

----------


## Brett85

> I did not read this thread, but I would agree with S_F that it is no longer *necessary* for justification before God to keep the Law.
> 
> See my post here.
> 
> Doesn't mean Christians don't live lawfully.  It is just the obligation and requirement of the Holy Law has been met by Jesus Christ on our behalf.


Then you're saying that Christians are under no obligation to abstain from something like adultery.  They can choose to participate in that activity and not have to have any fear at all about not making it into heaven.

----------


## Brett85

And I don't buy that becoming a Christian and having the Holy Spirit dwell in us is just going to make people automatically stay away from those sins.  We see examples of Christians who commit those kinds of sins all the time.

----------


## Dr.3D

> I did not read this thread, but I would agree with S_F that it is no longer *necessary* for justification before God to keep the Law.
> 
> See my post here.
> 
> Doesn't mean Christians don't live lawfully.  It is just the obligation and requirement of the Holy Law has been met by Jesus Christ on our behalf.


The way I see it, the first five commandments of the Decalogue correspond with loving God and the second five commandments correspond with loving your neighbor.   It's that since we are justified we have those two commandments from Luke 10:27, written in our hearts and obey them, not to become justified but because we are justified.

----------


## TER

> The way I see it, the first five commandments of the Decalogue correspond with loving God and the second five commandments correspond with loving your neighbor.   It's that since we are justified we have those two commandments from Luke 10:27, written in our hearts and obey them, not to become justified but because we are justified.


In case you were interested Dr. 3D, according to the tradition of the Church, the first tablet had listed the first four commandments and the second one had 6-10 for the reasons listed above, namely that the first 4 involved our commandments towards God and the last six towards our neighbor.

----------


## Dr.3D

> In case you were interested Dr. 3D, according to the tradition of the Church, the first tablet had listed the first four commandments and the second one had 6-10 for the reasons listed above, namely that the first 4 involved our commandments towards God and the last six towards our neighbor.


I came up with that as a result of some studies I was doing on the Decalogue.

I was thinking the fifth as being in relationship with God, our heavenly Father.   We are to honor our Father and our Mother.  There is only one of should be called Father and He is in heaven.

----------


## Nang

> Then you're saying that Christians are under no obligation to abstain from something like adultery.  They can choose to participate in that activity and not have to have any fear at all about not making it into heaven.


No.  God's grace does not give believers license to sin.

God's grace instills a love of the holy Law of God, and gratitude to Christ for redemption precludes practice of gross sin.

It is His seed to abides in us, after all.  I John 3:6-9

----------


## TER

> I was thinking the fifth as being in relationship with God, our heavenly Father.


It may include that meaning as well, but the tradition has it that it is primarily referring to our flesh and blood parents.

----------


## Nang

> The way I see it, the first five commandments of the Decalogue correspond with loving God and the second five commandments correspond with loving your neighbor.   It's that since we are justified we have those two commandments from Luke 10:27, written in our hearts and obey them, not to become justified but because we are justified.


+reps

Most excellent!!  This is exactly true.

You have succinctly relayed this truth correctly, that has taken some theologians books to convey.

----------


## Brett85

> No.  God's grace does not give believers license to sin.
> 
> God's grace instills a love of the holy Law of God, and gratitude to Christ for redemption precludes practice of gross sin.
> 
> It is His seed to abides in us, after all.  I John 3:6-9


If we're instilled with this love for God, then why do we still sin after we become Christians?  What do you think causes Christians to sin?

----------


## TER

> If we're instilled with this love for God, then why do we still sin after we become Christians?  What do you think causes Christians to sin?


According to John Calvin, it is God Himself Who is the author of sin.

----------


## Nang

> If we're instilled with this love for God, then why do we still sin after we become Christians?  What do you think causes Christians to sin?


Romans 7:14-24

Conversion is spiritual, not ontological.

Only a bodily resurrection to glory will eliminate sin, sorrow, and death from our reality, but even then, we will remain creatures.

----------


## Nang

> According to John Calvin, it is God Himself Who is the author of sin.



If you are going to say something like this, at least attribute a source for your assertion.

----------


## Dr.3D

> If we're instilled with this love for God, then why do we still sin after we become Christians?  What do you think causes Christians to sin?


I'm not sure, but perhaps this might lend some light on the subject.



> _NRS_ *Romans 7:14-25*  For we know that the law is spiritual; but I am of the flesh, sold into slavery under sin. _ 15_ I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate.  _16_ Now if I do what I do not want, I agree that the law is good.  _17_ But in fact it is no longer I that do it, but sin that dwells within me.  _18_ For I know that nothing good dwells within me, that is, in my flesh. I can will what is right, but I cannot do it.  _19_ For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I do.  _20_ Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I that do it, but sin that dwells within me.  _21_ So I find it to be a law that when I want to do what is good, evil lies close at hand.  _22_ For I delight in the law of God in my inmost self,  _23_ but I see in my members another law at war with the law of my mind, making me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members.  _24_ Wretched man that I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death?  _25_ Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, with my mind I am a slave to the law of God, but with my flesh I am a slave to the law of sin.




Edit:
Guess I shouldn't have spent so much time editing the quote, I see the answer had already been posted before I could press the enter key.  Next time I'll just give the reference.

----------


## Brett85

> Romans 7:14-24
> 
> Conversion is spiritual, not ontological.
> 
> Only a bodily resurrection to glory will eliminate sin, sorrow, and death from our reality, but even then, we will remain creatures.


Ok, so if Christians still sin after they've been saved, then what stops Christians from engaging in "gross sin" as you call it, or deciding to live a life completely full of sin?

----------


## TER

> If you are going to say something like this, at least attribute a source for your assertion.


Sure, here it is from the horse's mouth:

“From this it is easy to conclude how foolish and frail is the support of divine justice afforded by the suggestion that evils come to be not by [God’s] will, but merely by his permission. Of course, so far as they are evils, which men perpetrate with their evil mind, as I shall show in greater detail shortly, I admit that they are not pleasing to God. But it is a quite frivolous refuge to say that God permits them, when Scripture shows Him* not only willing but the author of them*.”(John Calvin, The Eternal Predestination of God, 176).

----------


## otherone

> But it is a quite frivolous refuge to say that God permits them, when Scripture shows Him* not only willing but the author of them*.”(John Calvin, The Eternal Predestination of God, 176). [/SIZE]


AHA.  So this is what confuses you.  Well, one must have a working knowledge of koine to properly understand Calvin, as "author", "permit" and "Him", mean quite differently than what you believe....

----------


## Deborah K

> Sure, here it is from the horse's mouth:
> 
> From this it is easy to conclude how foolish and frail is the support of divine justice afforded by the suggestion that evils come to be not by [Gods] will, but merely by his permission. Of course, so far as they are evils, which men perpetrate with their evil mind, as I shall show in greater detail shortly, I admit that they are not pleasing to God. But it is a quite frivolous refuge to say that God permits them, when Scripture shows Him* not only willing but the author of them*.(John Calvin, The Eternal Predestination of God, 176).






I take it this subject will quickly change now.  LOL.

----------


## Nang

> Sure, here it is from the horse's mouth:
> 
> “From this it is easy to conclude how foolish and frail is the support of divine justice afforded by the suggestion that evils come to be not by [God’s] will, but merely by his permission. Of course, so far as they are evils, which men perpetrate with their evil mind, as I shall show in greater detail shortly, I admit that they are not pleasing to God. But it is a quite frivolous refuge to say that God permits them, when Scripture shows Him* not only willing but the author of them*.”(John Calvin, The Eternal Predestination of God, 176).


Thank you for giving the source, and hopefully you have the book so you can read it for yourself.

Please note that Calvin rightfully says God authors all evils, for this is taught in Scripture.  Isaiah 45:7

"Evils" being His very judgments against human sin . . is certainly God's sovereign prerogative.

However; note Calvin did not say God is the author of sin.  In the same volume Calvin says otherwise.  

And so does Holy Scripture, which places all causal blame for sin upon Adam.  Romans 5:12

I don't know if  you meant to imply that Calvin said God was the cause of sin, or the author of sin, but if so, you are mistaken.

----------


## Deborah K

Well....what a coinkydink.  I take it back.

----------


## TER

> Thank you for giving the source, and hopefully you have the book so you can read it for yourself.
> 
> Please note that Calvin rightfully says God authors all evils, for this is taught in Scripture.  Isaiah 45:7
> 
> "Evils" being His very judgments against human sin . . is certainly God's sovereign prerogative.
> 
> However; note Calvin did not say God is the author of sin.  In the same volume Calvin says otherwise.  
> 
> And so does Holy Scripture, which places all causal blame for sin upon Adam.  Romans 5:12
> ...


"The evils which men perpetrate with their evil min" of which God is the "author of them" does not equate to their sins?  I disagree, but I am not surprised you would try to flip it our around and change the meanings because it is quite a disgusting and blasphemous statement which he made.  Unfortuntely for you, he is among your church's fathers.  I would change churches.

As for trying to say that he says in the same volume otherwise, he doesnt.  And if you wish to prove me wrong, then you go find it.  I don't like to waste much time reading his blasphemy.

----------


## Nang

> "The evils which men perpetrate with their evil min" of which God is the "author of them" does not equate to their sins?


Nope.  Different word for "evil" than for "sin."

Isaiah 45:7 uses the word Hebrew word for evil which is "_ra_'"

The Hebrew word most predominantly used for sin is "_chattah._"

----------


## TER

> Nope.  Different word for "evil" than for "sin."
> 
> Isaiah 45:7 uses the word Hebrew word for evil which is "_ra_'"
> 
> The Hebrew word most predominantly used for sin is "_chattah._"


Yes, more mental gymnastics.  I remain unconvinced.  John Calvin has ascribed God to be the author of evil and sin and you don't like it so you twist things around.  Why not just realize that he is sorely mistaken and come to the correct understanding which has been passed down from the beginning?  Do not let pride blind you and get in your way.

----------


## Nang

> Yes, more mental gymnastics.  I remain unconvinced.  John Calvin has ascribed God to be the author of evil and sin and you don't like it so you twist things around.  Why not just realize that he is sorely mistaken and come to the correct understanding which has been passed down from the beginning?  Do not let pride blind you and get in your way.


Why not just admit you are sorely mistaken and prove to be unable to properly handle the Word of God according to the original languages?

Do not let pride and institutional traditions blind you and get in your way of actually studying the Bible.

----------


## TER

> Why not just admit you are sorely mistaken and prove to be unable to properly handle the Word of God according to the original languages?
> 
> Do not let pride and institutional traditions blind you and get in your way of actually studying the Bible.


John Calvin wrote in English.  He states that God is the author of evil and that He is the author of Adam's sin.   Deal with it.

----------


## eduardo89

> John Calvin wrote in English.  He states that God is the author of evil and that He is the author of Adam's sin.   Deal with it.


Hate to have to correct you, TER, but Calvin wrote his theological works in Latin and in his native French. Not English.

----------


## TER

> Hate to have to correct you, TER, but Calvin wrote his theological works in Latin and in his native French. Not English.


Oops!  Thank you for the correction!  I didn't know that.  Either way, his theology is blasphemous in any language.

----------


## erowe1

> Sola Fide made a comment the other day that it's no longer necessary to try to follow the 10 commandments.
> 
> Post #9.  Also see Jmdrake's great response in post #29.
> 
> http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...rks-of-Charity


First of all, post #9 doesn't say that.

Second of all, even if SF said it, I don't see how that would have anything to do with the OP, which is about Calvinism, not SF.

----------


## Brett85

> First of all, post #9 doesn't say that.
> 
> Second of all, even if SF said it, I don't see how that would have anything to do with the OP, which is about Calvinism, not SF.


It's about certain Calvinists.  I said in the first post that I wasn't talking about all Calvinists.  And the original title of this thread was "why many Calvinists are unsaved."  The moderator changed the thread title.  I wasn't saying that all Calvinists have the three different characteristics I mentioned.

----------


## eduardo89

> Oops!  Thank you for the correction!  I didn't know that.  Either way, his theology is blasphemous in any language.


That is correct and we can agree on.

----------


## erowe1

> It's about certain Calvinists.


