# Lifestyles & Discussion > Peace Through Religion >  Christians.  Please consider this before you call other Christians, "Non-Christians."

## RJB

> John 15: 9As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you. Now remain in my love. 10If you keep my commands, you will remain in my love, just as I have kept my Fathers commands and remain in his love. 11I have told you this so that my joy may be in you and that your joy may be complete. *12My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you. 13Greater love has no one than this: to lay down ones life for ones friends. 14You are my friends if you do what I command.* 15I no longer call you servants, because a servant does not know his masters business. Instead, I have called you friends, for everything that I learned from my Father I have made known to you. 16You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you so that you might go and bear fruitfruit that will lastand so that whatever you ask in my name the Father will give you. 17This is my command: Love each other.


I used to just roll my eyes and ignore statements calling certain Christian denomination non-Christians, until the thread about the persecution of the Syrian Christians who were being killed. These were mostly Orthodox and Catholics who trace their roots not just spiritually but physically back to the Apostles. In that same thread, someone made a claim that the Orthodox and Catholics werent Christian.  

This is so offensive on many levels.  The biggest is the giving of ones life with HOPE, FAITH, and LOVE in the Saviour the Lord Jesus Christ in ones heart and lips can not be achieved by a non-Christian who has not the Holy Spirit in them.  Some of you keyboard Christians should seriously think of who you  pass Judgment on from your comfortable chairs.

----------


## Christian Liberty

I'm not sure if it was me, SF, or someone else who made the comment.  Personally, I wouldn't make a claim like that in that sort of thread without reason.  That said, I don't think your quote proves anything.  You could just as easily make the argument that a Muslim or Buddhist is saved if he lays down his life for his faith.  Its not a valid argument.

----------


## Brett85

Some people here certainly don't take this verse to heart.

James 4:6

"God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble."

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Some people here certainly don't take this verse to heart.
> 
> James 4:6
> 
> "God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble."


I actually quoted this verse today.  I was talking to an unbeliever who was afraid I'd judge him for something he had done.  I quoted that verse and explained that Jesus was harsh with the proud, not those who knew they were sinners.

----------


## Brett85

> I actually quoted this verse today.  I was talking to an unbeliever who was afraid I'd judge him for something he had done.  I quoted that verse and explained that Jesus was harsh with the proud, not those who knew they were sinners.


I would think that "the proud" would also refer to those who never think they're wrong about anything.

----------


## pcosmar

> "Master, we saw someone casting out demons in Your name; and we tried to prevent him because he does not follow along with us." But Jesus said to him, *"Do not hinder him;* for he who is not against you is for you."





> John said to Him, "Teacher, we saw someone casting out demons in Your name, and we tried to prevent him because he was not following us." But Jesus said,* "Do not hinder him,* for there is no one who will perform a miracle in My name, and be able soon afterward to speak evil of Me.


God will separate the sheep from the goats.
His Call. Not ours.

----------


## RJB

You responded to my post within 2 minutes of me posting.  Did you even read what I wrote?



> You could just as easily make the argument that a Muslim or Buddhist is saved if he lays down his life for his faith.





> This is so offensive on many levels.  The biggest is the *giving of ones life with HOPE, FAITH, and LOVE in the Saviour the Lord Jesus Christ in ones heart and lips* can not be achieved by a non-Christian who has not the Holy Spirit in them.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I would think that "the proud" would also refer to those who never think they're wrong about anything.


Sure.  Or those who think they had anything to do with their own salvation.

----------


## acptulsa

And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> You responded to my post within 2 minutes of me posting.  Did you even read what I wrote?


So a Jehovah's Witness who dies for his faith in the "Lord Jesus Christ" is saved?  The Mormon?  The Christian Scientist?"

Your Bible verse doesn't actually say anything about dying for Christ.  It says greater love has no man than this, that he lay down his life for his friends.  Taking it the way you take it, that could be used to argue that anyone who dies for his friends is saved.  Of course, in reality, the point is to say how much more is Christ's love, who died for his enemies.

I'm not trying to be mean-spirited here, I'm really not.  But this is an emotional argument that logically leads to universalism.

----------


## Brett85

> Sure.  Or those who think they had anything to do with their own salvation.


I'm thankful for the free will that God has given me.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I'm proud and thankful for the free will that God has given me.


So you're proud of yourself?  Yeah, I think this verse is talking about you.  And this is why I'm "mean" and "harsh" on this website.  Many who profess to be Christians are far more like the Pharisees than non-Christians.

----------


## Christian Liberty

If God gave you the free will, is it really free?  In what way?

----------


## Brett85

> So you're proud of yourself?  Yeah, I think this verse is talking about you.  And this is why I'm "mean" and "harsh" on this website.  Many who profess to be Christians are far more like the Pharisees than non-Christians.


I was thinking of the right way to phrase it, and maybe that wasn't it.  I was just trying to say that believing in the concept of free will doesn't make someone prideful since our free will comes from God.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I was thinking of the right way to phrase it, and maybe that wasn't it.  I was just trying to say that believing in the concept of free will doesn't make someone prideful since our free will comes from God.


I had more than just Arminians in mind, but I do think that's still a form of pride.  If a man said God helps him to be good enough so he can work his way into heaven, would you not consider that prideful?

----------


## Ronin Truth

> *7:3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? 7:4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? 7:5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.*


*(King James Bible, Matthew)
*

----------


## Brett85

> I had more than just Arminians in mind, but I do think that's still a form of pride.  If a man said God helps him to be good enough so he can work his way into heaven, would you not consider that prideful?


The Bible does say that we were created for the purpose of doing good works, that even our good works come from God.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> The Bible does say that we were created for the purpose of doing good works, that even our good works come from God.


I don't disagree with that.  But that's not what I said.

----------


## Brett85

And I don't know if any Christian actually says that they have to be "good enough" to make it into heaven.  I've just said that we're supposed to prove that we have faith by the way that we live our lives.  We're not just supposed to just give lip service to God.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> I'm not sure if it was me, SF, or someone else who made the comment.  Personally, I wouldn't make a claim like that in that sort of thread *without reason*.  That said, I don't think your quote proves anything.  You could just as easily make the argument that a Muslim or Buddhist is saved if he lays down his life for his faith.  Its not a valid argument.


THERE IS *NO REASON.*

If someone claims to be a Christian, meaning they believe Jesus is the Son of God and that He died for our sins and rose from the dead, I see no reason to not give them the benefit of the doubt with regard to whatever else they do or believe. It's not up to anyone else to tell them that they aren't a "real" Christian.  And I think the guidelines that Bryan posted are in line with this way of thinking.

----------


## Brett85

> I don't disagree with that.  But that's not what I said.


I would call that misguided, not prideful.  We can't make it into heaven by working our way into heaven.  But we have to have some evidence of our faith in our personal lives in order to be saved; otherwise such a faith is a dead faith and not a saving faith.

----------


## acptulsa

Judge not, that ye be not judged.  For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.




> "There is no argument in the world carries the hatred that a religious belief does.  The more learned a man is the less consideration he has for another man's belief."--_Will Rogers 1924_


But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.




> "Hunt out and talk about the good that is in the other fellow's church, not the bad, and you will do away with all this religious hatred you hear so much of nowadays."--_Will Rogers 1923_


By this shall all [men] know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> *9* That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. *10* For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved.


If anyone is going to tell me that this verse does not mean what it explicitly states, then I have to conclude that ALL verses of the Bible are open to each individual's interpretation, and that there are some verses that directly contradict another.....which makes their case no more or less valid than mine.  

Period.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> And I don't know if any Christian actually says that they have to be "good enough" to make it into heaven.  I've just said that we're supposed to prove that we have faith by the way that we live our lives.  We're not just supposed to just give lip service to God.


Its irrelevant if any professing Christian actually says that.  My point was simply to say that bragging that God gave you whatever isn't an excuse to brag about it. We're supposed to boast in nothing but the cross of Christ (Galatians 6:16.)




> THERE IS *NO REASON.*


OK, in this instance, let me clarify, if in a thread like that, someone posted something along the lines of "How dare FF and people like him say that Catholics aren't Christians when they laid down their lives like THAT" or something along those lines, I'd probably respond.  But I wouldn't bring it up in that type of thread.



> If someone claims to be a Christian, meaning they believe Jesus is the Son of God and that He died for our sins and rose from the dead, I see no reason to not give them the benefit of the doubt with regard to whatever else they do or believe. It's not up to anyone else to tell them that they aren't a "real" Christian.  And I think the guidelines that Bryan posted are in line with this way of thinking.


What if they believe that Jesus is the Son of God, but not actually God?

What if they believe Jesus is a god, but they also believe in other gods?

What if they believe that the cross alone doesn't save, but instead the cross + something else?

What if they believe that Jesus was actually a dog rather than a man?

What if they believe Jesus never came in the flesh?

What if they believe every person without exception is saved?  (ie. rejection of judgment.)

----------


## RJB

> Your *OUR* Bible verse doesn't actually say anything about dying for Christ.  It says greater love has no man than this, that he lay down his life for his friends.  Taking it the way you take it, that could be used to argue that anyone who dies for his friends is saved.  Of course, in reality, the point is to say how much more is Christ's love, who died for his enemies.


Consider this.  It will deepen your love for God



> 14You are my friends if you do what I command.





> 12My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you.


Christ is my friend, FF.  You should try talking to him more often.




> But this is an emotional argument that logically leads to universalism.


  My argument is based on the truth of Jesus' words.  He is indeed our friend.  Those who know him feel him in their hearts.  HE convinced a former atheist (me).  You are the emotional one who is bound up in your Calvinism.  Look deep into the posts of agrammatos, because he is the mirror of your soul, whether you can admit it now or not.

Hate to start a thread that may turn heated (my goal was truly the opposite) and run from it, but I've passed my Lenten internet quota.

----------


## Nang

> Judge not, that ye be not judged.  For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
> 
> 
> 
> But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.
> 
> 
> 
> By this shall all [men] know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.



There is a difference between discerning false teaching, and condemning others to hell.

I consider it loving to testify to the truth of scripture before those who hold false beliefs.  

Likewise, I consider it unloving to not warn those who hold to false beliefs of their errors.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> If anyone is going to tell me that this verse does not mean what it explicitly states, then I have to conclude that ALL verses of the Bible are open to each individual's interpretation, and that there are some verses that directly contradict another.....which makes their case no more or less valid than mine.  
> 
> Period.