As well as certain of any other group, including Arminians. But in that case, why specify Calvinists at all? The things you listed have nothing to do with Calvinism.

----------


## Brett85

> As well as certain of any other group, including Arminians. But in that case, why specify Calvinists at all? The things you listed have nothing to do with Calvinism.


Because most of the Calvinists on this forum have the three characteristics that I listed above.  (I would probably exclude you from that group)  This was just a response to Sola Fide's thread about how all Arminians are unsaved.

----------


## erowe1

> John Calvin wrote in English.  He states that God is the author of evil and that He is the author of Adam's sin.   Deal with it.


Calvin explicitly taught that God is not the author of sin and not the author of Adam's fall.
If you search for the word "author" in this work, you'll see where he does.
http://www.reformed.org/documents/in...stination.html

He wrote volumes and volumes, so he made have said at some other point that God was the author of sin. I'm in no position to say that he definitely never did. But if so, I bet that if you read it in context there would be something that indicated he didn't mean to contradict what he wrote here.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> If you are going to say something like this, at least attribute a source for your assertion.


I don't know if Calvin would say that, but I know SF has.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Oops!  Thank you for the correction!  I didn't know that.  Either way, his theology is blasphemous in any language.


I'm guessing this post isn't going to get flagged either. Double standards FTW....

Calvin's theology was NOT blasphemous.  The Orthodox on the other hand...

----------


## erowe1

> Because most of the Calvinists on this forum have the three characteristics that I listed above.  (I would probably exclude you from that group)  This was just a response to Sola Fide's thread about how all Arminians are unsaved.


How many people are you talking about? And again, if it has nothing to do with Calvinism, then why attach it to Calvinism?

Do you do the same thing with black people?

----------


## Brett85

> How many people are you talking about? And again, if it has nothing to do with Calvinism, then why attach it to Calvinism?
> 
> Do you do the same thing with black people?


It seems to have to do with Calvinism, because Calvinists have a reputation of engaging in the type of behavior I mentioned in my first post.  However, I do point out that not every Calvinist acts like this, as I know Calvinists who don't have this arrogant, hateful attitude.  However, Calvinists generally seem to have these characteristics more so than other groups.

----------


## Terry1

> Thank you for giving the source, and hopefully you have the book so you can read it for yourself.
> 
> Please note that Calvin rightfully says God authors all evils, for this is taught in Scripture.  Isaiah 45:7
> 
> "Evils" being His very judgments against human sin . . is certainly God's sovereign prerogative.
> 
> However; note Calvin did not say God is the author of sin.  In the same volume Calvin says otherwise.  
> 
> And so does Holy Scripture, which places all causal blame for sin upon Adam.  Romans 5:12
> ...


And this is where you need to use the Septuagint with Old Testament script.

God is not the author of evil and here's the Septuagint's closest translation to Isaiah 45:7 here, which does not say that God is the author and creator of evil.  God can remove His right hand and allow evil and "calamity" as the Septuagint clearly says here:


http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible...=t_conc_724007



עֹשֶׂה כָל־אֵֽלֶּה׃ ס
Masoretic Text  
Reverse Interlinear
English (NASB)   [?]	Strong's	Root Form (Hebrew)

The One forming

h3335   
יָצַר yatsar

light

h216   
אוֹר 'owr

and creating

h1254   
בָּרָא bara'

darkness,

h2822   
חֹשֶׁךְ choshek

Causing

h6213   
עָשָׂה `asah

well-being

h7965   
שָׁלוֹם shalowm

and creating

h1254   
בָּרָא bara'

calamity;

h7451   
רַע ra`

I am the LORD

h3068   
יְהֹוָה Yĕhovah

who does

h6213   
עָשָׂה `asah

all

h3605   
כֹּל kol

these.

h428   
אֵלֶּה 'el-leh

*
which translates as:


Isa-45:7
The one forming light and creating darkness, causing well-being and creating calamity.  I am the Lord who does all these.*

----------


## erowe1

> It seems to have to do with Calvinism, because Calvinists have a reputation of engaging in the type of behavior I mentioned in my first post.  However, I do point out that not every Calvinist acts like this, as I know Calvinists who don't have this arrogant, hateful attitude.  However, Calvinists generally seem to have these characteristics more so than other groups.


What do you base this on?

A "reputation" just means that people say things like what you're saying. But if the other people who say it have as little basis as you do, then you're back to it being a false caricature that has nothing to do with Calvinism. It really says more about the people saying those things than it does about Calvinists.

Again, do you do what you're doing here with whatever reputations black people have too?

----------


## TER

“Meantime, I freely acknowledge my doctrine to be this: that Adam fell, not by only the permission of God, but by His very secret counsel and decree; and that Adam drew all his posterity with himself, by his Fall, into eternal destruction.” (Calvin, Defense of the Secret Providence of God, 267)

So in other words, our loving God wanted and willed Adam and all humans to sin and fall.  This is blasphemy.

----------


## Brett85

> What do you base this on?
> 
> A "reputation" just means that people say things like what you're saying. But if the other people who say it have as little basis as you do, then you're back to it being a false caricature that has nothing to do with Calvinism.
> 
> Again, do you do what you're doing here with whatever reputations black people have too?


Just type in "why are Calvinists such jerks" on Google and you get 2.4 million results.  You don't get any results when you type in "why are Arminians such jerks."

----------


## erowe1

> “Meantime, I freely acknowledge my doctrine to be this: that Adam fell, not by only the permission of God, but by His very secret counsel and decree; and that Adam drew all his posterity with himself, by his Fall, into eternal destruction.” (Calvin, Defense of the Secret Providence of God, 267)
> 
> So in other words, our loving God wanted and willed Adam and all humans to sin and fall.  This is blasphemy.


That's not just Calvin's view. That's pretty much all Christians. Certainly the Roman Catholic Church agrees. Do you not? I doubt that Arminius would have disagreed with that. It's not like a Christian can say that the cross was Plan B or something.

Significantly, Calvin also explained why this did not make God the author of sin, which was what you claimed Calvin had written in English.

----------


## Dr.3D

I doubt God was surprised by what Adam did.

----------


## Brett85

> That's not just Calvin's view. That's pretty much all Christians. Certainly the Roman Catholic Church agrees. Do you not? I doubt that Arminius would have disagreed with that. It's not like you can say that the cross was Plan B or something.


I'm pretty sure it's just a Calvinistic view that God authors and causes sin.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Meantime, I freely acknowledge my doctrine to be this: that Adam fell, not by only the permission of God, but by His very secret counsel and decree; and that Adam drew all his posterity with himself, by his Fall, into eternal destruction. (Calvin, Defense of the Secret Providence of God, 267)
> 
> So in other words, our loving God wanted and willed Adam and all humans to sin and fall.  This is blasphemy.


No.  Your idol that is not the Sovereign God of everything is blasphemous.  Your idol that cannot bring His purposes to pass is blasphemous.

----------


## Brett85

> I doubt God was surprised by what Adam did.


Of course not, because he has foreknowledge of what will happen in the future.  But that doesn't mean that he caused Adam to eat the forbidden fruit, that God somehow willed Adam to eat it.

----------


## TER

> That's not just Calvin's view. That's pretty much all Christians. Certainly the Roman Catholic Church agrees. Do you not? I doubt that Arminius would have disagreed with that. It's not like you can say that the cross was Plan B or something.


No, that is definitely not the majority of Christians view and unheard of in the Church Fathers.  That God knew it would happen and that God allowed it to happen does not mean what Calvin is saying (that it occured 'by His very secret counsel and decree').

----------


## erowe1

> Just type in "why are Calvinists such jerks" on Google and you get 2.4 million results.  You don't get any results when you type in "why are Arminians such jerks."


So Arminians call Calvinists jerks a lot. And Calvinists never do that to Arminians.

And which side are you saying this fact supports?

----------


## Dr.3D

> Of course not, because he has foreknowledge of what will happen in the future.  But that doesn't mean that he caused Adam to eat the forbidden fruit, that God somehow willed Adam to eat it.


He created Adam at the same time knowing Adam would do what he did.  What do you think?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Of course not, because he has foreknowledge of what will happen in the future.  But that doesn't mean that he caused Adam to eat the forbidden fruit, that God somehow willed Adam to eat it.


Did God know what was going to happen before He created the world?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> “Meantime, I freely acknowledge my doctrine to be this: that Adam fell, not by only the permission of God, but by His very secret counsel and decree; and that Adam drew all his posterity with himself, by his Fall, into eternal destruction.” (Calvin, Defense of the Secret Providence of God, 267)
> 
> So in other words, our loving God wanted and willed Adam and all humans to sin and fall.  This is blasphemy.


Well, count me in with the blasphemer... I agree with Calvin.  Why don't you burn me at the stake already?

The only point that I'm not 100% certain of is the point that Adam himself was damned, but I tend toward agreeing with that too.



> Just type in "why are Calvinists such jerks" on Google and you get 2.4 million results.  You don't get any results when you type in "why are Arminians such jerks."


I really have a hard time believing that...

----------


## Brett85

> So Arminians call Calvinists jerks a lot. And Calvinists never do that to Arminians.
> 
> And which side are you saying this fact supports?


Calling someone a "jerk" is sometimes an accurate description of the way they act and not a personal attack.  If someone like Sola Fide comes in here and spreads his Fred Phelps type hate and division, it's simply an accurate and truthful description to call someone like that a "jerk."  There's nothing wrong with making an honest observation about someone's behavior, about how a certain person treats others.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I'm pretty sure it's just a Calvinistic view that God authors and causes sin.


Calvin doesn't say that God "authors" or "causes" sin...

----------


## TER

> He created Adam at the same time knowing Adam would do what he did.  What do you think?


I think that God took the risk of creating Adam knowing He would eventually have to ascend upon the cross because of His great love.   But this DOES NOT MEAN He wanted or willed Adam to sin.  That is completely against the very concept of God which Christ came to reveal.

----------


## erowe1

> No, that is definitely not the majority of Christians view and unheard of in the Church Fathers.  That God knew it would happen and that God allowed it to happen does not mean what Calvin is saying ('by His very secret counsel and decree').


What's your basis for saying most Christians don't agree that Adam's sin was according to God's secret counsel and decree?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Calling someone a "jerk" is sometimes an accurate description of the way they act and not a personal attack.  If someone like Sola Fide comes in here *and spreads his Fred Phelps type hate and division*, it's simply an accurate and truthful description to call someone like that a "jerk."  There's nothing wrong with making an honest observation about someone's behavior, about how a certain person treats others.


Unfortunately,. I can't neg rep you at the moment.  But comparing Sola to Fred Phelps is just insane.  I might as well compare you to Pelagius.  You should repent of making false equivalencies.

----------


## Brett85

> Did God know what was going to happen before He created the world?


He certainly had the power to know that, but he also has the power to limit his own foreknowledge if he chooses to, so we don't really know for sure.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I think that God took the risk of creating Adam knowing He would eventually have to ascend upon the cross because of His great love.   But this DOES NOT MEAN He wanted or willed Adam to sin.  That is completely against the very concept of God which Christ came to reveal.


God TOOK A RISK?

Wow.

I believe this to be blatant blasphemy, and I believe that everyone who teaches such a thing is an agent of Satan.

----------


## TER

> Calvin doesn't say that God "authors" or "causes" sin...


I just quoted him above in two places where he says that.

----------


## TER

> What's your basis for saying most Christians don't agree that Adam's sin was according to God's secret counsel and decree?


The readings of the Church Fathers.

----------


## Brett85

> Unfortunately,. I can't neg rep you at the moment.  But comparing Sola to Fred Phelps is just insane.  I might as well compare you to Pelagius.  You should repent of making false equivalencies.


I don't think it's a false equivalency.  They both say that God hates certain people.  Sola Fide hasn't said that "God hates ****," but I've seen him say that God hates Arminians.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> He certainly had the power to know that, but he also has the power to limit his own foreknowledge if he chooses to, so we don't really know for sure.


Wow...

This is disgusting.

I don't think you believe the true gospel TC.  I'm concerned for you...

----------


## Dr.3D

> He certainly had the power to know that, but he also has the power to limit his own foreknowledge if he chooses to, so we don't really know for sure.