My previous post mostly responds to this.  There are certain claims that are implicit in what the verse says.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Consider this.  It will deepen you love for God
> 
> 
> Christ is my friend, FF.  You should try talking to him more often.


I talk to Christ every day.  

Doing what he commands includes believing the true gospel.



> My argument is based on the truth of Jesus' words.  He is indeed our friend.  Those who know him feel him in their hearts.  HE convinced a former atheist (me).  You are the emotional one who is bound up in your Calvinism. * Look deep into the posts of agrammatos, because he is the mirror of your soul, whether you can admit it now or not.*
> 
> Hate to start a thread that may turn heated (my goal was truly the opposite) and run from it, but I've passed my Lenten internet quota.


Does the bold apply to every Calvinist who thinks Catholics are unsaved, or me in particular?  Because most Calvinists I know don't think Catholics are Christians?  Are they all secretly Outside the Campers?

BTW: I think the false gospel of "everything goes" is just as dangerous as the borderline doctrinal perfectionism of the Carpenterites.  You're nicer than them, but doctrinally you aren't any better than them, and in all honesty,  worse.

----------


## Terry1

I don't think it's inappropriate to indicate with clear scripture whether a particular doctrine indicates that by those beliefs, one can not obtain salvation, but then it would be inappropriate when applied to someone's person, because only God knows the hearts of men and women.  

IMO, it's the doctrine that should be questioned and reproofed with the word of God.  This would avoid the personal attacks to a degree, but always with *beliefs*, it's difficult for people not to take things personal when they're the one's subscribing to them.

Whatever beliefs and doctrines are false---people do come out of them who are truly seeking the truth in the word of God with prayer via the Holy Spirit.  That's why I posted those videos about Calvinism is specifically because they go after that particular lie and belief with word of God.  Along with those who have been freed from the grips of Calvinism.

I will not apologize for speaking the truth about something I know is a lie and not Biblical.  If anyone disagrees with me, then the burden is upon them to back that up with the word of God, but many simply won't do this--even after pleading with them to back up their beliefs with Gods word.  

It is always a fight and struggle to free people from false beliefs, because they have come to believe them---they believe they're right even with Biblical proof, still they will argue and fight tooth and claw to preserve what they believe is correct.  Many times it does become a vain effort to continue with people and futile.  Maybe sometimes after we know we've planted that seed, we just have to know when to shake off the dust with them and know that we have done what we were called to do with them and allow God to take it from there.

----------


## Brett85

> BTW: I think the false gospel of "everything goes" is just as dangerous as the borderline doctrinal perfectionism of the Carpenterites.  You're nicer than them, but doctrinally you aren't any better than them, and in all honesty,  worse.


I don't think anyone here subscribes to a theology of "everything goes."  I don't think that anyone here who describes themselves as a Christian would say that someone can be a Christian and be saved if they don't believe that Jesus died for our sins and rose again.

----------


## pcosmar

And this is why I call myself a Druidic Christian. or more commonly, simply a believer..

I have issues with the teachings of most denominations,,and all had a basis in truth,,but all get sidetracked by men.

I am sure there are believers in all of them,, despite the error that they may teach. (and all do)

It will be the Judgement that sorts them out.

----------


## acptulsa

Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples, “The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses' seat, so practice and observe whatever they tell you—but not what they do. For they preach, but do not practice. They tie up heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on people's shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to move them with their finger. They do all their deeds to be seen by others. For they make their phylacteries broad and their fringes long,

“Two men went up into the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. The Pharisee, standing by himself, prayed thus: ‘God, I thank you that I am not like other men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week; I give tithes of all that I get.’ But the tax collector, standing far off, would not even lift up his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, ‘God, be merciful to me, a sinner!’ I tell you, this man went down to his house justified, rather than the other. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but the one who humbles himself will be exalted.”

"And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full.  But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.  And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words.  Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him.

----------


## Terry1

> I talk to Christ every day.  
> 
> Doing what he commands includes believing the true gospel.
> 
> 
> Does the bold apply to every Calvinist who thinks Catholics are unsaved, or me in particular?  Because most Calvinists I know don't think Catholics are Christians?  Are they all secretly Outside the Campers?
> 
> BTW: I think the false gospel of "everything goes" is just as dangerous as the borderline doctrinal perfectionism of the Carpenterites.  You're nicer than them, but doctrinally you aren't any better than them, and in all honesty,  worse.


FF, the Catholics are on par with the word of God regarding the free will of mankind and they are correct and in accordance with the word of God there.

Calvinism denies Christ's work on that cross by claiming that He didn't have perfect freedom and a will to choose, just as God created the angels in heaven and mankind.  We were created with perfect freedom because no perfect love is forced upon someone.  God wants His creation to love Him freely---to choose Him freely understanding who He is and how much He loves us.

Calvinism teaches opposite perfect freedom in that Christ did not choose to die for us, but rather God ordained both good and evil.  Take into consideration that it would have been impossible for Lucifer and a third of the heavenly angels to rebel against God with the sin of pride if they didn't already have perfect freedom and a free will to so.

Calvinism teaches people that they can be saved without an effort on their part to choose to do good and that there's no need to repent.  NO ONE can obtain salvation this way---it's simply impossible to be in the state of elect without continuing to choose to obey the Lords voice in perfect freedom of will to do so.

This is the absolute truth---there are many people believing to and subscribing themselves to these reformed doctrines of grace and predestination that have been deceived into believing they are saved, when they have never known Christ to begin with.

----------


## erowe1

The fact that they're the ones being persecuted and we aren't is definitely a point in their favor as far as who the real Christians are. For Christians in those situations, studying theology is a luxury they don't always have.

----------


## Terry1

> And this is why I call myself a Druidic Christian. or more commonly, simply a believer..
> 
> I have issues with the teachings of most denominations,,and all had a basis in truth,,but all get sidetracked by men.
> 
> I am sure there are believers in all of them,, despite the error that they may teach. (and all do)
> 
> It will be the Judgement that sorts them out.


Absolutely and this is why I separated from the *denominational system of beliefs* myself, because it was hindering me rather than allowing me to spiritually grow in faith.  Although I do believe that I was led to see many things through that journey into the denominational world of beliefs as it led me to understand where the real truth is and exactly how to obtain it.  Nothing any believer does in their life to obtain salvation and the righteousness of God trumps living and walking in the Spirit of the Lord and tapping into the very source of life itself which is the Lord Himself.  My relationship with the Lord is between me and Him and there is no middle person or doctrine between these.

IMO--you're on the right track.

----------


## acptulsa

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?”

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.
They worship me in vain;
    their teachings are merely human rules.’
You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to human traditions.”

And he continued, “You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your own traditions!  For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and mother,’ and, ‘Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.’  But you say that if anyone declares that what might have been used to help their father or mother is Corban (that is, devoted to God)— then you no longer let them do anything for their father or mother.  Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And you do many things like that.”

----------


## Terry1

> There is a difference between discerning false teaching, and condemning others to hell.
> 
> I consider it loving to testify to the truth of scripture before those who hold false beliefs.  
> 
> Likewise, I consider it unloving to not warn those who hold to false beliefs of their errors.


You bounced in this forum just days ago announcing yourself as some Calvinist spewing savior who then went on a wild tangent accusing other believers as myself as being "wicked, evil trolls" and for giving my opinion amongst the men in this forum.  I'm sorry here, but you've got a long-long way to go before you'll ever convince me that you sincerely care about the salvation of other's more than you do you're own egomaniacal agenda to push a doctrinal lie that you've swallowed hook, line and sinker.

----------


## Nang

> 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?
> 
> 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.
> They worship me in vain;
>     their teachings are merely human rules.
> You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to human traditions.
> ...



Amen.  This is what Jesus thought about legalists and traditionalists.  

So?

----------


## TER

> 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?”
> 
> 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.
> They worship me in vain;
>     their teachings are merely human rules.’
> You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to human traditions.”
> ...


Excellent quote acptulsa!  Christ was quite correct in scolding those who set aside the commands of God in order to observe their 'human' traditions (which differs from the holy traditions established by God which He commanded His faithful to follow).  In fact, we should never do this!  The commands of God must come first and at all times (and these too include the holy traditions God commanded).  Sadly, some think that Christ here is casting away all traditions (which He isn't), for He Himself obediently followed holy traditions, spoke to His disciples by saying that the Pharisees sit on the Seat of Moses and the disciples should do everything they say, and told the prideful Pharisees  “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faith. _These you ought to have done, without leaving the others undone_."

In fact, the Scriptures themselves are part of tradition, indeed, the written tradition of the Church.  St. Paul also spoke in those same Scriptures and exhorted the believers to hold on to the traditions given to them by the apostles.

Unfortunately, many modern Christians might take the verse you quoted above and make some kind of positive assertion that 'traditions are bad and worthless', though in doing so completely contradict other verses which give the original verse it's fuller meaning.  The irony is that such a position itself that traditions are bad is in itself following a tradition which is only a few hundred years old and completely antithetical to the apostolic faith! 

This unfortunately is the problem when self-selecting verses and not looking towards the Church for the correct interpretations.  The reaction then is to completely invent new interpretations of the other verses in order to justify the original verse.  And these new interpretations often are completely foreign to the Christian understanding as taught and protected and handed down faithfully since the beginning.  But this is why there are sadly so many innumerable denominations teaching their own unique doctrines even while they maintain that the 'Scriptures interpret themselves'.  How nice if that was actually true!  But it isn't, and that is why Christ (the true Word of God) did not write a book, but established a Church to be 'the pillar and bulwark of the truth'. (1 Timothy 3:15).

----------


## acptulsa

> You bounced in this forum just days ago announcing yourself as some Calvinist spewing savior who then went on a wild tangent accusing other believers as myself as being "wicked, evil trolls" and for giving my opinion amongst the men in this forum.  I'm sorry here, but you've got a long-long way to go before you'll ever convince me that you sincerely care about the salvation of other's more than you do you're own egomaniacal agenda to push a doctrinal lie that you've swallowed hook, line and sinker.





> Amen.  This is what Jesus thought about legalists and traditionalists.  
> 
> So?


 The preparations of the heart in man, and the answer of the tongue, is from the LORD.

 All the ways of a man are clean in his own eyes; but the LORD weigheth the spirits.

 Every one that is proud in heart is an abomination to the LORD: though hand join in hand, he shall not be unpunished.