Wow, I never thought of that one.

----------


## erowe1

> Calling someone a "jerk" is sometimes an accurate description of the way they act and not a personal attack.  If someone like Sola Fide comes in here and spreads his Fred Phelps type hate and division, it's simply an accurate and truthful description to call someone like that a "jerk."  There's nothing wrong with making an honest observation about someone's behavior, about how a certain person treats others.


I don't perceive SF the same way you do. But let's say he did that, your OP makes that about Calvinism.

Do you do the same thing with black people?

----------


## Brett85

> Wow...
> 
> This is disgusting.
> 
> I don't think you believe the true gospel TC.  I'm concerned for you...


So you believe that there are some things that God doesn't have the power to do?  If so, I'm concerned that you believe a false gospel.

----------


## TER

> God TOOK A RISK?
> 
> Wow.
> 
> I believe this to be blatant blasphemy, and I believe that everyone who teaches such a thing is an agent of Satan.


Maybe I should say, God accepted the consequences knowing that Adam would sin.  

BTW, how many times are you going to call me an agent of Satan?

----------


## erowe1

..

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I don't think it's a false equivalency.  They both say that God hates certain people.  Sola Fide hasn't said that "God hates ****," but I've seen him say that God hates Arminians.


Can the author of Psalm 5:5 be compared to Fred Phelps as well?  Is someone who agrees with the author and says God hates workers of iniquity are they worthy of comparison to Fred Phelps?

I happen to think there's a little more nuance on this subject than SF does (I think Matthew 5:45 is discussing genuine grace whereas I don't think Sola does) but comparing him to Fred Phelps is just ridiculous, and asserting that Phelps' main problem is that he thinks God hates certain people is ridiculous as well.

----------


## Brett85

> I don't perceive SF the same way you do. But let's say he did that, your OP makes that about Calvinism.
> 
> Do you do the same thing with black people?


I didn't make it about SF specifically because I felt that would be against the forum rules much more so than the thread I created, and I didn't want the entire thread to be deleted or to be banned from the forum.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> So you believe that there are some things that God doesn't have the power to do?  If so, I'm concerned that you believe a false gospel.


Yeah, I don't think God can make himself not God.  So... I guess according to you I believe a false gospel.  Will you at least follow through to the logical conclusion and say that I'm not saved?  Or are you too chicken to do that?

----------


## erowe1

> The readings of the Church Fathers.


How many of them denied that Adam's sin was according to God's counsel and decree?

----------


## Brett85

> Can the author of Psalm 5:5 be compared to Fred Phelps as well?  Is someone who agrees with the author and says God hates workers of iniquity are they worthy of comparison to Fred Phelps?
> 
> I happen to think there's a little more nuance on this subject than SF does (I think Matthew 5:45 is discussing genuine grace whereas I don't think Sola does) but comparing him to Fred Phelps is just ridiculous, and asserting that Phelps' main problem is that he thinks God hates certain people is ridiculous as well.


Maybe so, but I don't see how anyone can feel bad for him considering the way that he treats other people.  You certainly don't ever call him out for the ridiculous and false things he says.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I didn't make it about SF specifically because I felt that would be against the forum rules much more so than the thread I created, and I didn't want the entire thread to be deleted or to be banned from the forum.


What's funny is that SF doesn't even consider himself a Calvinist, so your thread actually excludes him.  "Monergists" may have been better, but it would have forced you to admit belief in synergism.

----------


## erowe1

> I didn't make it about SF specifically because I felt that would be against the forum rules much more so than the thread I created, and I didn't want the entire thread to be deleted or to be banned from the forum.


Right. You made it about Calvinism. But now when pressed, you can't provide any support for that. And yet you still seem insistent on sticking to it.

----------


## Terry1

Obviously--God had no knowledge until after Adam and Eve had eaten the fruit of the tree of knowledge.


3:9 And the *Lord God called Adam and said to him, Adam, where art thou?
*
Brenton Septuagint LXX Genesis 3:9  *And Yahweh Elohim called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where [art] thou?*

Brenton Septuagint LXX Genesis *3:10 And he said to him, I heard thy voice as thou walkedst in the garden, and I feared because I was naked and I hid myself.*

Brenton Septuagint LXX Genesis 3:11  *And God said to him, Who told thee that thou wast naked, unless thou hast eaten of the tree concerning which I charged thee of it alone not to eat?*

Brenton Septuagint LXX Genesis 3:12 Commentary Added Online 3:12* And Adam said, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me-- she gave me of the tree and I ate*

----------


## TER

> First of all, you can fool others here. But you and I both know full well that you actually don't know very much about what the Church Fathers wrote.
> 
> So really then, what's your basis? Did you just make it up? Are you just repeating what someone else told you?


In your mind, no one can fool you erowe!  You are too self assured in the vanity of your own mind!  I am pretty sure I have read much more of the Church Fathers then you have, but I may be wrong.  If you have indeed read much of their writings, then you forget many things or perhaps just glanced over it.  But please, show me where the consensus is amongst the Fathers that God is the cause of Adam's fall.

----------


## Brett85

> Yeah, I don't think God can make himself not God.  So... I guess according to you I believe a false gospel.  Will you at least follow through to the logical conclusion and say that I'm not saved?  Or are you too chicken to do that?


It's not up to me to decide whether you're saved or not.  That's up to God to decide.  But my own personal view is that God has the power to do anything he wants to do except for sin.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Maybe so, but I don't see how anyone can feel bad for him considering the way that he treats other people.


Irrelevant, and also not really fair.




> You certainly don't ever call him out for the ridiculous and false things he says.


Can you give me an example?  For the record, I have criticized him before.

----------


## TER

> How many of them denied that Adam's sin was according to God's counsel and decree?


None would ever mention such a thing and I challenge you too find any consensus in the Church Fathers that God's will was for Adam to sin.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> It's not up to me to decide whether you're saved or not.  That's up to God to decide.  But my own personal view is that God has the power to do anything he wants to do *except for sin.*


Woooah!  So you made an exception too!  Obviously you too believe a false gospel based on your definition

More seriously, could God make a being more powerful than himself?

----------


## Brett85

> What's funny is that SF doesn't even consider himself a Calvinist, so your thread actually excludes him.  "Monergists" may have been better, but it would have forced you to admit belief in synergism.


I don't deny that I believe in synergism, since I believe in free will.  If I believed in Monergism, then I would have to believe that God chooses to save certain people and ignore everyone else.  Since Monergism leads to the belief in limited atonement and unconditional election, I certainly can't support it.  The Bible clearly says that God isn't willing for anyone to perish.

----------


## erowe1

> I don't think it's a false equivalency.  They both say that God hates certain people.  Sola Fide hasn't said that "God hates ****," but I've seen him say that God hates Arminians.


Fred Phelps does it at funerals.

The Bible says God hates certain people. If that's the worst thing you can say about SF, that's not much. I don't think that rises to the level of what you're doing in this thread. And I've seen plenty of other non-Calvinists do the kind of thing you're doing here too, and have been on the receiving end of it my share of times, including having blatant lies told about me by posters that you probably perceive to be really nice and honest.

I think that what you're saying about Calvinists is a matter of perception because you're one of the people that disagrees with Calvinism that those Calvinists are arguing against.

----------


## Brett85

> Woooah!  So you made an exception too!  Obviously you too believe a false gospel based on your definition
> 
> More seriously, could God make a being more powerful than himself?


I suppose he could, but I don't know.  The Bible doesn't address those issues.  I'm pretty sure he would never do that even if he had the power to do so.  But I know that God can't sin since the definition of sin is disobedience to God, and it doesn't make sense logically that God can disobey himself.

----------


## Terry1

> He created Adam at the same time knowing Adam would do what he did.  What do you think?


God can and does limit his own foreknowledge regarding certain things to whatever He chooses as in "remembering your sin no more" and "blotting names from the book of life as if they never were.

If you read Genesis 3:9---you will see that God had no knowledge of what Adam and Eve had done until after they had eaten the fruit of the tree of knowledge.

3:9 And the Lord God called Adam and said to him, Adam, where art thou?

Brenton Septuagint LXX Genesis 3:9 And Yahweh Elohim called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where [art] thou?

Brenton Septuagint LXX Genesis 3:10 And he said to him, I heard thy voice as thou walkedst in the garden, and I feared because I was naked and I hid myself.

Brenton Septuagint LXX Genesis 3:11 And God said to him, Who told thee that thou wast naked, unless thou hast eaten of the tree concerning which I charged thee of it alone not to eat?

Brenton Septuagint LXX Genesis 3:12 Commentary Added Online 3:12 And Adam said, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me-- she gave me of the tree and I ate

----------


## Brett85

> Fred Phelps does it at funerals.
> 
> The Bible says God hates certain people. If that's the worst thing you can say about SF, that's not much. I don't think that rises to the level of what you're doing in this thread. And I've seen plenty of other non-Calvinists do the kind of thing you're doing here too, and have been on the receiving end of it my share of times, including having blatant lies told about me by posters that you probably perceive to be really nice and honest.
> 
> I think that what you're saying about Calvinists is a matter of perception because you're one of the people that disagrees with Calvinism that those Calvinists are arguing against.


Well, I got 5 different +reps for what I said in my original post, so apparently quite a few people agreed with me.

----------


## Dr.3D

> I suppose he could, but I don't know.  The Bible doesn't address those issues.  I'm pretty sure he would never do that even if he had the power to do so.  But I know that God can't sin since the definition of sin is disobedience to God, and it doesn't make sense logically that God can disobey himself.


So do you believe God can create people who would disobey Him?

----------


## Brett85

> So do you believe God can create people who would disobey Him?


Yeah, he certainly can.  He did at least create Adam with the ability to disobey him.  He gave Adam free will.

----------


## TER

> So do you believe God can create people who would disobey Him?


Yes, because those are the risks God accepted when He granted the angels and humans free will.

----------


## erowe1

> None would ever mention such a thing and I challenge you too find any consensus in the Church Fathers that God's will was for Adam to sin.


Calvin said counsel and decree. I can definitely find it for Augustine. And I can definitely find that Pelagius disagreed with Augustine for that. And I can definitely find Church counsels anathematizing Pelagius for his anti-Augustinian views, especially in the West, but also in counsels that EO consider ecumenical.

So, you admit that you can't find a single church father who explicitly contradicts what you quoted from Calvin, and said that they unanimously disagreed with?

----------


## Dr.3D

> Yeah, he certainly can.  He did at least create Adam with the ability to disobey him.  He gave Adam free will.


And God didn't know they would disobey Him when the created them?

----------


## Terry1

> So do you believe God can create people who would disobey Him?


God didn't create Esau specifically to disobey Him.  God hated Esau from the womb because He foreknew what Esau would do.  God didn't choose for Esau.  It wouldn't make sense for God to "hate Esau" from the womb knowing He caused him to choose what Esau chose for himself---willingly.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Fred Phelps does it at funerals.
> 
> The Bible says God hates certain people. If that's the worst thing you can say about SF, that's not much. I don't think that rises to the level of what you're doing in this thread. And I've seen plenty of other non-Calvinists do the kind of thing you're doing here too, and have been on the receiving end of it my share of times, including having blatant lies told about me by posters that you probably perceive to be really nice and honest.
> 
> I think that what you're saying about Calvinists is a matter of perception because you're one of the people that disagrees with Calvinism that those Calvinists are arguing against.


Just out of curiosity, do you believe that it is inherently wrong to say God loves all men without exception?  If not, how do you reconcile his hatred with his love?



> I suppose he could, but I don't know.  The Bible doesn't address those issues.


God cannot go against his nature.  Part of his nature is being God.  God cannot create a being more powerful than himself because he is already infinitely powerful.  Its kind of like the "rock heavier than God can lift" false dilemma, and the answer is no.  The same is true for God limiting his knowledge of the future.  He can't.

 I'm pretty sure he would never do that even if he had the power to do so.  But I know that God can't sin since the definition of sin is disobedience to God, and it doesn't make sense logically that God can disobey himself.[/QUOTE]

OK, I agree with you but then here's my question: You've said before that the God of Calvinism is a "monster".  On what basis?  After all, if God created some for salvation and some for damnation that would not be sinful now would it?  Unless you say God would be disobeying himself if he did that.