 When a man's ways please the LORD, he maketh even his enemies to be at peace with him.

 Pride goeth before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall.

 Better it is to be of an humble spirit with the lowly, than to divide the spoil with the proud.

 The wise in heart shall be called prudent: and the sweetness of the lips increaseth learning.

 There is a way that seemeth right unto a man; but the end thereof are the ways of death.

 The lot is cast into the lap; but the whole disposing thereof is of the LORD.

----------


## erowe1

> Unfortunately, many modern Christians might take the verse you quoted above and make some kind of positive assertion that 'traditions are bad and worthless'.


Source?

----------


## TER

> The preparations of the heart in man, and the answer of the tongue, is from the LORD.
> 
>  All the ways of a man are clean in his own eyes; but the LORD weigheth the spirits.
> 
>  Every one that is proud in heart is an abomination to the LORD: though hand join in hand, he shall not be unpunished.
> 
>  When a man's ways please the LORD, he maketh even his enemies to be at peace with him.
> 
>  Pride goeth before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall.
> ...


Thank you for this list!  I am going to put them in the Humility thread!

----------


## Deborah K

> So you're proud of yourself?  Yeah, I think this verse is talking about you.  And this is why I'm "mean" and "harsh" on this website.  Many who profess to be Christians are far more like the Pharisees than non-Christians.


You will be judged by the same measure with which you judge.

Mathew 7:2

----------


## Nang

> Thank you for this list!  I am going to put them in the Humility thread!


This is Holy Scripture, so I hope you look up the references to go with the "list."

----------


## VIDEODROME

Well... you can call me a Non-Christian.

----------


## acptulsa

> This is Holy Scripture, so I hope you look up the references to go with the "list."


One Sabbath Jesus was going through the grainfields, and as his disciples walked along, they began to pick some heads of grain.  The Pharisees said to him, Look, why are they doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath?

He answered, Have you never read what David did when he and his companions were hungry and in need?  In the days of Abiathar the high priest, he entered the house of God and ate the consecrated bread, which is lawful only for priests to eat. And he also gave some to his companions.

Then he said to them, The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath."

----------


## TER

> One Sabbath Jesus was going through the grainfields, and as his disciples walked along, they began to pick some heads of grain.  The Pharisees said to him, “Look, why are they doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath?”
> 
> He answered, “Have you never read what David did when he and his companions were hungry and in need?  In the days of Abiathar the high priest, he entered the house of God and ate the consecrated bread, which is lawful only for priests to eat. And he also gave some to his companions.”
> 
> Then he said to them, “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath."


Another excellent quote!  The traditions are made for the benefit of man, and not that men were made in order to benefit the traditions!

----------


## Nang

> Another excellent quote!  The traditions are made for the benefit of man, and not that men were made in order to benefit the traditions!



Honoring the Sabbath (Exodus 20:8-11) is part of scripture, which tradition cannot and should not supersede.

----------


## VIDEODROME

Religious teachers to often respond to questioning with a chiasmus phrase.    

It's a way of speaking that sounds like it's either deeply meaningful or bull$#@!.  I'd wonder if Jesus was really trying to teach the Pharises anything with that phrase.  More likely, Jesus thought that was a stupid question that didn't deserve a meaningful response.  So he did grammar kung fu on them.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> The fact that they're the ones being persecuted and we aren't is definitely a point in their favor as far as who the real Christians are. For Christians in those situations, studying theology is a luxury they don't always have.


So, a Christian can believe in salvation by works as long as he's being persecuted?

Does Romans 1:16 go out the window if you're being persecuted?

If Muslims are being persecuted, does that make them real Christians?

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Its irrelevant if any professing Christian actually says that.  My point was simply to say that bragging that God gave you whatever isn't an excuse to brag about it. We're supposed to boast in nothing but the cross of Christ (Galatians 6:16.)
> 
> 
> 
> OK, in this instance, let me clarify, if in a thread like that, someone posted something along the lines of "How dare FF and people like him say that Catholics aren't Christians when they laid down their lives like THAT" or something along those lines, I'd probably respond.  But I wouldn't bring it up in that type of thread.
> 
> 
> What if they believe that Jesus is the Son of God, but not actually God?  
> 
> ...


I doubt that you will find many Christians who believe that Jesus is the Son of God but not actually God.  Or those that believe in other gods.  Or those who believe that Jesus was a dog.  Or that he never came in the flesh. 

I also doubt that you will find many who believe that it requires something other than the cross to be saved.  You're going to pick this apart, I know (which only means you interpret it differently than I do) but here's what Christ Himself has to say about dealing with the sins of others.  It 




> *
> Matthew 18:15-20
> 15If your brother or sisterb sins,c go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over.16But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.d 17If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector.
> **18*Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be_e_ bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be_f_ loosed in heaven.*19*Again, truly I tell you that if two of you on earth agree about anything they ask for, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. *20*For where two or three gather in my name, there am I with them.


As for believing that "every person without exception is saved"...no.  And I think you're misrepresenting what some have told you about that.  Every person has the _potential_ to be saved.  All that is required:




> That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.  For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved.


There are people who are hearing the Good News about Christ every day, who didn't know it before.  I would recommend that you focus your attention on them rather than those who believe but just not the way you want them to.  Also, remember that you can't badger someone with this...their heart has to be open to it.  Don't harass atheists who don't want to be converted. Christ would not want you to do that!  



> If people do not welcome you, leave their town and shake the dust off your feet as a testimony against them."

----------


## cajuncocoa

> My previous post mostly responds to this.  There are certain claims that are implicit in what the verse says.


But the one I quoted is not like that.  It's pretty explicit and clear.  At least to me. I posted it again in my last response to you (above).  It's not ambiguous at all.

----------


## acptulsa

“‘they may be ever seeing but never perceiving,
    and ever hearing but never understanding;
otherwise they might turn and be forgiven!’"

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I doubt that you will find many Christians who believe that Jesus is the Son of God but not actually God.


Jehovah's Witnesses?  Arians?  Believe me, I've found a few on the net over the years.  And yes, I told them they weren't Christians.


> Or those that believe in other gods


Mormons?


> Or those who believe that Jesus was a dog.


OK, I'll concede that nobody actually believes that AFAIK.  But what if they did?  Would you... heaven forbid, tell a SELF-PROFESSING CHRISTIAN that they are not?  If so, what we're really arguing over is where to draw the line.  I think this would go a lot better once you guys admit that the debate is really over where to draw the line, and not over the concept of drawing lines as such.




> Or that he never came in the flesh.


See 2 John 7-11.  The gnostics of that day actually did claim that.  I've never met a modern day professing  Christian who believed that, but its irrelevant, as the truth is just as much the truth now as it was in the 1st century.



> I also doubt that you will find many who believe that it requires something other than the cross to be saved.  You're going to pick this apart, I know (which only means you interpret it differently than I do)


I'll avoid picking this apart for now, because I think I have plenty of proof above that SOMETIMES anyone would judge a professing Christian not to be one, and its just a matter of where you draw the line.



> but here's what Christ Himself has to say about dealing with the sins of others.  It


I'm not sure how this is relevant to this discussion.





> As for believing that "every person without exception is saved"...no.  And I think you're misrepresenting what some have told you about that.  Every person has the _potential_ to be saved.  All that is required:


I'm not talking about you.  I'm talking about Universalists.  Are they Christians, in your mind?



> There are people who are hearing the Good News about Christ every day, who didn't know it before.  I would recommend that you focus your attention on them rather than those who believe but just not the way you want them to.  Also, remember that you can't badger someone with this...their heart has to be open to it.  Don't harass atheists who don't want to be converted. Christ would not want you to do that!


I tell everyone I can about the gospel, regardless of whether they confess  to be Christians but confess a false gospel, or if they are not professing to be Christians at all.  There is only one gospel that saves (Romans 1:16-17) and it is by grace alone through faith alone (Ephesians 2:8-9.)

----------


## erowe1

> So, a Christian can believe in salvation by works as long as he's being persecuted?
> 
> Does Romans 1:16 go out the window if you're being persecuted?
> 
> If Muslims are being persecuted, does that make them real Christians?


Romans 1:16 doesn't say anything about whether or not a person who believes in salvation by works can be saved, so I don't see why it would go out the window. Nor do I know what the beliefs of these persecuted Syrian Christians are on how faith, works, and justification are all related.

On the last question the answer is no. 

It's not that being persecuted is a positive test to indicate that someone is a Christian, but that not being persecuted is a negative one to indicate that someone isn't, or at least isn't living like one. I have a real fear that something is badly wrong with American Christianity as evidenced by how cozy our government is with us.




> John 15:19
> 
> If you were of the world, the world would love its own. Yet because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you.





> Romans 8:16-18
> 
> 16 The Spirit Himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God, 17 and if children, then heirs—heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ, if indeed we suffer with Him, that we may also be glorified together.





> 1 Timothy 3:12
> 
> Yes, and all who desire to live godly in Christ Jesus will suffer persecution.


I'm not saying they are saved. And I'm not saying anyone else isn't. I'm just saying that, if figuring out who is and isn't saved is important to you (and it seems to be a lot more important to you than it is to me), then their being persecuted is a point in their favor.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Romans 1:16 doesn't say anything about whether or not a person who believes in salvation by works can be saved, so I don't see why it would go out the window.


Well, it does say the gospel is the power of God unto salvation (Which was my basis for thinking Spurgeon was a hypocrite with his two quotes in the other thread).  




> Nor do I know what the beliefs of these persecuted Syrian Christians are on how faith, works, and justification are all related.


I don't either.  But in the light of the OP, Catholics, Orthodox, and those with those types of doctrines were clearly in mind.  It was clearly a dig at me and SF for saying these types of people are not saved. 

But, I don't actually know what these Christians believed, and I offer no judgment on them in particular.



> On the last question the answer is no.


I certainly should hope so.



> It's not that being persecuted is a positive test to indicate that someone is a Christian, but that not being persecuted is a negative one to indicate that someone isn't, or at least isn't living like one. I have a real fear that something is badly wrong with American Christianity as evidenced by how cozy our government is with us.


Just out of curiosity, what exactly is it?

I think its a combination of relativism when it comes to false gospels, and tacit approval of the State.  I'm not certain how different these things are in other countries.  But I assume at least the second one is somewhat different.






> I'm not saying they are saved. And I'm not saying anyone else isn't. I'm just saying that, if figuring out who is and isn't saved is important to you (and it seems to be a lot more important to you than it is to me), then their being persecuted is a point in their favor.