> Well, I got 5 different +reps for what I said in my original post, so apparently quite a few people agreed with me.


Of course they did.  False teachers don't like being told that they preach the false gospel.  They have smooth tongues but only the perceptive realize that they are speaking evil.

----------


## Christian Liberty

TC, just for curiosity, did you have me in mind with this thread as well or just SF?

----------


## Brett85

> And God didn't know they would disobey Him when the created them?


Even if he did know they would disobey him when he created them, he may have thought that giving them free will and allowing them to disobey him was a better option than not allowing them to have free will and simply stringing them along like puppets.

----------


## Brett85

> TC, just for curiosity, did you have me in mind with this thread as well or just SF?


Mostly SF, since he created the thread about how Arminians are unsaved.  Although I think you struggle with pride and arrogance as well.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Even if he did know they would disobey him when he created them, he may have thought that giving them free will and allowing them to disobey him was a better option than not allowing them to have free will and simply stringing them along like puppets.


I know Sola is going to answer this the same way he's answered it several times already, but interestingly, the OTCers reject the puppet analogy for the opposite reason... they think that declaring man to a puppet makes him too autonomous...

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Mostly SF, since he created the thread about how Arminians are unsaved.  Although I think you struggle with pride and arrogance as well.


If I created a thread called "three reasons Muslims are not saved" would you consider that to be prideful or arrogant?

I don't necessarily view that as a fair comparison, just throwing it out there as a question.

----------


## Terry1

> Maybe I should say, God accepted the consequences knowing that Adam would sin.  
> 
> BTW, how many times are you going to call me an agent of Satan?


He can't help himself TER--God made him do it--it was fore-ordained.

----------


## erowe1

> Well, I got 5 different +reps for what I said in my original post, so apparently quite a few people agreed with me.


If SF got 5 plus reps for his OP about Arminians not being saved, what would you conclude?

----------


## Brett85

> OK, I agree with you but then here's my question: You've said before that the God of Calvinism is a "monster".  On what basis?  After all, if God created some for salvation and some for damnation that would not be sinful now would it?  Unless you say God would be disobeying himself if he did that.


Technically, if the God of Calvinism is true, God still wouldn't actually be sinful, since he creates the rules and isn't capable of sin.  But, I just believe that the God of Calvinism isn't the same as the God of love described in the Bible.

1 John 4:8

Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love.

----------


## Brett85

> If I created a thread called "three reasons Muslims are not saved" would you consider that to be prideful or arrogant?
> 
> I don't necessarily view that as a fair comparison, just throwing it out there as a question.


Not necessarily, but if you created a thread titled, "three reasons Muslims are Satanic," that would probably be arrogant and prideful.

----------


## Brett85

> If SF got 5 plus reps for his OP about Arminians not being saved, what would you conclude?


That there are 5 Calvinists on this forum.

----------


## Terry1

> If SF got 5 plus reps for his OP about Arminians not being saved, what would you conclude?


That the *Sola-5* have an under cover operative.

----------


## erowe1

> Even if he did know they would disobey him when he created them, he may have thought that giving them free will and allowing them to disobey him was a better option than not allowing them to have free will and simply stringing them along like puppets.


Of course he could have also created a different Adam who also would have had free will but whom he would have known never would have sinned. But he instead of creating that one, he chose (according to his counsel and decree, to use the words Calvin used in TER's quote) to create the one he knew was going to sin.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> He can't help himself TER--God made him do it--it was fore-ordained.


lol!  If my post was immoral I'd still be held responsible for it by God.  I don't think it was immoral, however.



> If SF got 5 plus reps for his OP about Arminians not being saved, what would you conclude?


Could you by any chance respond to that OP?  I'd be curious if you could explain why its wrong.  I know you aren't going to convince him but I'm genuinely "on the fence" on this issue and so I'd appreciate any good thoughts on it.




> Technically, if the God of Calvinism is true, God still wouldn't actually be sinful, since he creates the rules and isn't capable of sin.  But, I just believe that the God of Calvinism isn't the same as the God of love described in the Bible.
> 
> 1 John 4:8
> 
> Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love.


I don't think that verse refutes Calvinism.

----------


## erowe1

> That there are 5 Calvinists on this forum.


And it would have said more about them than it did SF's post.

----------


## Terry1

> That there are 5 Calvinists on this forum.


There's one hiding behind a curtain somewhere TC.

----------


## Brett85

> Of course he could have also created a different Adam who also would have had free will but whom he would have known never would have sinned. But he instead of creating that one, he chose (according to his counsel and decree, to use the words Calvin used in TER's quote) to create the one he knew was going to sin.


Even if he did, that still doesn't make God the author of sin.  God didn't somehow control Adam and make him sin.  He gave Adam free will, and Adam made the choice to sin.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Not necessarily, but if you created a thread titled, "three reasons Muslims are Satanic," that would probably be arrogant and prideful.


Theologically speaking I would say anything that is not of God is satanic.  But that's not what Sola's OP originally was titled as, it was "three reasons Arminians are not saved."  incidentally, he stole the title from Chris Adams, so it wasn't even really his title.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Even if he did, that still doesn't make God the author of sin.  God didn't somehow control Adam and make him sin.  He gave Adam free will, and Adam made the choice to sin.


I think erowe1 explained it quite well, and yes, I'd agree that Adam had free will.  But erowe1's post explains quite well how God still "counseled and decreed" for Adam to sin despite the fact that he had free will.

----------


## TER

> Calvin said counsel and decree. I can definitely find it for Augustine. And I can definitely find that Pelagius disagreed with Augustine for that. And I can definitely find Church counsels anathematizing Pelagius for his anti-Augustinian views, especially in the West, but also in counsels that EO consider ecumenical.
> 
> So, you admit that you can't find a single church father who explicitly contradicts what you quoted from Calvin, and said that they unanimously disagreed with?


St. Augustine went against the Fathers before him on several points, including the wrong teachings which later became the backbone for Protestant theology, namely his opinions on predestination.  He was fallible and this is an example of his fallibility.  It is nice however that you would use a Church Father to state your case.  That is a good thing to practice.

As for finding you a specific quote, I have no desire to do so.  If you want to prove me wrong, go ahead and search.  I am quite confident what the consensus of the Church Fathers have to say about who is author of Adam's fall.   But, if you are interested, here is some reading for you with regards to what the Synod of Jerusalem in 1672 stated which condemned Calvin and his blasphemous teachings and is consistent with the Patristic understanding of predestination.  http://www.orthodox-christianity.com...ion-calvinism/

----------


## Brett85

> I think erowe1 explained it quite well, and yes, I'd agree that Adam had free will.  But erowe1's post explains quite well how God still "counseled and decreed" for Adam to sin despite the fact that he had free will.


I believe that God is sovereign and everything that happens he allows to happen.  I think that God created Adam and allowed Adam to sin.  God created us and allows us to sin.  I don't, however, believe that God somehow wills us to sin.

----------


## Dr.3D

> I think erowe1 explained it quite well, and yes, I'd agree that Adam had free will.  But erowe1's post explains quite well how God still "counseled and decreed" for Adam to sin despite the fact that he had free will.


That's my view as well.

----------


## TER

> Even if he did, that still doesn't make God the author of sin.  God didn't somehow control Adam and make him sin.  He gave Adam free will, and Adam made the choice to sin.


This is the teachings of the Church Fathers.  Rest assured TC, you are in good company.

----------


## Terry1

> Even if he did, that still doesn't make God the author of sin.  God didn't somehow control Adam and make him sin.  He gave Adam free will, and Adam made the choice to sin.


TC--Did you see this post I made to Nang who tried to use Isaiah 45:7 to make the claim that "God created evil and is the author of sin and death"?

And this is where you need to use the Septuagint with Old Testament script.

God is not the author of evil and here's the Septuagint's closest translation to Isaiah 45:7 here, which does not say that God is the author and creator of evil.  God can remove His right hand and allow evil and "calamity" as the Septuagint clearly says here:


http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible...=t_conc_724007



עֹשֶׂה כָל־אֵֽלֶּה׃ ס
Masoretic Text  
Reverse Interlinear
English (NASB)   [?]	Strong's	Root Form (Hebrew)

The One forming

h3335   
יָצַר yatsar

light

h216   
אוֹר 'owr

and creating

h1254   
בָּרָא bara'

darkness,

h2822   
חֹשֶׁךְ choshek

Causing

h6213   
עָשָׂה `asah

well-being

h7965   
שָׁלוֹם shalowm

and creating

h1254   
בָּרָא bara'

calamity;

h7451   
רַע ra`

I am the LORD

h3068   
יְהֹוָה Yĕhovah

who does

h6213   
עָשָׂה `asah

all

h3605   
כֹּל kol

these.

h428   
אֵלֶּה 'el-leh

*
which translates as:


Isa-45:7
The one forming light and creating darkness, causing well-being and creating calamity.  I am the Lord who does all these.*

----------


## TER

> Of course he could have also created a different Adam who also would have had free will but whom he would have known never would have sinned. But he instead of creating that one, he chose (according to his counsel and decree, to use the words Calvin used in TER's quote) to create the one he knew was going to sin.


Because love is only divine and in the image of God when given freely.  God created Adam free to choose to love him or not.  God did not cause Adam to sin or desire Adam to sin.

----------


## erowe1

> Even if he did, that still doesn't make God the author of sin.  God didn't somehow control Adam and make him sin.  He gave Adam free will, and Adam made the choice to sin.


That's exactly what Calvin said, that the fact that Adam's sin was according to God's counsel and decree does not make God the author of sin.

You just answered TER's charge against Calvin.

----------


## erowe1

> Because love is only divine and in the image of God when given freely.  God created Adam free to choose to love him or not.  God did not cause Adam to sin or desire Adam to sin.


But, as I said in the quote that you just quoted, God could have created Adam, such that he would have known that Adam would have freely given God his love and never sinned.

But God didn't create that Adam, instead God chose, according to his counsel and decree, to create the Adam that he did create, the one whom he knew was going to sin.

----------


## erowe1

> This is the teachings of the Church Fathers.  Rest assured TC, you are in good company.


Really? Because that's also the teaching of Calvin.

----------


## Dr.3D

> Really? Because that's also the teaching of Calvin.


Well it's good to see some agreement.

Seems like both of these threads could have been merged into one, titled   *Being Saved*.

----------


## TER

> Really? Because that's also the teaching of Calvin.


As much as you want to believe that, it simply is not true.

----------


## Terry1

> That's exactly what Calvin said, that the fact that Adam's sin was according to God's counsel and decree does not make God the author of sin.
> 
> You just answered TER's charge against Calvin.


You have God's decree and His foreknowledge confused.

----------


## Nang

> TC--Did you see this post I made to Nang who tried to use Isaiah 45:7 to make the claim that "God created evil and is the author of sin and death"?



Nang never used Isaiah 45:7 to make the claim that God is the author of sin and death.

What a blatant liar you continually prove to be.

----------


## erowe1

> As much as you want to believe that, it simply is not true.


I already posted the book where Calvin said that. Did you check it?

----------


## Nang

> As much as you want to believe that, it simply is not true.



Maybe we should start calling TER a Calvinist, since he thinks he is such an expert regarding Calvin's teachings.

----------


## Terry1

> Originally Posted by Nang  View Post
> Thank you for giving the source, and hopefully you have the book so you can read it for yourself.
> 
> *Please note that Calvin rightfully says God authors all evils, for this is taught in Scripture. Isaiah 45:7
> *
> "Evils" being His very judgments against human sin . . is certainly God's sovereign prerogative.
> 
> However; note Calvin did not say God is the author of sin. In the same volume Calvin says otherwise. 
> 
> ...





> Nang never used Isaiah 45:7 to make the claim that God is the author of sin and death.
> 
> What a blatant liar you continually prove to be.


..Short memory eh Nang?  God doesn't "author" evil---He's not the "author" of it as you believe.  God allows evil by removing His protective hand and seal of the Holy Spirit.

----------


## Nang

> ..Short memory eh Nang?