Well, its important because its important to define what the gospel actually IS, and what it ENTAILS.  Or at least, for me it is.  All the Biblical evidence tells me that its impossible to be saved without a belief in the true gospel.

Its not a matter of coming up with some kind of list, its a matter of knowing what the essentials are.

----------


## Snew

> I have a real fear that something is badly wrong with American Christianity as evidenced by how cozy our government is with us.


Nail. on. head.

----------


## acptulsa

> Jehovah's Witnesses?  Arians?  
> 
> Mormons? 
> 
>  I think this would go a lot better once you guys admit that the debate is really over where to draw the line, and not over the concept of drawing lines as such.
> 
> The gnostics of that day actually did claim...
> 
>  I'm talking about Universalists.  Are they Christians, in your mind?


In reply Jesus said: “A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, when he was attacked by robbers. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him and went away, leaving him half dead.  A priest happened to be going down the same road, and when he saw the man, he passed by on the other side.  So too, a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side.  But a [mere] Samaritan, as he traveled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he took pity on him.  He went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he put the man on his own donkey, brought him to an inn and took care of him.  The next day he took out two denarii and gave them to the innkeeper. ‘Look after him,’ he said, ‘and when I return, I will reimburse you for any extra expense you may have.’

“Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?”

The expert in the law replied, “The one who had mercy on him [the mere Samaritan].” 

Jesus told him, “Go and do likewise.”





> Its not a matter of coming up with some kind of list, its a matter of knowing what the essentials are.


Do not be amazed at this, for a time is coming when all who are in their graves will hear his voice and come out—those who have done what is good will rise to live, and those who have done what is evil will rise to be condemned.  By myself I can do nothing; I judge only as I hear, and my judgment is just, for I seek not to please myself but him who sent me.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Jehovah's Witnesses?  Arians?  Believe me, I've found a few on the net over the years.  And yes, I told them they weren't Christians.
> 
> Mormons? 
> 
> OK, I'll concede that nobody actually believes that AFAIK.  But what if they did?  Would you... heaven forbid, tell a SELF-PROFESSING CHRISTIAN that they are not?  If so, what we're really arguing over is where to draw the line.  I think this would go a lot better once you guys admit that the debate is really over where to draw the line, and not over the concept of drawing lines as such.
> 
> 
> 
> See 2 John 7-11.  The gnostics of that day actually did claim that.  I've never met a modern day professing  Christian who believed that, but its irrelevant, as the truth is just as much the truth now as it was in the 1st century.
> ...


I guess I underestimated how much time you spend talking to people about religion.  You have probably talked more to people on this board on this subject in the year that you've been here than I have in my entire life.  It's just not my thing:  I believe people should live and let live. But I have no problem with someone who wants to convert others to Christianity. I suppose you've come across all kinds of believers in your discussions.  Maybe I stand corrected on what some believe.  I don't know and I really don't care.  

That said, I will let you in on something my Dad told me a long time ago when I was a child.  It sticks with me still and it applies here.  As everyone knows there are people who go door to door trying to convert others....some of them are Mormons, some JW.  My Dad always told me not to talk to them.  He said they use things in the Bible to try to make you doubt your own faith, to bring you to their way of believing.  I can see that is true right here on this board lately....and it's not limited to Mormons or JWs.   (Although you haven't made me doubt my faith, but you've tried).    That's why I refuse to get into religious debates...I'm still trying to avoid it here.  I just want the name-calling and disrespect for others' beliefs to stop.  I can't see how that is part of the purpose of this message board and it pisses me off quite frankly to come here and see people saying that because I am Catholic I am not a Christian.

----------


## Miss Annie

Just love each other dammit!     It's really just that simple.  If we can't speak the truth in love, then maybe we just need to pray that the Holy Spirit would do that kind of speaking to the person we are concerned about.  If we can't make our point in love, maybe that point is for God himself to make.  Just love each other!! 
*"Say what you mean, mean what you say, but don't say it mean"*.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Just love each other dammit!


That is what Christ told us to do, right?  Well, He didn't say "dammit" but He said the rest!  If we're going to call ourselves "Christians" that should be our priority, right?

----------


## Miss Annie

> That is what Christ told us to do, right?  Well, He didn't say "dammit" but He said the rest!  If we're going to call ourselves "Christians" that should be our priority, right?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I guess I underestimated how much time you spend talking to people about religion.  You have probably talked more to people on this board on this subject in the year that you've been here than I have in my entire life.  It's just not my thing:  I believe people should live and let live. But I have no problem with someone who wants to convert others to Christianity. I suppose you've come across all kinds of believers in your discussions.  Maybe I stand corrected on what some believe.  I don't know and I really don't care.  
> 
> That said, I will let you in on something my Dad told me a long time ago when I was a child.  It sticks with me still and it applies here.  As everyone knows there are people who go door to door trying to convert others....some of them are Mormons, some JW.  My Dad always told me not to talk to them.  He said they use things in the Bible to try to make you doubt your own faith, to bring you to their way of believing.  I can see that is true right here on this board lately....and it's not limited to Mormons or JWs.   (Although you haven't made me doubt my faith, but you've tried).    That's why I refuse to get into religious debates...I'm still trying to avoid it here.  I just want the name-calling and disrespect for others' beliefs to stop.  I can't see how that is part of the purpose of this message board and it pisses me off quite frankly to come here and see people saying that because I am Catholic I am not a Christian.


Quite frankly, and I hope you don't take offense to this, but I think your dad's advice is dumb.  If you're well grounded you won't doubt what you believe, if you do that shows not being well grounded to begin with.  I have no qualms about debating with JWs, I've debated them when they've come to my door and I debated a JW classmate in my school.  I debate them because I want them to believe in the true gospel, conditioned on Christ alone.

Also, to be quite frank, I've had a serious change of heart since February of 2013.  I didn't care much about faith then, I was all political.  At this point I've realized that politics is MOSTLY futile.  The gospel, on the other hand, is the most important thing ever.  If you care about your faith, whatever it is, I don't see why you wouldn't want to share it.  What could possibly be more important?

To clarify, I do not believe that being in the Catholic Church necessarily precludes one from being a Christian.  I think its an awful  place to be, but I wouldn't judge someone definitively lost on that ground.  My question would be how do they believe they are saved?  If a Catholic agrees with their church that works increase justification and that baptism regenerates, I would consider that Catholic to not be a Christian.  But, I've met Catholics who disagree with their own church on these heretical doctrines, and I would not consider them definitively lost just because they attend a bad church.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> That is what Christ told us to do, right?  Well, He didn't say "dammit" but He said the rest!  If we're going to call ourselves "Christians" that should be our priority, right?


I view it as incredibly unloving to know that someone is deluded into thinking they are saved, and yet not tell them.

How much more unloving can you get?

----------


## Miss Annie

> I view it as incredibly unloving to know that someone is deluded into thinking they are saved, and yet not tell them.
> 
> How much more unloving can you get?


Here's the thing though, we can not take on the role of playing Holy Spirit.   Only He can convict the world of sin.  If we hammer the nail too long and too hard, all we do is split the wood.

----------


## Terry1

> Quote Originally Posted by erowe1  
> 
> I have a real fear that something is badly wrong with American Christianity as evidenced by how cozy our government is with us.


Well now just think about this because I have.  Calvinism/predestination = George Orwell's society of total control.  God's free will = Land of Freedom and liberty.  Which one would most run to?

----------


## Miss Annie

> I view it as incredibly unloving to know that someone is deluded into thinking they are saved, and yet not tell them.
> 
> How much more unloving can you get?


But honey, if someone says that they believe in the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ..... the Son of God  that died for our sins and they have been baptized in the name of the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit - who are we to say they are not saved?  Is not that judgement left in God's hands?

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> That is what Christ told us to do, right?  Well, He didn't say "dammit" but He said the rest!  If we're going to call ourselves "Christians" that should be our priority, right?


Yup.  That's what the twofold commandment about love is about.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> But honey, if someone says that they believe in the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ..... the Son of God  that died for our sins and they have been baptized in the name of the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit - who are we to say they are not saved?  Is not that judgement left in God's hands?


I asked a series of questions about this above that have not been answered.  I was asking Cajun, but you might want to take a stab at them too.

Also, why do you mention baptism.  Do you believe that if someone is not baptized, they are not saved?

----------


## Christian Liberty

Romans 1:16 says that the gospel is the POWER of God unto salvation.  Galatians 1:8 condemns the Judaizers and calls them anathema despite the fact that thy would have professed to believe the things that Miss Annie mentions.  You ask "who are we" to say that those who  profess those things aren't saved.  I would answer, Paul gives us Precedent in Galatians 1:8.  Righteous judgment is based on the gospel.

Now, I will certainly agree that a saved person may not actually know much more than "Jesus is the Son of God and he died on the cross for our sins and rose again."  But there's a difference between that and saying "Jesus is the Son of God and he died on the cross for our sins and rose again, so I can be saved as long as I trust in that and make sure I get baptized."  The second person is a damnable heretic and he has not been regenerated because he is openly conditioning salvation on himself.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> I view it as incredibly unloving to know that someone is deluded into thinking they are saved, and yet not tell them.
> 
> How much more unloving can you get?


But you DON'T know that.  You assume that because you're possibly interpreting things selectively and incorrectly.

----------


## cajuncocoa

Now, I am leaving this thread.  The last thing I ever want to get involved in is a pissing match over Jesus and The Bible.  My Savior deserves better.

----------


## Miss Annie

> Romans 1:16 says that the gospel is the POWER of God unto salvation.  Galatians 1:8 condemns the Judaizers and calls them anathema despite the fact that thy would have professed to believe the things that Miss Annie mentions.  You ask "who are we" to say that those who  profess those things aren't saved.  I would answer, Paul gives us Precedent in Galatians 1:8.  Righteous judgment is based on the gospel.
> 
> Now, I will certainly agree that a saved person may not actually know much more than "Jesus is the Son of God and he died on the cross for our sins and rose again."  But there's a difference between that and saying "Jesus is the Son of God and he died on the cross for our sins and rose again, so I can be saved as long as I trust in that and make sure I get baptized."  The second person is a damnable heretic and he has not been regenerated because he is openly conditioning salvation on himself.