You cannot read, can you?

----------


## Christian Liberty

I don't know enough about this to say for sure, but IIRC the word in Greek would originally have meant "calamity" which could also be what Calvin is referring to.

Nang, is there anything to that?

----------


## Brett85

> You cannot read, can you?


You say that and then accuse other people of being "hateful" in another thread?  Wow.

----------


## Terry1

> Maybe we should start calling TER a Calvinist, since he thinks he is such an expert regarding Calvin's teachings.


Maybe we could say the same thing about you regarding Eastern Orthodoxy and Arminainism.  You haven't a clue.

----------


## Terry1

> You cannot read, can you?


Obviously you're the one with the reading comp problem if you're denying the fact that you claimed God is the author of evil.  I didn't think anyone could be that blind, but hey---nothing surprises me coming from you people any more.

----------


## Nang

> I don't know enough about this to say for sure, but IIRC the word in Greek would originally have meant "calamity" which could also be what Calvin is referring to.
> 
> Nang, is there anything to that?


Indeed, one of the definitions of "ra" is calamnity.  Calamnities are evils that God employs *to punish and judge sin.*

However; the word for sin is different than this word for "calamnity" so to use this verse to say God causes sin, is just plain wrong.

Especially when Scripture plainly states unequivocally that Adam is the cause and to be blamed for sin and death.  Romans 5:12

----------


## Christian Liberty

> You say that and then accuse other people of being "hateful" in another thread?  Wow.


Nang's harshness is justified.  That's the difference.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Indeed, one of the definitions of "ra" is calamnity.  Calamnities are evils that God employs *to punish and judge sin.*
> 
> However; the word for sin is different than this word for "calamnity" so to use this verse to say God causes sin, is just plain wrong.
> 
> Especially when Scripture plainly states unequivocally that Adam is the cause and to be blamed for sin and death.  Romans 5:12


Thank you.  +rep

----------


## Brett85

> Nang's harshness is justified.  That's the difference.


Yeah, I'm sure you're objective.

----------


## Nang

> Obviously you're the one with the reading comp problem if you're denying the fact that you claimed God is the author of evil.  I didn't think anyone could be that blind, but hey---nothing surprises me coming from you people any more.



In your stubborness, you are confusing two subjects.

Evil and sin.

Two different things.

Sin produces evil.

God created evil, to punish sin, caused by man.

I have taught this to 4-year olds who grasped the difference and the cause and effect of both words.

Sheesh . . .

----------


## Terry1

> Indeed, one of the definitions of "ra" is calamnity.  Calamnities are evils that God employs *to punish and judge sin.*
> 
> However; the word for sin is different than this word for "calamnity" so to use this verse to say God causes sin, is just plain wrong.
> 
> Especially when Scripture plainly states unequivocally that Adam is the cause and to be blamed for sin and death.  Romans 5:12


Adam isn't the author of evil either--Adam chose to do evil---evil already existed before Adam in satan who decieved him.

ca·lam·i·ty
kəˈlamitē/Submit
noun
1.
an event causing great and often sudden damage or distress; a disaster

Yes, God can do this, but He's not the author of evil---HE ALLOWS IT.  All God does is remove His protection and allow evil to do what evil seeks to do.  God is not the creator of evil or the author of it---satan is.

----------


## Dr.3D

I'm having problems picturing what good would be if there were no such thing as evil.

----------


## Nang

> ca·lam·i·ty
> kəˈlamitē/Submit
> noun
> 1.
> an event causing great and often sudden damage or distress; a disaster
> 
> Yes, God can do this, but He's not the author of evil---HE ALLOWS IT.  All God does is remove His protection and allow evil to do what evil seeks to do.  God is not the creator of evil or the author of it---satan is.


Wrong, but if you want to think this, go ahead and think it.

My daddy always told me that one cannot win an argument with an ignorant person . . .

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Yeah, I'm sure you're objective.


NOBODY is objective.  That's something I've always known but have only recently "learned" if that makes sense.  

For whatever reason, TER seems to think that the second and third century "church fathers" are more worth listening to than church fathers like  Isaiah, David, Zechariah, Paul, Peter, John, James, and the like.  There is no reasoning with him with the  scriptures.  He gets mad at me for saying I believe he's an unregenerate agent of Satan, yet he calls Calvin (who was mostly doctrinally correct) a "blasphemer" and thinks that's OK.  He's good at feigning lucidity, but deep down he is at war with God.  

He needs to repent of his self-righteousness, and until he is willing to do so, he must be exposed.  I applaud Nang for having the guts to take him on.

----------


## Terry1

> Wrong, but if you want to think this, go ahead and think it.
> 
> My daddy always told me that one cannot win an argument with an ignorant person . . .


Ignorance relative the same as evil is one to another.  If you Calvinist find yourselves backed into a corner---you have nothing left but insults and foul mouthed ridicule for the brethren.

Adam isn't the author of evil either--Adam chose to do evil---evil already existed before Adam in satan who decieved him.

satan is the creator and author of evil, sin and death.  satan had the keys to them because satan created them---Jesus took them from Him when He defeated death on that cross.

----------


## eduardo89

> For whatever reason, TER seems to think that the second and third century "church fathers" are more worth listening to than church fathers like  Isaiah, David, Zechariah, Paul, Peter, John, James, and the like.


When has he ever said that?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Wrong, but if you want to think this, go ahead and think it.
> 
> My daddy always told me that one cannot win an argument with an ignorant person . . .


I recommend ignoring Terry.  That's what I've been doing.  He cannot be reasoned with in any sense, and unlike eduardo or TER, she's not really coherent enough to lead anyone astray.

----------


## Brett85

> He gets mad at me for saying I believe he's an unregenerate agent of Satan, yet he calls Calvin (who was mostly doctrinally correct) a "blasphemer" and thinks that's OK.


Doesn't that mean that you threw the first stone, and he simply responded to what you always say about him?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> When has he ever said that?


Well, he applauded erowe for "using a church father in an argument" when we use the Bible writers to develop arguments all the time...

Now, can you please read Zechariah 3:1-5 and explain how you can still hold to Catholic infused righteosuness doctrine?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Doesn't that mean that you threw the first stone, and he simply responded to what you always say about him?


My name isn't John Calvin...

----------


## Christian Liberty

What do TER and Marc Carpenter have in common?  An over-fascination with the dead

----------


## Brett85

> My name isn't John Calvin...


Well, TER is too nice to attack you personally.

----------


## TER

> I already posted the book where Calvin said that. Did you check it?


Can you link it again?  I missed it.

Listen, I hope I am wrong and Calvin did not teach that God is the author of evil and sin, but from some of the writings I have read from him, it appears that is what he is saying.  If you believe that God created Adam with free will and that Adam chose to sin with his own free will, then we are in agreement.

----------


## Nang

> Well, TER is too nice to attack you personally.



You are kidding, right?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Well, TER is too nice to attack you personally.


Attacking me would be less cowardly than attacking a dead person.  See my above joke

----------


## Brett85

> You are kidding, right?


No.  He's the nicest, most civil person on this forum.  If you have a problem getting along with him, you might want to examine yourself and contemplate why you don't get along with people.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> You are kidding, right?


I understand why he said what he said.  TC sees my overtly identifying TER as an agent of satan as "mean", and TER's comparatively calm critiques as "nice"... he doesn't understand that the most evil people often masquerade as agents of light.

----------


## Terry1

> You are kidding, right?


You're total depravity doctrine keeps you people thinking that decent moral behavior is superfluous to your already chosen state of predestination.

----------


## TER

> I'm having problems picturing what good would be if there were no such thing as evil.


"inexpressible words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter."  The Kingdom of Heaven.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> No.  He's the nicest, most civil person on this forum.  If you have a problem getting along with him, you might want to examine yourself and contemplate why you don't get along with people.


You can't really separate this whole thing from the doctrine involved.

----------


## Nang

> No.  He's the nicest, most civil person on this forum.  If you have a problem getting along with him, you might want to examine yourself and contemplate why you don't get along with people.


I get along with people who are genuine, just fine . . .

Admittedly, I have problems tolerating fakes.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> You're total depravity doctrine keeps you people thinking that decent moral behavior is superfluous to your already chosen state of predestination.


My younger brother isn't even a 5-pointer and he recently said that he doesn't see any way a true Christian could deny total depravity.  I agree with him.

----------


## Brett85

> Admittedly, I have problems tolerating fakes.


Well, there you go.  You just demonstrated why TER is much nicer and much more civil than you.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I get along with people who are genuine, just fine . . .
> 
> Admittedly, I have problems tolerating fakes.


I don't know if he's genuine or not.  But if he's genuine, he's going to start thinking about how erowe1 absolutely destroys him every time he brings up the "church fathers."

----------


## TER

> I understand why he said what he said.  TC sees my overtly identifying TER as an agent of satan as "mean", and TER's comparatively calm critiques as "nice"... he doesn't understand that the most evil people often masquerade as agents of light.


FF, I am not saint.  I would be the first to admit that.  And I am pretty sure there will be self-described Calvinists who will get into the Kingdom before me.  In fact, if I even get in there, it will be only because of God's great mercy on account of my many sins.   My plea for you is to stop trying to defend God with insults and start loving your neighbor. Stop trying to defend 'faith alone' and start treating people with respect and charity.  Stop judging the souls of others, and start examining your own actions.  There is nothing wrong with defending your beliefs, but there is something wrong when you create divisions and walls around yourself and castigate others as unsaved and satanic and going to hell.

----------


## Terry1

> I recommend ignoring Terry.  That's what I've been doing.  He cannot be reasoned with in any sense, and unlike eduardo or TER, she's not really coherent enough to lead anyone astray.


LOL--you and Nang can't even recognize when you've already been beaten by Gods own word.  None of you can back up a single one of your 5 point weed doctrine biblically.  You've been annihilated so much that you've ran out of ways to pervert scripture and claim that it's not saying what it is saying.

----------


## eduardo89

> I don't know if he's genuine or not.  But if he's genuine, he's going to start thinking about how erowe1 absolutely destroys him every time he brings up the "church fathers."


I've yet to see that happen.

----------


## TER

“First, the eternal predestination of God, by which before the fall of Adam He decreed what should take place concerning the whole human race and every individual, was fixed and determined.” (Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God, p.121) 

Can someone explain to me what this means if not that God decreed Adam to sin?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> FF, I am not saint.  I would be the first to admit that.  And I am pretty sure there will be self-described Calvinists who will get into the Kingdom before me.  In fact, if I even get in there, it will be only because of God's great mercy on account of my many sins.


OK, how can you possibly know for sure that you've committed enough good works that God will let you in?  If you really believe that its only because of God's great mercy, why aren't you a Calvinist?



> My plea for you is to stop trying to defend God with insults and start loving your neighbor.


I love you enough to expose you in hopes that you may repent, because I know God will not save you under the false gospel you currently preach (Romans 1:16-17, Ephesians 2:8-9, Galatians 1:8-9, Galatians 3:1-2, Galatians 5:1-2,)




> Stop trying to defend 'faith alone' and start treating people with respect and charity.


I try to treat people with respect and charity.  But there's a place for harsh words, Biblically, and those words are best addressed at the self-righteous.



> Stop judging the souls of others, and start examining your own actions.


My actions are frequently sinful, but I am not condemned because I believe (John 3:18.)  I strive to serve the Lord every day, but this is not the basis for my salvation.



> There is nothing wrong with defending your beliefs, but there is something wrong when you create divisions and walls around yourself and castigate others as unsaved and satanic


What do you call someone who is not of God?




> and going to hell.


I don't know that, TER.  If I knew you were going to Hell, why would I waste my time with you?  I don't know whether you are a vessel of mercy or a vessel of wrath.  What I can do is guarantee you that if you repent and trust in Christ's propitiatory sacrifice and imputed righteousness alone for your salvation, he will save you.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> “First, the eternal predestination of God, by which before the fall of Adam He decreed what should take place concerning the whole human race and every individual, was fixed and determined.” (Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God, p.121) 
> 
> Can someone explain to me what this means if not that God decreed Adam to sin?


The terms are very important here.  "Decreed" does not mean the same thing as "Caused" does not mean the same thing as "author."  