Ok, I am all kinds of jacked up on pain meds right now for the shingles..... so I am not going to go back and try to answer your questions.  I don't have that kind of mental power right now.  
You should know after interacting with me for this long that I am a believer in "grace through faith - alone".  But, there are a lot of people here who don't believe that.  We disagree.  I believe that they are informed enough and educated in the scriptures enough to form their own opinion.  I know what they believe, they know what I believe.  It is not up to me to condemn them.  It is not up to me to debate them until "they come around to Mama's way of thinkin".  In my experience, I have found that condemning someone in order to change their mind does little or no good.  
We are a much better witness if we state our case and then love them.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> But you DON'T know that.  You assume that because you're possibly interpreting things selectively and incorrectly.


Let me put it this way, in neutral terminology.  The Catholic gospel and the monergist gospel are not both correct.  One or the other is wrong.  So, one group or the other is unsaved.  The Catholic Church, despite its authority in the minds of Catholics, has not declared this to be the case.  This alone proves to me that the Catholic view is wrong.

----------


## Brett85

> Let me put it this way, in neutral terminology.  The Catholic gospel and the monergist gospel are not both correct.  One or the other is wrong.  So, one group or the other is unsaved.  The Catholic Church, despite its authority in the minds of Catholics, has not declared this to be the case.  This alone proves to me that the Catholic view is wrong.


Both groups believe that Jesus came to earth as God in the flesh, died on the cross for our sins, rose again, and ascended to heaven to be at the right hand of God.  Yes, it's possible for both protestants and Catholics to be saved and make it to heaven.

----------


## Miss Annie

> Both groups believe that Jesus came to earth as God in the flesh, died on the cross for our sins, rose again, and ascended to heaven to be at the right hand of God.  Yes, it's possible for both protestants and Catholics to be saved and make it to heaven.


I cant give this a big enough *AMEN*!!!!!!!!!! 

We simply can't judge the state of someone's heart.  Period.  God's grace is much bigger than our knowledge and understanding. 

1 Corinthians 13:2
2 And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, *and all knowledge*; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Ok, I am all kinds of jacked up on pain meds right now for the shingles..... so I am not going to go back and try to answer your questions.  I don't have that kind of mental power right now.


I'm sorry.  I'll pray for you




> You should know after interacting with me for this long that I am a believer in "grace through faith - alone".  But, there are a lot of people here who don't believe that.  We disagree.  I believe that they are informed enough and educated in the scriptures enough to form their own opinion.  I know what they believe, they know what I believe.  It is not up to me to condemn them.  It is not up to me to debate them until "they come around to Mama's way of thinkin".  In my experience, I have found that condemning someone in order to change their mind does little or no good.


OK, so either one of three things is the case.  Either you believe faith alone is not a gospel issue, you believe its possible to be saved without knowing the gospel, or you think the people here who deny "faith alone" are unsaved.  Which is it?




> We are a much better witness if we state our case and then love them.


I love them.  Thus, I MUST warn them of the path they are on.

----------


## Deborah K

> Ok, I am all kinds of jacked up on pain meds right now for the shingles..... so I am not going to go back and try to answer your questions.  I don't have that kind of mental power right now.  
> You should know after interacting with me for this long that I am a believer in "grace through faith - alone".  But, there are a lot of people here who don't believe that.  We disagree.  I believe that they are informed enough and educated in the scriptures enough to form their own opinion.  I know what they believe, they know what I believe.  It is not up to me to condemn them.  It is not up to me to debate them until "they come around to Mama's way of thinkin".  In my experience, I have found that condemning someone in order to change their mind does little or no good.  
> We are a much better witness if we state our case and then love them.


Someone rep Annie for me please?  I'm out.

----------


## Miss Annie

> I'm sorry.  I'll pray for you
> 
> 
> 
> OK, so either one of three things is the case.  Either you believe faith alone is not a gospel issue, you believe its possible to be saved without knowing the gospel, or you think the people here who deny "faith alone" are unsaved.  Which is it?
> 
> 
> 
> I love them.  Thus, I MUST warn them of the path they are on.


I believe you make the gospel more complicated and to encompass more than it really is.  The gospel is simple.

----------


## Dr.3D

> I believe you make the gospel more complicated and to encompass more than it really is.  The gospel is simple.


So simple a child can understand it.



> _NRS_ *Mark 10:15*   Truly I tell you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God as a little child will never enter it."

----------


## Brett85

> OK, so either one of three things is the case.  Either you believe faith alone is not a gospel issue, you believe its possible to be saved without knowing the gospel, or you think the people here who deny "faith alone" are unsaved.  Which is it?


Faith in Christ's death and resurrection is a gospel issue.  "Faith alone" is not a gospel issue.

----------


## Christian Liberty

@DeborahK- Despite disagreement, I gave her a +rep.  Just because I don't agree with a post doesn't mean it lacks merit.

@Miss Annie- How is "Trust in Christ death and resurrection ALONE for one's salvation "complicated"?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Faith in Christ's death and resurrection is a gospel issue.  "Faith alone" is not a gospel issue.


I honestly think almost everyone on this thread is ultimately some sort of relativist.  The very same arguments the Roman Catholics and Arminians on this board use to defend themselves could be used to defend atheists, buddhists, hindus, and the like.  I'd really like to see some decent arguments, but "Just love each other" is NOT a good argument unless you want to embrace either total skepticism or universalism.

----------


## Brett85

> I honestly think almost everyone on this thread is ultimately some sort of relativist.  The very same arguments the Roman Catholics and Arminians on this board use to defend themselves could be used to defend atheists, buddhists, hindus, and the like.  I'd really like to see some decent arguments, but "Just love each other" is NOT a good argument unless you want to embrace either total skepticism or universalism.


Well, one argument is that you still haven't presented a single verse which says that people are damned if they don't believe in "faith alone."  You've been asked to do this multiple times, and you just resort to circular arguments to try to prove your case on this.

----------


## acptulsa

> OK, so either one of three things is the case.  Either you believe faith alone is not a gospel issue, you believe its possible to be saved without knowing the gospel, or you think the people here who deny "faith alone" are unsaved.  Which is it?


"When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne.  All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats.  He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.

Then the King will say to those on his right, Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world.  For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in,  I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.

"Then the righteous will answer him, Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink?  When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you?  When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?

The King will reply, Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.




> So simple a child can understand it.


Jesus answered, My teaching is not my own. It comes from the one who sent me.  Anyone who chooses to do the will of God will find out whether my teaching comes from God or whether I speak on my own.  Whoever speaks on their own does so to gain personal glory, but he who seeks the glory of the one who sent him is a man of truth; there is nothing false about him.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Well, one argument is that you still haven't presented a single verse which says that people are damned if they don't believe in "faith alone."  You've been asked to do this multiple times, and you just resort to circular arguments to try to prove your case on this.


The argument is not a single verse, its a combination of Ephesians 2:8-9, Romans 1:16, and Galatians 1:8-9

The gospel Paul preached to them is "By grace through faith, and not of works lest any man should boast."  Galatians 1:8 says anyone who preaches anything different is "anathema."  Romans 1:16 clearly shows that only those who believe the gospel are saved.

This is a really simple argument, honestly.

----------


## RJB

FF, I think you've been using Muslims giving their lives as a strawman.  I specifically said some one who died with full faith in Jesus in their hearts.

As for Mormons, JWs, etc., awhile ago I kinda lumped all Protestants together.  It kind of surprised me to seeing (a few) Calvinists damning each other in the Carpenter thread.  So I don't feel qualified to give an opinion like you asked.  Especially when I'm used to seeing misrepresentations of my own faith from the same people who bad mouth JWs and LDS.  I leave that to God.  If they had a choice between willing facing a firing squad for Jesus vs living.  That person is a Christian IMO.

The Universalists seem to believe everything (or nothing?), so I don't know if they'd even be willing face a firing squad for Christ.

To face one's death is an awesome moment.  I've come close a few times in my younger years. I've lost my fear of death over the years yet my love of life has greatly increased. If not for the Holy Spirit, if given a choice between a firing squad and living, I would live.  Martyrdom is truly an act of the Holy Spirit.  Anyone who can look down a barrel of a gun and chose Christ over man's mercy is a Christian.  Even if it's a Hyper-Calvinist facing a rogue Catholic IMO.

Romans 10:9-10.  I know you say (without proof) that I don't believe it, despite my protest, but *YOU should seriously ask YOURSELF why it matters so much to you convince yourself that I am not be a believer.*  Especially considering some of the threads in the past where you've been confronted with questions on how someone can be damned for certain beliefs and you either ignore them or change the subject ad infinitum.

----------


## Nang

> Well, one argument is that you still haven't presented a single verse which says that people are damned if they don't believe in "faith alone."  You've been asked to do this multiple times, and you just resort to circular arguments to try to prove your case on this.



Ephesians 2:8-9

Why?

Because before God saves anyone by His grace through faith, they are already condemned as deserving God's wrath and damnation.

 Ephesians 2:1-5; Romans 9:22

----------


## Brett85

> Ephesians 2:8-9
> 
> Why?
> 
> Because before God saves anyone by His grace through faith, they are already condemned to damnation.
> 
>  Ephesians 2:1-5; Romans 9:22


Not necessarily.  The Bible says that every single person's name is added to the Book of Life at the beginning, and only when they die without accepting Christ will their name be blotted out from the book of life.  Names are never added to the book of life, only blotted out.

Revelation 3:5

The one who is victorious will, like them, be dressed in white. I will never blot out the name of that person from the book of life, but will acknowledge that name before my Father and his angels.

----------


## RJB

> The argument is not a single verse, its a combination of Ephesians 2:8-9, Romans 1:16, and Galatians 1:8-9


Here is a thread that discussed that.  You might want to check it out:  http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...ith-Alone-quot

Better yet, if you want, after Easter, start a thread and defend that position.

----------


## Nang

> Not necessarily.  The Bible says that every single person's name is added to the Book of Life at the beginning, and only when they die without accepting Christ will their name be blotted out from the book of life.  Names are never added to the book of life, only blotted out.


Gads.  That is not scriptural at all.




> Revelation 3:5
> 
> The one who is victorious will, like them, be dressed in white.* I will never blot out the name* of that person from the book of life, but will acknowledge that name before my Father and his angels.


Read it again . . . this scripture is not a threat from God, but a promise of God . . .all who are written in His (the Lamb's) Book of Life* will never be blotted out* but acknowledged beforoe the Father.