That said, I'll wait for Nang to explain it because she knows more about Calvin than I do.

----------


## TER

> OK, how can you possibly know for sure that you've committed enough good works that God will let you in?  If you really believe that its only because of God's great mercy, why aren't you a Calvinist?


I am not a Calvinist, because he is a blasphemer whose false interpretations of the Scriptures and dangerous teachings go against my mind, my soul, my heart, and above all, the teachings of the saints of the Church who are the defenders of the correct interpretation of the Scriptures.

I won't know if I did enough good works until I am face to face with Christ.  Then I will know.  Until then, I do my best and pray for His mercy.




> I love you enough to expose you in hopes that you may repent, because I know God will not save you under the false gospel you currently preach (Romans 1:16-17, Ephesians 2:8-9, Galatians 1:8-9, Galatians 3:1-2, Galatians 5:1-2,)


What you do is not love.  It is the spirit of malice and pride and far from the teachings of Christ.




> I try to treat people with respect and charity.  But there's a place for harsh words, Biblically, and those words are best addressed at the self-righteous.


God does not need you to defend Him.  He needs you to repent and follow His commandments.




> My actions are frequently sinful, but I am not condemned because I believe (John 3:18.)  I strive to serve the Lord every day, but this is not the basis for my salvation.


The demons believe and tremble.  At least they tremble!




> What do you call someone who is not of God?


Someone who is far from love.




> I don't know that, TER.  If I knew you were going to Hell, why would I waste my time with you?  I don't know whether you are a vessel of mercy or a vessel of wrath.  What I can do is guarantee you that if you repent and trust in Christ's propitiatory sacrifice and imputed righteousness alone for your salvation, he will save you.


Stop trying to determine what kind of vessel I am and work on correcting your own sins and whether you are a vessel worthy of the Holy Spirit of God.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I am not a Calvinist, because he is a blasphemer


You're so loving aren't you




> whose false interpretations of the Scriptures and dangerous teachings go against my mind, my soul, my heart, and above all, the teachings of the saints of the Church who are the defenders of the correct interpretation of the Scriptures.


In other words you put your subjective feelings over and above God's Word.  And John Calvin's the blasphemer?  Wow...



> I won't know if I did enough good works until I am face to face with Christ.  Then I will know.  Until then, I do my best and pray for His mercy.


In other words, you  are conditioning your salvation on your own works.  Thus, per Galatians 5:2, you must follow the whole law!  Are you arrogant enough to think you can?  If not, fall on your face and repent of ever conditioning salvation on your good works.





> What you do is not love.  It is the spirit of malice and pride and far from the teachings of Christ.


You are wrong.




> God does not need you to defend Him.


I agree.  But Matthew 28:19-20 commands us to make disciples.  That means preaching the gospel.



> He needs you to repent and follow His commandments.


I do repent and strive to follow God's commandments, but this is not the basis of my assurance.  See Hebrews 11:1.





> The demons believe and tremble.  At least they tremble!


So what?




> Someone who is far from love.


In other words "satanic."




> Stop trying to determine what kind of vessel I am and work on correcting your own sins and whether you are a vessel worthy of the Holy Spirit of God.


I am not trying to determine what kind of vessel you are.  I am sharing the gospel with you.  Either God will cause you to believe it, or you will perish.  But, the responsibility remains on you to believe.

----------


## TER

Very well, FF.  Believe what you will.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Very well, FF.  Believe what you will.


In other words, you cannot refute my arguments so you go the way of Romans 1 and suppress the truth you know to be the truth.

I'll pray for you, TER.  I guess that's all I can do at this point.

----------


## TER

> In other words, you cannot refute my arguments so you go the way of Romans 1 and suppress the truth you know to be the truth.
> 
> I'll pray for you, TER.  I guess that's all I can do at this point.


Thank you FF for praying for me.  I need all the prayers I can get.  I will pray for you too.

----------


## Kevin007

> In this thread, I'm not saying that all Calvinists are unsaved, because there certainly are Calvinists who don't have the three characteristics that I'm going to mention below.  But at least many of the most militant Calvinists I certainly believe are unsaved for several reasons.  This is why:
> 
> 1)  They're the most arrogant, egotistical people on the face of the earth, and the Bible makes it clear that God opposes the proud and gives grace to the humble.  Since these people have an enormous amount of pride and aren't at all humble, how is it possible for them to ever receive grace from God?  It isn't, which is why it's clear that these people have never been regenerated.  Here are just a few verses in the Bible about humility.
> 
> 2 Chronicles 7:14 if my people who are called by my name humble themselves, and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and heal their land.
> 
> Psalms 25:9 He leads the humble in what is right, and teaches the humble his way.
> 
> Psalms 55:19 God will give ear and humble them, he who is enthroned from of old, Selah because they do not change and do not fear God.
> ...


                                                             Apostle Paul-  Romans 6-. “What                                                              shall we say then?                                                              Shall we continue in                                                              sin, that grace may                                                              abound? God forbid.                                                              How shall we, that                                                              are dead to sin,                                                              live any longer                                                              therein? (v.                                                              1-2) For he that is                                                              dead is freed from                                                              sin. (verse 7) Let                                                              not sin therefore                                                              reign in your mortal                                                              body, that ye should                                                              obey it in the lusts                                                              thereof. Neither                                                              yield ye your                                                              members as                                                              instruments of                                                              unrighteousness unto                                                              sin: but yield                                                              yourselves unto God,                                                              as those that are                                                              alive from the dead,                                                              and your members as                                                              instruments of                                                              righteousness unto                                                              God. For sin shall                                                              not have dominion                                                              over you: for ye are                                                              not under the law,                                                              but under grace.                                                              What then? shall we                                                              sin, because we are                                                              not under the law,                                                              but under grace? God                                                              forbid.” (v. 12-15)

the license to sin accusation is baseless and typical.


															To say that a true  															child of God,  															Christ’s sheep, can  															lose his  															salvation, is to  															question the  															omnipotence of God.

Hebrews is talking about those who have  															heard and understood  															the Gospel, even  															been on the verge of  															accepting Christ,  															but have turned  															away. There is no  															other sacrifice that  															can be made accept  															the One they have  															been told about …  															Jesus Christ.

----------


## robert68

> I believe that God is sovereign and everything that happens he allows to happen.  I think that God created Adam and allowed Adam to sin.  God created us and allows us to sin.  I don't, however, believe that God somehow wills us to sin.


Where did Adam's will come from?

----------


## Terry1

> Where did Adam's will come from?


We're created in the same image and likeness of God with the same ability to choose in perfect freedom whom we will serve in this life.  Adam chose to sin with a free will to do so in disobedience to God and that was because satan deceived Eve and Eve convinced Adam to sin as well.  Which then caused the fall of mankind.

This is the same free will God gave His angels/sons in heaven that rebelled against God before the creation of mankind.

satan hates God for creating mankind, jealous and is determined to destroy mankind.  satan is the author of evil as a result of being the first to commit the sin of pride against God.

----------


## robert68

> We're created in the same image and likeness of God with the same ability to choose in perfect freedom whom we will serve in this life.  Adam chose to sin with a free will to do so in disobedience to God and that was because satan deceived Eve and Eve convinced Adam to sin as well.  Which then caused the fall of mankind.
> 
> This is the same free will God gave His angels/sons in heaven that rebelled against God before the creation of mankind.


That doesnt answer my question. I didnt ask about Adams free will.

----------


## Terry1

> That doesn’t answer my question. I didn’t ask about Adam’s “free will”.


You asked where Adam's will came from.  I replied that God created mankind in His image with a free will.  Doesn't that answer your question?

----------


## robert68

> You asked where Adam's will came from.  I replied that God created mankind in His image with a free will.  Doesn't that answer your question?


If I asked whether or not Adam’s will was “free” it may have, but I didn’t. 

What can have an “unfree” will? The often mentioned puppet doesn’t have a will of its own; its actions are just an expression of the will of its puppeteer.

----------


## Brett85

> Where did Adam's will come from?


From God.

----------


## Brett85

> Hebrews is talking about those who have  															heard and understood  															the Gospel, even  															been on the verge of  															accepting Christ,  															but have turned  															away. There is no  															other sacrifice that  															can be made accept  															the One they have  															been told about   															Jesus Christ.


How can someone who's not a Christian be sanctified and "insult the spirit of grace?"

Hebrews 10:29

How much severer punishment do you think he will deserve who has trampled under foot the Son of God, and has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has insulted the Spirit of grace?

----------


## erowe1

> Can you link it again?  I missed it.
> 
> Listen, I hope I am wrong and Calvin did not teach that God is the author of evil and sin, but from some of the writings I have read from him, it appears that is what he is saying.  If you believe that God created Adam with free will and that Adam chose to sin with his own free will, then we are in agreement.


I'll repost the link. While I'm getting it, may I ask, which writings of his have you read?

ETA:
Here's the link. To find some of the relevant remarks, do a search for the word "author."
http://www.reformed.org/documents/in...stination.html

If it loads and it doesn't look like you're at Calvin's, _Treatises on Eternal Predestination_, then you may need to wait for the main frame to load, or refresh the page.

----------


## erowe1

> How can someone who's not a Christian be sanctified and "insult the spirit of grace?"
> 
> Hebrews 10:29
> 
> How much severer punishment do you think he will deserve who has trampled under foot the Son of God, and has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has insulted the Spirit of grace?…


He can be ostensibly sanctified, which is the point in that verse. But it goes on to say that the people who do that are not those who believe to the saving of the soul in v. 39.

All of the arming passages in Hebrews are warning against the falling away that only false believers do, and they say so explicitly.

----------


## erowe1

> “First, the eternal predestination of God, by which before the fall of Adam He decreed what should take place concerning the whole human race and every individual, was fixed and determined.” (Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God, p.121) 
> 
> Can someone explain to me what this means if not that God decreed Adam to sin?


It does mean that God decreed Adam to sin.

You don't disagree do you?

Earlier, when TC explained how this does not mean that God is the author of Adam's sin, you agreed with him and said that all the Church fathers did too.

----------


## TER

> It does mean that God decreed Adam to sin.
> 
> You don't disagree do you?
> 
> Earlier, when TC explained how this does not mean that God is the author of Adam's sin, you agreed with him and said that all the Church fathers did too.


If you mean that it is God's will that Adam sin, then no, I do not agree and none of the Church Father's teach this.  If by decree you mean that God allowed Adam to sin, then I agree.

----------


## erowe1

> If you mean that it is God's will that Adam sin, then no, I do not agree and none of the Church Father's teach this.  If by decree you mean that God allowed Adam to sin, then I agree.


That depends on what sense of the word "will" you are using. Clearly God commanded Adam not to sin, and Calvin never disputed that.

But what Calvin said in your quote was not that God commanded Adam's sin, but that he decreed it. I don't know if any Church fathers explicitly contradicted that. Maybe some did. But if so, I'd like to see the evidence. You saying it's so doesn't make it so.

God did more than just allow Adam to sin. Adam's sin was God's plan all along. As I said (which TC agreed did not make God the author of sin, and you said that you and the church fathers agreed with him), God knew not only what the Adam he created was going to choose with the will that he had, but also what all possible Adams would have done with the wills they would have had, had he made any of them instead. God could have made an Adam whom he would have foreknown was going to choose not to sin with his free will. But God chose not to make that Adam. Instead, he chose, according to his counsel and decree (to use Calvin's terms) to make the Adam whom he foreknew was going to sin. God was not just passively allowing all this. He was the very creator who made this Adam and put gave him the test that he knew he was going to fail.

The cross was not Plan B.

----------


## TER

> That depends on what sense of the word "will" you are using. Clearly God commanded Adam not to sin, and Calvin never disputed that.
> 
> But what Calvin said in your quote was not that God commanded Adam's sin, but that he decreed it. I don't know if any Church fathers explicitly contradicted that. Maybe some did. But if so, I'd like to see the evidence. You saying it's so doesn't make it so.
> 
> God did more than just allow Adam to sin. Adam's sin was God's plan all along. As I said (which TC agreed did not make God the author of sin, and you said that you and the church fathers agreed with him), God knew not only what the Adam he created was going to choose with the will that he had, but also what all possible Adams would have done with the wills they would have had, had he made any of them instead. God could have made an Adam whom he would have foreknown was going to choose not to sin with his free will. But God chose not to make that Adam. Instead, he chose, according to his counsel and decree (to use Calvin's terms) to make the Adam whom he foreknew was going to sin. God was not just passively allowing all this. He was the very creator who made this Adam and put gave him the test that he knew he was going to fail.
> 
> The cross was not Plan B.