----------


## Miss Annie

> @DeborahK- Despite disagreement, I gave her a +rep.  Just because I don't agree with a post doesn't mean it lacks merit.
> 
> @Miss Annie- How is "Trust in Christ death and resurrection ALONE for one's salvation "complicated"?


This is just my opinion.  I believe that salvation is simple.  Belief in Christ's death for our sins, his burial, resurrection and I believe that belief in trinity is connected to salvation.  But......  I believe that salvation is just that simple.  Is God's word deeper than that?  Absolutely!!  God's word is for our education, edification, faith building, learning how to live and love as Jesus did.  To understand doctrine I believe is important as it does all of those things.  But I do not believe that if we have one tiny doctrinal mistake that we are damned or condemned.  
I believe Jesus wants us to live a righteous life and love others.  He wants us to be a living, breathing, walking, talking example of his love.

----------


## Deborah K

> This is just my opinion.  I believe that salvation is simple.  Belief in Christ's death for our sins, his burial, resurrection and I believe that belief in trinity is connected to salvation.  But......  I believe that salvation is just that simple.  Is God's word deeper than that?  Absolutely!!  God's word is for our education, edification, faith building, learning how to live and love as Jesus did.  To understand doctrine I believe is important as it does all of those things.  But I do not believe that if we have one tiny doctrinal mistake that we are damned or condemned.  
> I believe Jesus wants us to live a righteous life and love others.  He wants us to be a living, breathing, walking, talking example of his love.


I believe this too.

----------


## Brett85

> Read it again . . . this scripture is not a threat from God, but a promise of God . . .all who are written in His (the Lamb's) Book of Life* will never be blotted out* but acknowledged beforoe the Father.


Right, those who come to accept Christ as their Lord and Savior will never be blotted out from the book of life.  It's not like the book of life is completely empty at the beginning, and then those who are saved have their names written in the book of life.  This verse and others make it clear that every person's name is written in the book of life from the very beginning.  This is because God isn't willing that any should perish, but for all to come to repentance.  So he writes down everyone's name in the book of life at the beginning, hoping that everyone will choose to accept Christ.  It's only when someone makes the deliberate choice to reject Christ and dies without knowing him that their name will be blotted out from the book of life.

----------


## Nang

> This verse and others make it clear that every person's name is written in the book of life from the very beginning.


Scripture does not say that.





> This is because God isn't willing that any should perish, but for all to come to repentance.


Directed to, and applied to believers, only.  II Peter 3:9




> So he writes down everyone's name in the book of life at the beginning, hoping that everyone will choose to accept Christ.  It's only when someone makes the deliberate choice to reject Christ and dies without knowing him will their name be blotted out from the book of life.


You have a big imagination, and change the bible to say what you subjectively want it to say, in opposition to what it actually says.

This practice is forbidden in Revelation 22:18-19

----------


## acptulsa

Well, I'm relieved no one here (though Nang came awfully close) is silly enough to actually argue with Jesus.  But I'm detecting a disturbing willingness to ignore Him when it suits a person.




> "When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne.  All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats.  He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.
> 
> Then the King will say to those on his right, Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world.  For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in,  I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.
> 
> "Then the righteous will answer him, Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink?  When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you?  When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?
> 
> The King will reply, Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.


Where Paul is ambiguous and Jesus is clear, is there really any doubt Who to turn to in order to better understand what Paul is really trying to say?

----------


## Jamesiv1

> I cant give this a big enough *AMEN*!!!!!!!!!! 
> 
> We simply can't judge the state of someone's heart.  Period.  God's grace is much bigger than our knowledge and understanding. 
> 
> 1 Corinthians 13:2
> 2 And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, *and all knowledge*; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing.


I Corinthians 13 is beautiful. Maybe Paul's best work.

+rep for having great taste in scripture

----------


## Brett85

> Scripture does not say that.
> 
> Directed to, and applied to believers, only.  II Peter 3:9
> 
> You have a big imagination, and change the bible to say what you subjectively want it to say, in opposition to what it actually says.
> 
> This practice is forbidden in Revelation 22:18-19


No, I'm simply pointing out to you what the Bible actually says.  The Bible says that names are only blotted out of the book of life, never added.  But you have to try to twist the meaning of these verses to conform to your twisted theology.

----------


## Nang

> Well, I'm relieved no one here (though Nang came awfully close) is silly enough to actually argue with Jesus.  But I'm detecting a disturbing willingness to ignore Him when it suits a person.


That is the fault of TC, who claims things not even written in the bible, regarding the Book of Life.

It is as much as sin to add falsely to the word of God, as it is to take away from the Word of God.

----------


## Nang

> No, I'm simply pointing out to you what the Bible actually says.  The Bible says that names are only blotted out of the book of life, never added.  But you have to try to twist the meaning of these verses to conform to your twisted theology.





Revelation 13:5 promises: " all who are written in His (the Lamb's) Book of Life* will never be blotted out* but acknowledged before the Father."

Cite scriptural references for all your additional opinions, please.

----------


## Brett85

> Cite scriptural references, please.


I just did.  I'll do it again.

Revelation 3:5

"The one who is victorious will, like them, be dressed in white. I will never blot out the name of that person from the book of life, but will acknowledge that name before my Father and his angels."

This verse makes it clear that those who accepted Christ will never be blotted out from the book of life.  Those who don't accept Christ will be blotted out from the book of life.  If your name is blotted out of the book of life, it had to be in the book of life to begin with.

----------


## Nang

> I just did.  I'll do it again.
> 
> Revelation 3:5
> 
> "The one who is victorious will, like them, be dressed in white. I will never blot out the name of that person from the book of life, but will acknowledge that name before my Father and his angels."
> 
> This verse makes it clear that those who accepted Christ will never be blotted out from the book of life.  Those who don't accept Christ will be blotted out from the book of life.  If your name is blotted out of the book of life, it had to be in the book of life to begin with.


Where does scripture teach that "those who don't accept Christ" were ever written in the Lamb's Book of Life?

----------


## Nang

And beware . . . there are numerous other books mentioned in the bible . . .by which men will be judged.  Revelation 20:12

----------


## Brett85

> Where does scripture teach that "those who don't accept Christ" were ever written in the Lamb's Book of Life?


This isn't a difficult concept.  In order to be blotted out from the book of life, those who don't accept Christ have to be written in the book of life to begin with.

Psalm 69:28

"May they be blotted out of the book of life And may they not be recorded with the righteous."

----------


## acptulsa

> I Corinthians 13 is beautiful. Maybe Paul's best work.
> 
> +rep for having great taste in scripture


Yes, it is.  Yes, she does.  It's also one of the most clear and least ambiguous things Paul ever said.  And it completely supports what Jesus Himself said about the Judgement Day and Salvation.

And I pity the fool who ignores both for the sake of his Pharisee dogma.





> That is the fault of TC...


No.  It isn't.

----------


## RJB

And back to the subject.  As a keyboard Christian myself, I pray God helps me to live and die as those persecuted Christians around the world.




> *Matthew 16:24 Then Jesus told his disciples, “If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. 25 For whoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will find it. 26 For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world and forfeits his soul? Or what shall a man give in return for his soul? 27 For the Son of Man is going to come with his angels in the glory of his Father, and then he will repay each person according to what he has done. 28 Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.”*


  Good night and God bless.

----------


## Deborah K

> Where does scripture teach that "those who don't accept Christ" were ever written in the Lamb's Book of Life?


Nang, we are his creation.  He didn't create us just to condemn us.

With all due respect, after the last few days, the only conclusion I can come to where people who believe like you do are concerned, is that your theology is based on stringing various verses together in an effort to justify your convoluted belief system.

----------


## Nang

> This isn't a difficult concept.  In order to be blotted out from the book of life, those who don't accept Christ have to be written in the book of life to begin with.
> 
> Psalm 69:28
> 
> "May they be blotted out of the book of life And may they not be recorded with the righteous."


Two different books .. . the book of life records the creation and naming of all men unto natural life, but only those redeemed in Christ are written in *His* book as deemed spiritually righteous by faith in Him.  Revelation 20:15

----------


## Brett85

> Two different books .. . the book of life records the creation and naming of all men unto natural life, but only those redeemed in Christ are written in *His* book as deemed spiritually righteous by faith in Him.  Revelation 20:15


That's obviously false given the verse that I just cited.  Psalm 69:28 says that the unrighteous are blotted out of the book of life.  In order to be blotted out of that book, they have to be written in it to begin with.  There's only one book of life, that everyone's name is written in to begin with.  Those who don't know Christ when they die have their names blotted out of the book of life.

----------


## Jamesiv1

> And I pity the fool who ignores both for the sake of his Pharisee dogma.


+rep for Mr. T reference

----------


## Nang

> That's obviously false given the verse that I just cited.  Psalm 69:28 says that the unrighteous are blotted out of the book of life.  In order to be blotted out of that book, they have to be written in it to begin with.  There's only one book of life, that everyone's name is written in to begin with.  Those who don't know Christ when they die have their names blotted out of the book of life.



Oh, whatever . . . if you say so, grand biblical scholar . . .

----------


## Christian Liberty

> FF, I think you've been using Muslims giving their lives as a strawman.  I specifically said some one who died with full faith in Jesus in their hearts.


If you say "Jesus" but completely separate the name from the doctrine, does the name by itself matter?  What if your version of "Jesus" was just a man.  Would that change anything in your mind?  WHat if he didn't really come in the flesh, was only God but not man?  What then?

I am not necessarily saying your errors are quite that overt.  I'm trying to get you to see that you CANNOT completely separate Christ from doctrine.  What you're arguing is where you should draw the line, but you're acting like you're arguing that there shouldn't be a line.  That's an issue.  




> As for Mormons, JWs, etc., awhile ago I kinda lumped all Protestants together.  It kind of surprised me to seeing (a few) Calvinists damning each other in the Carpenter thread.


A few?  The only one I can think of is agrammatos.  He's actually NOT a Calvinist, and he doesn't claim to be one.  Sola_Fide is really starting to flirt with anathemizing certain Calvinists as well, but he's not a Calvinist either, and he doesn't claim to be one.  I could probably make up a "Calvinist" position which I would say the person holding it is definitely not saved, but I've never actually encountered one that made me think that.  

At any rate, you'd probably be better off not considering the OTC people to be "Protestants."  They're in a league of their own.  I guess you could call them "Protestants" in the same way that Hyper-Calvinists and open-theists are both "Protestants", but I don't know that a category that broad is useful for anything.  I certainly do not think all Protestants are saved.




> So I don't feel qualified to give an opinion like you asked.  Especially when I'm used to seeing misrepresentations of my own faith from the same people who bad mouth JWs and LDS.  I leave that to God.  If they had a choice between willing facing a firing squad for Jesus vs living.  That person is a Christian IMO.


Again, define "Jesus".  Say "Jesus" for me was just a man, but for whatever reason I was willing to die for him: would that fly?  If not, your issue is WHERE do we draw the line, not IF.



> The Universalists seem to believe everything (or nothing?), so I don't know if they'd even be willing face a firing squad for Christ.


Let's say they were.  



> To face one's death is an awesome moment.  I've come close a few times in my younger years. I've lost my fear of death over the years yet my love of life has greatly increased. If not for the Holy Spirit, if given a choice between a firing squad and living, I would live.  Martyrdom is truly an act of the Holy Spirit.  Anyone who can look down a barrel of a gun and chose Christ over man's mercy is a Christian.  Even if it's a Hyper-Calvinist facing a rogue Catholic IMO.


So, if I were executed for saying that Catholics aren't Christians, would you expect to see me in heaven?


> Romans 10:9-10.  I know you say (without proof) that I don't believe it, despite my protest, but *YOU should seriously ask YOURSELF why it matters so much to you convince yourself that I am not be a believer.*  Especially considering some of the threads in the past where you've been confronted with questions on how someone can be damned for certain beliefs and you either ignore them or change the subject ad infinitum.


I'm not trying to convince myself that you aren't a believer.  That's not really the point here.  The point is 'what is, and is not, essential gospel doctrine.'




> Here is a thread that discussed that.  You might want to check it out:  http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...ith-Alone-quot
> 
> Better yet, if you want, after Easter, start a thread and defend that position.


I've answered this question of TC's many times already.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Oh, whatever . . . if you say so, grand biblical scholar . . .


His theology has gotten progressively worse in the time I've been here.  I don't know, I'm starting to get somewhat annoyed myself, the semi-relativism more than anything else.  "We're all just a big happy family", I mean, really?

----------


## Brett85

> Oh, whatever . . . if you say so, grand biblical scholar . . .


Well, you obviously have no answer for those verses.

----------


## Nang

> His theology has gotten progressively worse in the time I've been here.  I don't know, I'm starting to get somewhat annoyed myself, the semi-relativism more than anything else.  "We're all just a big happy family", I mean, really?


It is frustrating to give biblical answer, to only receive responses that accuse no biblical answers have been given.

(Or that we are uncivil for posting answers at all!)

Ugh . . .

----------


## Brett85

> His theology has gotten progressively worse in the time I've been here.  I don't know, I'm starting to get somewhat annoyed myself, the semi-relativism more than anything else.  "We're all just a big happy family", I mean, really?


My liberal uncles view me as some extreme right wing intolerant fundamentalist Christian.  I'm pretty sure that I'm only "relativist" compared to you and how you come across.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> This is just my opinion.  I believe that salvation is simple.  Belief in Christ's death for our sins, his burial, resurrection and I believe that belief in trinity is connected to salvation.  But......  I believe that salvation is just that simple.  Is God's word deeper than that?  Absolutely!!  God's word is for our education, edification, faith building, learning how to live and love as Jesus did.  To understand doctrine I believe is important as it does all of those things.  But I do not believe that if we have one tiny doctrinal mistake that we are damned or condemned.  
> I believe Jesus wants us to live a righteous life and love others.  He wants us to be a living, breathing, walking, talking example of his love.


I understand what you are saying about "one tiny doctrinal mistake."  I agree with you completely.  But I don't think acceptance of salvation by faith and works are "just a tiny doctrinal mistake."  Infant baptism?  Sure.  Eschatology?  Of course.  Ecclesiology?  Absolutely.  Election?  Maybe.  But faith alone?  I don't think so.




> It is frustrating to give biblical answer, to only receive responses that accuse no biblical answers have been given.
> 
> (Or that we are uncivil for posting answers at all!)
> 
> Ugh . . .


I know.  I read Romans 9 aloud in my Christian group today.  I noticed how at the end it talks about the gospel being a "Stumbling block of offense."  Its so true.  Reformed Christianity is offensive to the world preciesley because it is the truth.




> My liberal uncles view me as some extreme right wing intolerant fundamentalist Christian.  I'm pretty sure that I'm only "relativist" compared to you and how you come across.


You should see some of the conversations I've had with other people.  But, most Christians I know realize that Rome is an apostate church.  I've seen few, if any, evangelicals that consider Rome anything but apostate.

----------


## Brett85

> You should see some of the conversations I've had with other people.  But, most Christians I know realize that Rome is an apostate church.  I've seen few, if any, evangelicals that consider Rome anything but apostate.


It's not like it's a subject that I just go around talking about with people all the time, so I don't really know what every person in my church thinks about that.  I try to concentrate on my own relationship with Christ and not constantly judge other people who claim to be Christians.  But the people who I've talked to about the issue have basically taken my position, which is that some Catholics are saved, and some aren't.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> It's not like it's a subject that I just go around talking about with people all the time, so I don't really know what every person in my church thinks about that.  I try to concentrate on my own relationship with Christ and not constantly judge other people who claim to be Christians.  But the people who I've talked to about the issue have basically taken my position, *which is that some Catholics are saved, and some aren't*.


I don't think anyone definitvely disagreed with that.  I've said that I don't judge by what church one is part of.  But you seem to go one step further and say that someone can actually believe in salvation by baptism and sacraments, and I think that's ridiculous.

----------


## Miss Annie

> I understand what you are saying about "one tiny doctrinal mistake."  I agree with you completely.  But I don't think acceptance of salvation by faith and works are "just a tiny doctrinal mistake."  Infant baptism?  Sure.  Eschatology?  Of course.  Ecclesiology?  Absolutely.  Election?  Maybe.  But faith alone?  I don't think so.
> .


But we don't know that.  Jesus will look to the heart of a person.  He will look at the love that they showed to others.  He will look at the adoration and relationship that they had for and with Him.  If a person does not believe in faith alone, but feeds the hungry, clothes the poor, visits the sick and cares for the homeless.....  doing all of these things in love..... and out of love for Him???  How are we to know?  We simply can't be the judge of these things.  We can hold firm to what we believe, and share our beliefs in a loving way...  but condemnation is not our place to give.

----------


## Terry1

> Two different books .. . the book of life records the creation and naming of all men unto natural life, but only those redeemed in Christ are written in *His* book as deemed spiritually righteous by faith in Him.  Revelation 20:15


*Revelation 20:
12 And 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*.

*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
*

*James 2:
17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.*


So by evidence of God's word---if you being a Calvinist and do not believe in "works of faith", which Revelation 20:12 most certainly says you'll be judged by---how then do you think God will judge you?

----------


## acptulsa

I'm pretty sure this is the point where FF stops bumping this thread and never posts in it again, preferring to do his posting in threads which contain less of substance...

----------


## Christian Liberty

> But we don't know that.  Jesus will look to the heart of a person.  He will look at the love that they showed to others.  He will look at the adoration and relationship that they had for and with Him.  If a person does not believe in faith alone, but feeds the hungry, clothes the poor, visits the sick and cares for the homeless.....  doing all of these things in love..... and out of love for Him???  How are we to know?  We simply can't be the judge of these things.  We can hold firm to what we believe, and share our beliefs in a loving way...  but condemnation is not our place to give.


You probably had someone like Mother Theresa in mind here, but you could have been talking about an atheist and the argument could be written the exact same way.

These comments seem to contradict what you said about faith alone.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I'm pretty sure this is the point where FF stops bumping this thread and never posts in it again, preferring to do his posting in threads which contain less of substance...


I'm not going to address Terry's post.  I don't read them, because they contain the same incoherencies every time.
If you have a question, feel free to ask.

----------


## Miss Annie

> You probably had someone like Mother Theresa in mind here, but you could have been talking about an atheist and the argument could be written the exact same way.
> 
> These comments seem to contradict what you said about faith alone.


No they don't contradict.  It's all about love.  Loving God and loving others.

----------


## Brett85

> But you seem to go one step further and say that someone can actually believe in salvation by baptism and sacraments, and I think that's ridiculous.


If someone believed in salvation by works alone and wasn't a believer in Christ's death on the cross and resurrection, I would say that they were unsaved.  (Although if I were talking to them personally, I would be kind about the way I said it and not be in their face about it)

----------


## Christian Liberty

Do you prioritize love over belief?

----------


## acptulsa

> I'm not going to address Terry's post.  I don't read them, because they contain the same incoherencies every time.
> If you have a question, feel free to ask.


All right.  I will.

How do you come to label four New Testament verses 'incoherencies' with a straight face?

----------


## Brett85

> I understand what you are saying about "one tiny doctrinal mistake."  I agree with you completely.  But I don't think acceptance of salvation by faith and works are "just a tiny doctrinal mistake."  Infant baptism?  Sure.  Eschatology?  Of course.  Ecclesiology?  Absolutely.  Election?  Maybe.  But faith alone?  I don't think so.


Wouldn't infant baptism be a major issue for you?  Wouldn't someone who believes in infant baptism believe that it's necessary for salvation and thus is unsaved according to your view?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Wouldn't infant baptism be a major issue for you?  Wouldn't someone who believes in infant baptism believe that it's necessary for salvation and thus is unsaved according to your view?


Presbyterians believe in infant baptism and do not believe its necessary for salvation.  I don't know for sure what Lutherans think about it.  But... I'm not talking about baptismal regeneration, I'm talking about paedobaptism.

Nang believes in paedobaptism.  I think sovredeemerassembly does as well.  None of whom are conditionalists (sovredeemer has other issues, but that's another issue entirely.)

----------


## acptulsa

> Presbyterians believe in infant baptism and do not believe its necessary for salvation.


It's the only time I was ever baptized.

Question asked, question ignored.  Well, you're a little better than Sola_Fide.  He has ignored this whole thread like he considers Truth to be the Plague...

What?  Someone is quoting Jesus?  Time to get lost!  Don't they know you're supposed to _worship_ Jesus, not _listen_ to Him?

----------


## Miss Annie

> Do you prioritize love over belief?