Thank you for your excellent response.  Much to think about!  

That God knew and allowed Adam to sin is a given.  That God created Adam knowing that he would sin and need to be saved is also the patristic understanding.  I think the difficulty arises when the charge is applied that God caused Adam to sin or that He _willed_ Adam to do the sin Adam did, that is, that it was God's good pleasure that Adam committed his sin.  From my brief studying last night, it seems that these were charges Calvin had to deal with because of some of his writings and statements he made.  It seems later on, he elucidated these teachings and/or created a theological framework to address these charges, some of which are paradoxical (which is fine, I have no problems with paradoxes).  I have problems, however, with ascribing God as having pleasure in sin or evil and the large attention spent on pontificating on God's wrath instead of God's mercy and love.  But honestly, I have not read much of John Calvin so maybe this is my faulty perception.  Either way, there are enough reasons (theologically) for me to avoid his teachings and writings as they stray far from the patristic understandings of soteriology and grace and living the Christian life, especially with regards to the uncreated energies of God and the Holy Sacraments.  But to each their own!

----------


## erowe1

> I think the difficulty arises when the charge is applied that God caused Adam to sin or that He _willed_ Adam to do the sin Adam did, that is, that it was God's good pleasure that Adam committed his sin.


The quote that you presented did not use those words.

Also, notice that the words you're using here are emotional ones. One thing that I'm quite certain the Eastern fathers (at least certain important ones) agreed on was that God is impassible, and I agree with them. Thus, any attributing to him of emotions is somehow figurative. It is an attempt to use categories that are understandable to us, such as having pleasure, to God, for whom they cannot possibly apply in the same way as they do to us.

This is why it's important to clarify what you mean by God's will. Adam's sin was not according to God's command, but it was according to God's decree. It would be fallacious to use the one word "will" and equivocate between those two very different things.

----------


## TER

> The quote that you presented did not use those words.
> 
> Also, notice that the words you're using here are emotional ones. One thing that I'm quite certain the Eastern fathers (at least certain important ones) agreed on was that God is impassible. Thus, any attributing to him of emotions is somehow figurative. It is an attempt to use categories that are understandable to us, such as having pleasure, to God, for whom they cannot possibly apply in the same way as they do to us.
> 
> This is why it's important to clarify what you mean by God's will. Adam's sin was not according to God's command, but it was according to God's decree.


I think we can agree to this.  Thank you.

----------


## Terry1

> In your stubborness, you are confusing two subjects.
> 
> Evil and sin..


Hebrews 2:14
14Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy *him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;*


satan the author of sin and death.

1 John 3:8
8 He that committeth sin is of the devil; *for the devil sinneth from the beginning*. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.





> Two different things.
> 
> Sin produces evil.


Then you have to ask yourself through biblical exegesis---*who is the author of sin and evil*---which is explained here:

*Ezekiel 28:12-17
15 Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee.

16 By the multitude of thy merchandise they have filled the midst of thee with violence, and thou hast sinned: therefore I will cast thee as profane out of the mountain of God: and I will destroy thee, O covering cherub, from the midst of the stones of fire.*




> God created evil, to punish sin, caused by man.


No--evil and sin already existed before the creation of Adam.  God did not create evil, He created Lucifer who became the author of sin and evil through his pride and rebellion to God.  

Adam sinned as a result of satan deceiving Eve and Eve convincing Adam to eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge.  Adam is not the author of evil and sin at all.

satan was lurking in the Garden of Eden before Adam and Eve arrived there.  satan is evil personified--he is sin and death. The world is satan's realm after he was cast out of heaven who is the author of sin and death---not Adam.

God did not "create evil"--satan created evil when He chose to rebell against God.  This happened because God created His angelic sons with the same freedom to choose Him or not.  God did not "author" evil or sin.  God created His angels and mankind both with the capability to sin, but God did not author sin, death or the fall of a third of the heavenly angels nor mankind.  This all happened as a result of satan's rebellion against God.  




> I have taught this to 4-year olds who grasped the difference and the cause and effect of both words.
> 
> Sheesh . . .


You should not be teaching anyone and especially little children this lie straight from satan himself that "God authors evil and sin".  God holds false teachers accountable for leading the sheep astray--especially the little children.

That is exactly what satan would want mankind to believe that God is the one to blame and not satan and that God created evil and brought a curse upon mankind.  This is satan's lie to deceive mankind and make himself appear as innocent before them.  You are believing exactly what satan wants you to and you're teaching this to little children---may God have mercy upon you too for this.  That is nothing more than blind ignorance.

----------


## Terry1

satan is the accuser of God and the brethren.  satan wants you to believe that God is to blame for sin and death by leading you into a false doctrine that does just that---it accuses God of being the author of evil, sin and death.  




*Revelation 12:10

10 And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night.*

----------


## robert68

> ...
> This is why it's important to clarify what you mean by God's will. *Adam's sin was not according to God's command, but it was according to God's decree.*
> 
> 
> I think we can agree to this.  Thank you.


That's what's called a distinction without a difference.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> That's what's called a distinction without a difference.


Good point Robert.  Why do insist on arguing with people who don't believe Christianity and don't have a Christian theology?  

You are going to have a field day twisting them up into knots.  Why don't you debate me who has a consistent, Biblical theology and philosophy? 

Here you go...I'll give you what you want.  *God intends and has decreed every single thing that comes to pass, including sin and evil.  In some sense, that makes God the cause of evil.  God is not evil because the evil He decrees is for an ultimately GOOD purpose.* 

There you go Robert.   God decrees sin and evil for His own good purpose.   Here's my question:  SO WHAT?  WHAT ARGUMENT CAN YOU POSSIBLY HAVE AGAINST HIM?

----------


## Brett85

> Good point Robert.  Why do insist on arguing with people who don't believe Christianity and don't have a Christian theology?


I'm going to keep referring to you as a non Christian and an unbeliever as long as you keep the proud, arrogant attitude that you have and spread so much of your irrational hatred around.  You bear absolutely no good fruit at all.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I'm going to keep referring to you as a non Christian and an unbeliever as long as you keep the proud, arrogant attitude that you have and spread so much of your irrational hatred around.  You bear absolutely no good fruit at all.


You can refer to me as that, but it is just name calling unless you prove it from the Bible.  I am always proving from the Bible that Armianism and Roman Catholicism is not true.

----------


## Brett85

> You can refer to me as that, but it is just name calling unless you prove it from the Bible.  I am always proving from the Bible that Armianism and Roman Catholicism is not true.


Matthew 7:16-20.

You will know them by their fruits. Grapes are not gathered from thorn bushes nor figs from thistles, are they? "So every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit. "A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor can a bad tree produce good fruit.  Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. "So then, you will know them by their fruits.

----------


## Dr.3D

> Matthew 7:16-20.
> 
> You will know them by their fruits. Grapes are not gathered from thorn bushes nor figs from thistles, are they? "So every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit. "A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor can a bad tree produce good fruit.  Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. "So then, you will know them by their fruits.


So where is the bad fruit.  Point it out please.

----------


## Brett85

> So where is the bad fruit.  Point it out please.


Every one of his hateful, judgmental posts show that he has bad fruit.




> Good point Robert.  Why do insist on arguing with people who don't believe Christianity and don't have a Christian theology?

----------


## Dr.3D

> Every one of his hateful, judgmental posts show that he has bad fruit.


Well,  they don't believe his definition of Christianity and Christian theology, so I can't say he is judgmental other than his perception according to his beliefs.  In other words, he is telling the truth as he see it.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Good point Robert.  Why do insist on arguing with people who don't believe Christianity and don't have a Christian theology?  
> 
> You are going to have a field day twisting them up into knots.  Why don't you debate me who has a consistent, Biblical theology and philosophy? 
> 
> Here you go...I'll give you what you want.  *God intends and has decreed every single thing that comes to pass, including sin and evil.  In some sense, that makes God the cause of evil.  God is not evil because the evil He decrees is for an ultimately GOOD purpose.* 
> 
> There you go Robert.   God decrees sin and evil for His own good purpose.   Here's my question:  SO WHAT?  WHAT ARGUMENT CAN YOU POSSIBLY HAVE AGAINST HIM?


I hate to split hairs, but what do you mean by "in some sense causes?"






> I'm going to keep referring to you as a non Christian and an unbeliever as long as you keep the proud, arrogant attitude that you have and spread so much of your irrational hatred around.  You bear absolutely no good fruit at all.


Isn't calling him a non-believer being judgmental?

----------


## Terry1

> So where is the bad fruit.  Point it out please.


Matthew 7:
 18A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. 19Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. 20Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

21Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> You can refer to me as that, but it is just name calling unless you prove it from the Bible.  I am always proving from the Bible that Armianism and Roman Catholicism is not true.


Can you explain James 1:13 for me?  (I agree with your statement, BTW: Just something that came to my mind as I was reading this discussion.)

----------


## Terry1

]*"WORKS OF FAITH/FRUITS"*

*1 Thessalonians 1:3 
Remembering without ceasing your work of faith, and labour of love, and patience of hope in our Lord Jesus Christ, in the sight of God and our Father;

2 Thessalonians 1:11 
Wherefore also we pray always for you, that our God would count you worthy of this calling, and fulfil all the good pleasure of his goodness, and the work of faith with power:


Matthew 16:27 
For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.

John 14:12 
Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.

John 10:38 
But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me,

John 5:36 
But I have greater witness than that of John: for the works which the Father hath given me to finish, the same works that I do, bear witness of me, that the Father hath sent me

John 7:3 
His brethren therefore said unto him, Depart hence, and go into Judaea, that thy disciples also may see the works that thou doest.

John 8:39 
They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father. Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham

John 9:4 
I must work the works of him that sent me, while it is day: the night cometh, when no man can work

John 10:25 
Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in my Father's name, they bear witness of me.

John 10:32 
Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me?

John 10:37 
If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not.

John 10:38 
But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him.

Acts 26:20 
But shewed first unto them of Damascus, and at Jerusalem, and throughout all the coasts of Judaea, and then to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, and do works meet for repentance.
*
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


*DEAD WORKS UNDER THE CURSE OF THE MOASIC LAW.*

*Romans 3:27 
Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.

Romans 4:2 
For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God

Romans 4:6 
Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,

Romans 9:11 
(For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth)

Romans 9:32 
Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone;

Romans 11:6 
And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then it is no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.

Romans 13:12 
The night is far spent, the day is at hand: let us therefore cast off the works of darkness, and let us put on the armour of light.

Galatians 2:16 
Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be 
justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

Ephesians 2:9 
Not of works, lest any man should boast.
*
*
GOD WILL JUDGE ACCORDING TO THOSE WHO DID BOTH "WORKS OF FATIH/FRUITS" AND "DEAD WORKS OF THE OLD LAW/NO FRUITS".*

*Revelation 20:12And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.

13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.

14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.

15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.



*

----------


## Dr.3D

> Matthew 7:
>  18A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. 19Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. 20Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
> 
> 21Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.


So prove there is some bad fruit.

----------


## eduardo89

> So prove there is some bad fruit.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> So prove there is some bad fruit.



I guess Jesus and Paul didn't have fruit either when they condemned the Pharisees and the gnostics and the Judiazers etc.

It makes no sense.  If you are a Christian,  you are going to engage in apologetics,  and apologetics entails dividing Christian philosophy from worldly philosophy. 

This is a loving thing to do.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> You can refer to me as that, but it is just name calling unless you prove it from the Bible.  I am always proving from the Bible that Armianism and Roman Catholicism is not true.


I just caught something here, are you saying that erowe1 also has a non-Christian worldview and is not a Christian?  Or did you mean to refer to TER?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I hate to split hairs, but what do you mean by "in some sense causes"?


Because God is not evil for the evil that He has decreed.  The evil He decrees is for a good purpose.

You have to emphasize that to unbelievers because their sinful minds automatically go to the "oh well God is evil" argument.  And that is not the case.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I guess Jesus and Paul didn't have fruit either when they condemned the Pharisees and the gnostics and the Judiazers etc.


I'm with you on this, but they're going to call you arrogant for comparing yourself to Jesus or Paul (even though you obviously did not do that.)  They've done it to me before too.



> It makes no sense.  If you are a Christian,  you are going to engage in apologetics,  and apologetics entails dividing Christian philosophy from worldly philosophy.


This is a loving thing to do.[/QUOTE]

Amen.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I just caught something here, are you saying that erowe1 also has a non-Christian worldview and is not a Christian?  Or did you mean to refer to TER?


Are you saying Erowe1 is an Arminian?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Because God is not evil for the evil that He has decreed.  The evil He decrees is for a good purpose.
> 
> You have to emphasize that to unbelievers because their sinful minds automatically go to the "oh well God is evil" argument.  And that is not the case.


I still have questions about this as an believer (I agree that God "decrees" evil but not that he "causes" or "authors" it... I'm not sure if I'm making a meaningful distinction or not though... I'm going to look up what James White has said about it since I know he doesn't play the "paradox" game) but I agree that an unbeliever has no basis to object morally to anything, so their "God is evil" argument is completely useless.

An agnostic friend of mine once claimed that all truth is relative to the perceiver.  I told him that I disagreed and that I am a perceiver and so I questioned his logical consistency.  The same kind of argument could be applicable here.  For God to ordain and decree evil is evil according to who?  What standard?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Are you saying Erowe1 is an Arminian?


Of course not, but the discussion that robert quoted when you responded with "debating people that don't have a Chrsitian worldview" includes quotes by  erowe1 and TER.  Hence why I clarified.

That said, IIRC erowe1 was somewhat iffy on the "L" point, but that's another issue entirely.

----------


## Terry1

> Because God is not evil for the evil that He has decreed.  The evil He decrees is for a good purpose.
> 
> You have to emphasize that to unbelievers because their sinful minds automatically go to the "oh well God is evil" argument.  And that is not the case.


There is no such thing as "good evil".  That is an oxymoron.  God did not create evil, He created beings that were capable of it because He gave them perfect freedom to choose whom they will serve.

satan is the author/cause/creator of evil and is evil personified because satan was the very first to commit sin.  So then your doctrine can't be right asserting that Adam is the "cause" of sin either---Adam is the result of disobedience to sin because sin already existed before the creation of Adam.  satan was in the Garden of Eden long before Adam and Eve arrived there.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> There is no such thing as "good evil".  That is an oxymoron.  God did not create evil, He created beings that were capable of it because He gave them perfect freedom to choose whom they will serve.
> 
> satan is the author/cause/creator of evil and is evil personified because satan was the very first to commit sin.  So then your doctrine can't be right asserting that Adam is the "cause" of sin either---Adam is the result of disobedience to sin because sin already existed before the creation of Adam.  satan was in the Garden of Eden long before Adam and Eve arrived there.


"My doctrine"?  I don't know what you're talking about.  God is the cause of everything, good and bad.   This is proved hundreds of times in Scripture.

----------


## Kevin007

> How can someone who's not a Christian be sanctified and "insult the spirit of grace?"
> 
> Hebrews 10:29
> 
> How much severer punishment do you think he will deserve who has trampled under foot the Son of God, and has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has insulted the Spirit of grace?


UNBELIEVERS INSULT THE HS ALL THE TIME, MOST CHRISTIANS DO NOT.

----------


## Kevin007

> There is no such thing as "good evil".  That is an oxymoron.  God did not create evil, He created beings that were capable of it because He gave them perfect freedom to choose whom they will serve.
> 
> satan is the author/cause/creator of evil and is evil personified because satan was the very first to commit sin.  So then your doctrine can't be right asserting that Adam is the "cause" of sin either---Adam is the result of disobedience to sin because sin already existed before the creation of Adam.  satan was in the Garden of Eden long before Adam and Eve arrived there.


TERRY, WE AGREE HERE. LUCIFER WAS PROUD AND WANTED TO BE LIKE GOD. HE REBELLED AND WAS ABLE TO CONVINCE 1/3 OF THE ANGELS IN HEAVEN TO REBEL WITH HIM. LUCIFER WANTED NOT ONLY TO REFLECT GOD'S GLORY BUT WANTED TO BE THE source. PRIDE COMETH BEFORE A FALL. (sorry caps)

----------


## Terry1

> "My doctrine"?  I don't know what you're talking about.  God is the cause of everything, good and bad.   This is proved hundreds of times in Scripture.



And that is exactly what satan (the accuser) wants you to believe--that "God caused/ordained sin, death, evil and the fall of a third of heavenly angels and mankind.  You ARE believing exactly what satan wants you to believe.  He accuses God and the brethren day and night. 

*Revelation 12:10 
And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night.
*

----------


## Kevin007

God is in full control but not the cause of everything. We do have free will. Just because God knows what WILL happen, does not mean we do not have a choice.

(see Terry- you cannot fit me in a box)

----------


## Sola_Fide

> How can someone who's not a Christian be sanctified and "insult the spirit of grace?"
> 
> Hebrews 10:29
> 
> How much severer punishment do you think he will deserve who has trampled under foot the Son of God, and has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has insulted the Spirit of grace?



"...the blood of the covenant by which HE [Jesus] was sanctified".

----------


## Terry1

> God is in full control but not the cause of everything. We do have free will. Just because God knows what WILL happen, does not mean we do not have a choice.
> 
> (see Terry- you cannot fit me in a box)


I never have Kevin.  You see--I knew why you were agreeing with the Calvinists, but still---I knew you weren't one of them because I do remember one of your very first posts claiming you did believe in the free will of mankind.  I do pay attention to what people say.  God Bless you!

----------


## Kevin007

> I never have Kevin.  You see--I knew why you were agreeing with the Calvinists, but still---I knew you weren't one of them because I do remember one of your very first posts claiming you did believe in the free will of mankind.  I do pay attention to what people say.  God Bless you!


THANKS! God did not create us as robots. The first man on earth, Adam had free will. I CHOOSE good or bad everyday. Just because God is all-knowing of what I will do does not mean it is not our choice. Simple as a parent and child. They choose to do good or evil. Just because you know your son will play in the house does not mean he did not have that choice. He could have played outside instead like you told him, but he still chose what he wanted to do. Pretty basic stuff imo.

----------


## Christian Liberty

there are Arminians who are extremely judgmental of Calvinists as well

http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.ph...per-arminians/

Admittedly, I have yet to find anyone coin the phrase "tolerant arminians"

----------


## Christian Liberty

I try not to fight people on terminology if the essence of what they are saying is fundamentally the same as what I'm saying, but I can see describing Adam and Eve as having "free will" but not any other human.  Of course, however, you still have to deal with the fact that God chose to create the Adam that he knew would fall rather than an Adam who would never fall.  But Adam (pre-Fall) wasn't enslaved to his sin the way all of his children were born enslaved to sin.  I think we can say Adam had a legitimate ability not to sin (Although, again, God created Adam exactly as he was knowing and planning that Adam would fall) and that the sinful sons of Adam are not born with a legitimate ability not to sin.

----------


## Terry1

> THANKS! God did not create us as robots. The first man on earth, Adam had free will. I CHOOSE good or bad everyday. Just because God is all-knowing of what I will do does not mean it is not our choice. Simple as a parent and child. They choose to do good or evil. Just because you know your son will play in the house does not mean he did not have that choice. He could have played outside instead like you told him, but he still chose what he wanted to do. Pretty basic stuff imo.


Amen Kevin--it is pretty basic to those with spiritual eyes and ears isn't it.  Well said and done brother!

----------


## Terry1

> there are Arminians who are extremely judgmental of Calvinists as well
> 
> http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.ph...per-arminians/
> 
> Admittedly, I have yet to find anyone coin the phrase "tolerant arminians"


LOL--FF--you do give me a chuckle every now and then.  No one could call you judgmental now could they--  You haven't called for my banning for at least two days now.  Are we improving or taking a break?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> LOL--FF--you do give me a chuckle every now and then.  No one could call you judgmental now could they--


I am proudly judgmental of false doctrine.  I boast in nothing but the cross of Christ (Galatians 6:14.)  Those who boast in something else (Which seems to me to include every Arminian on this board, and practically every Arminian everywhere) is glorying in something else, whether their "decision" or their good works or something else.  I judge them as being in sin and needing to repent, because the Bible clearly teaches such.




> You haven't called for my banning for at least two days now.  Are we improving or taking a break?


I'll respond to your coherent points and ignore the ones that aren't.  As for your ban, I'd rather the mods leave the religion subforum alone, but if they won't do that, I don't think they should let stupid incoherency pass without allowing us to harshly call out the stupidly incoherent.

----------


## Brett85

> I guess Jesus and Paul didn't have fruit either when they condemned the Pharisees and the gnostics and the Judiazers etc.


Are you comparing yourself to Jesus and Paul?  That's the same thing Freedom Fanatic did yesterday.  Does this not perfectly illustrate my point about your extreme arrogance?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Are you comparing yourself to Jesus and Paul?  That's the same thing Freedom Fanatic did yesterday.  Does this not perfectly illustrate my point about your extreme arrogance?


No.  And there is no reason to understand me as "comparing" myself to Jesus and Paul.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Are you comparing yourself to Jesus and Paul?  That's the same thing Freedom Fanatic did yesterday.  Does this not perfectly illustrate my point about your extreme arrogance?


It illustrates a deficiency in your logic, nothing more.

----------


## Brett85

> No.  And there is no reason to understand me as "comparing" myself to Jesus and Paul.


How can you say that?  You were saying it's ok for you to condemn us for having a theology that you consider to be "false" simply because Jesus and Paul condemned the Pharisees for what they believed.  You're certainly comparing yourself to Jesus and Paul.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> How can you say that?  You were saying it's ok for you to condemn us for having a theology that you consider to be "false" simply because Jesus and Paul condemned the Pharisees for what they believed.  You're certainly comparing yourself to Jesus and Paul.


If you preach what Jesus and Paul specifically condemn (which you have), then their condemnation is directed at you.  My repeating the condemnation is in no way me comparing myself to them.

----------


## Brett85

> If you preach what Jesus and Paul specifically condemn (which you have), then their condemnation is directed at you.  My repeating the condemnation is in no way me comparing myself to them.


What do you think gives you the right to repeat the condemnation?  Where in that verse or any other section of the Bible does it say for Christians to condemn other self described Christians for their theological beliefs?

----------


## GunnyFreedom

I think people who seek condemnation are doing it wrong out of the gate.  Seek the face of God and embody His Spirit through the expression of Christ.  Love God, love your neighbor.  Don't set out traps to shut your brother off from the Kingdom, or you will not go in yourself.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

I have recently called out a Christian in my own County as a Pharisee and someone who held a doctrine of Satan; but I was not excluding him - he was excluding _us_, and he had turned it into a "King Of The Hill" game where it was basically either him or us.  I did not want to operate on his field but I did, and so I discerned his jeopardy before the Judgement and detailed it to shut him down.  He no longer claims supremacy over Christ.  That was not the seeking of condemnation, that was his beam while he was so worried about my mote.  What is the motivation?  

Are you indignant because they have shut the door to heaven against others, or are _you_ the one shutting the door against the unwashed masses?

----------


## Kevin007

> If we're instilled with this love for God, then why do we still sin after we become Christians?  What do you think causes Christians to sin?


War of fleash vs spirit. All humans sin, saved or not- hopefully the saved sin LESS though.

The war has always waged between the flesh and Spirit.

Romans 7- 14-16.

14  For we know that the Law is spiritual, but I am of flesh, sold into bondage to sin. 15 For what I am doing, I do not understand; for I am not practicing what I would like to do, but I am doing the very thing I hate. 16 But if I do the very thing I do not want to do, I agree with the Law, confessing that the Law is good.

We will not be perfected yet until we die or are raptured.

----------