No..... love is the fruit of belief.   Belief is not a "thing unto itself".  Belief is "belief in Jesus".  Belief in his existence, his sacrifice, his mercy and his love.  
That kind of belief grows roots in a persons soul and the roots develop a bloom.  The flower or the bloom is love.  When you know and love Jesus, you can't help but pour Jesus' love out upon others.  You want to share it.  You want to grow it.  You want to bathe in it  You want to pour it out on others because you know how it blesses you and you want others to share in that blessing. 

1Jo 3:14 ¶ We know that we have passed from death unto life, because we love the brethren. He that loveth not his brother abideth in death.
1Jo 3:15 Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him.
1Jo 3:16 Hereby perceive we the love of God, because he laid down his life for us: and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren.
1Jo 3:17 But whoso hath this world's good, and seeth his brother have need, and shutteth up his bowels of compassion from him, how dwelleth the love of God in him?
1Jo 3:18 My little children, let us not love in word, neither in tongue; but in deed and in truth.
1Jo 3:19 And hereby we know that we are of the truth, and shall assure our hearts before him.
1Jo 3:20 ¶ For if our heart condemn us, God is greater than our heart, and knoweth all things.
1Jo 3:21 Beloved, if our heart condemn us not, then have we confidence toward God.
1Jo 3:22 And whatsoever we ask, we receive of him, because we keep his commandments, and do those things that are pleasing in his sight.
1Jo 3:23 ¶ And this is his commandment, That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment.
1Jo 3:24 And he that keepeth his commandments dwelleth in him, and he in him. And hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us.

Ga 5:22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,
Ga 5:23 Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> It's the only time I was ever baptized.
> 
> Question asked, question ignored.  Well, you're a little better than Sola_Fide.  He has ignored this whole thread like he considers Truth to be the Plague...
> 
> What?  Someone is quoting Jesus?  Time to get lost!  Don't they know you're supposed to _worship_ Jesus, not _listen_ to Him?


Sola doesn't have time to do this now.  He has to figure out where those who tolerate tolerant calvinists are secretly god-haters first

----------


## acptulsa

> Sola doesn't have time to do this now.  He has to figure out where those who tolerate tolerant calvinists are secretly god-haters first


God forbid.

----------


## VIDEODROME

If Catholics go to Heaven, will they have to spend eternity with Sola Fide?  I guess they are screwed.

----------


## RJB

> The argument is not a single verse, its a combination of Ephesians 2:8-9, Romans 1:16, and Galatians 1:8-9
> 
> "By grace through faith, and not of works lest any man should boast."  Galatians 1:8 says anyone who preaches anything different is "anathema."  Romans 1:16 clearly shows that only those who believe the gospel are saved.
> 
> This is a really simple argument, honestly.


I've prayed about this last night.  Try to imagine someone who was not raised as you, who sees your argument above and sees how you dismiss people who live by Romans 10:9-10.

*To me it appears as ridiculous as saying:*  The gospel Paul preached to them in Philippians 2:12 is we must "work out our salvation with fear and trembling."  James 2:24 clearly tells us we are saved "NOT by Faith Alone."   Jesus in Matthew Matt 16: 27  tells us we will be judged by our deeds.   Galatians 1:8 says anyone who preaches anything different is "anathema."

What's the difference between your dogma and my hypothetical one above?

----------


## RJB

> A few?  The only one I can think of is agrammatos.  He's actually NOT a Calvinist, and he doesn't claim to be one.  Sola_Fide is really starting to flirt with anathemizing certain Calvinists as well, but he's not a Calvinist either, and he doesn't claim to be one.  I could probably make up a "Calvinist" position which I would say the person holding it is definitely not saved, but I've never actually encountered one that made me think that.  
> 
> At any rate, you'd probably be better off not considering the OTC people to be "Protestants."  They're in a league of their own.  I guess you could call them "Protestants" in the same way that Hyper-Calvinists and open-theists are both "Protestants", but I don't know that a category that broad is useful for anything.  I certainly do not think all Protestants are saved.


You can see how this could certainly befuddle a poor Catholic's mind, can't you?

----------


## moostraks

> It's the only time I was ever baptized.
> 
> Question asked, question ignored.  Well, you're a little better than Sola_Fide.  He has ignored this whole thread like he considers Truth to be the Plague...
> 
> What?  Someone is quoting Jesus?  Time to get lost!  Don't they know you're supposed to _worship_ Jesus, not _listen_ to Him?


He wasn't able to respond since he was too busy telling people like me we are not Christians yesterday

----------


## mosquitobite

This was my devotional for today.  Very applicable! The Wrong Way to be Right




> _Agree with your adversary quickly, while you are on the way with him, lest your adversary deliver you to the judge, the judge hand you over to the officer, and you be thrown into prison. Assuredly, I say to you, you will by no means get out of there till you have paid the last penny. Matthew 5:25-26 NKJV_
> 
> The Moment...What should you do when you disagree with someone? Pride says, “Defend yourself.” But Jesus said, “Agree with your adversary.” When we disagree with someone, humility is our greatest covering. The moment we justify or defend ourselves before another we yield to their judgment instead of God’s.
> 
> You might be saying, “But John, I am actually right, and the other person is completely in the wrong!” *It’s not about being right; it’s about being humble. For wherever there is strife, there is a root of pride* (see Proverbs 13:10).

----------


## Brett85

> I've prayed about this last night.  Try to imagine someone who was not raised as you, who sees your argument above and sees how you dismiss people who live by Romans 10:9-10.
> 
> *To me it appears as ridiculous as saying:*  The gospel Paul preached to them in Philippians 2:12 is we must "work out our salvation with fear and trembling."  James 2:24 clearly tells us we are saved "NOT by Faith Alone."   Jesus in Matthew Matt 16: 27  tells us we will be judged by our deeds.   Galatians 1:8 says anyone who preaches anything different is "anathema."
> 
> What's the difference between your dogma and my hypothetical one above?


It seems like you get called a heretic if you simply quote those verses.   Apparently those verses are the heretical part of the Bible, and you're supposed to only read the non heretical part of the Bible.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> *Revelation 20:
> 12 And 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*.
> 
> *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 
> ...


@*FreedomFanatic*: what is your opinion of what Terry1 posted above?  I'm not going to debate you about it, but I would really like to hear your take on these quotes from the Book of Revelation, Thessalonians 1 & 2 and James 2.   They sound pretty straightforward to me.  Are they wrong?

----------


## pcosmar

> It's the only time I was ever baptized.
> 
> Question asked, question ignored.  Well, you're a little better than Sola_Fide.  He has ignored this whole thread like he considers Truth to be the Plague...
> 
> What?  Someone is quoting Jesus?  Time to get lost!  Don't they know you're supposed to _worship_ Jesus, not _listen_ to Him?


I was baptized as an infant,, and I was baptized by a Calvinist Baptist.

I think my bases are covered.

----------


## erowe1

> @*FreedomFanatic*: what is your opinion of what Terry1 posted above?  I'm not going to debate you about it, but I would really like to hear your take on these quotes from the Book of Revelation, Thessalonians 1 & 2 and James 2.   They sound pretty straightforward to me.  Are they wrong?


Notice that in Revelation 20, the works people get judged for result in them getting thrown into the Lake of Fire. That is the fate that each and every one of us deserves on account of our works, and Revelation 20 fits that perfectly.

James 2 has been discussed a lot already. We can discuss it more if needed. But it would deserve a separate post if not thread.

As for those verses in 1 and 2 Thessalonians, do you really think they support her claim? Or did you just include them because she did? Because I don't see it at all. Both of those verses are very supportive of the view that God is the one who determines whether people do what Paul calls a work of faith, since in both of them Paul is thanking God for it or praying to God to bring it about. He doesn't give any credit at all to the Thessalonians for it.

----------


## acptulsa

> I was baptized as an infant,, and I was baptized by a Calvinist Baptist.
> 
> I think my bases are covered.


I figure I get baptized every single morning.

If God is everywhere, then the Holy Spirit is in every drop of water.  Fluoride can't prevent that.  High Priests aren't necessary to make it happen.





> Notice that in Revelation 20, the works people get judged for result in them getting thrown into the Lake of Fire. That is the fate that each and every one of us deserves on account of our works...


Take _that_, Mother Theresa!

Got any comments on 1st Corinthians 13:2?  How about Matthew 25:31-46?  Because whenever I ask about the Matthew passage in particular all I get is, like...





> He wasn't able to respond since he was too busy telling people like me we are not Christians yesterday


...or...




> It seems like you get called a heretic if you simply quote those verses.   Apparently those verses are the heretical part of the Bible, and you're supposed to only read the non heretical part of the Bible.

----------


## mosquitobite

> I figure I get baptized every single morning.
> 
> If God is everywhere, then the Holy Spirit is in every drop of water.  Fluoride can't prevent that.  High Priests aren't necessary to make it happen.



If we view baptism as a washing away of sins, one of my favorite rituals is to make hyssop bath salts.  It's good for bathing and reflecting.
Psalm 51:7

----------


## otherone

> Do you prioritize love over belief?

----------


## cajuncocoa

My responses in red:




> Notice that in Revelation 20, the works people get judged for result in them getting thrown into the Lake of Fire. That is the fate that each and every one of us deserves on account of our works, and Revelation 20 fits that perfectly.
> 
> yes, that is obvious.  no argument here.
> 
> James 2 has been discussed a lot already. We can discuss it more if needed. But it would deserve a separate post if not thread.
> 
> I don't come into the religion forum often (for reasons that are obvious in this thread).  I guess I missed this big discussion.  Can you give me the Cliff Notes version by way of answer?  Or maybe let FF answer since I addressed the question to him.
> 
> As for those verses in 1 and 2 Thessalonians, do you really think they support her claim? Or did you just include them because she did? Because I don't see it at all. Both of those verses are very supportive of the view that God is the one who determines whether people do what Paul calls a work of faith, since in both of them Paul is thanking God for it or praying to God to bring it about. He doesn't give any credit at all to the Thessalonians for it.
> ...


I'm not looking to debate you.  I know what I believe, and I will not be moved from it.  I'm asking to learn from the Calvinists to find out how they think.   I'm looking to pick the brain of the Calvinists to see how they selectively choose to interpret certain verses of the Bible that seem to contradict what they claim.

----------


## cajuncocoa

Another question for Calvinists:  since your Doctrine says that God has pre-determined who will be saved, why do you bother to proselytize to Catholics and others who disagree with your Doctrine?  What good does it do to try to convert people who can't be saved, according to your Doctrine?  If we haven't been selected by God, we're doomed already.....right?

----------


## erowe1

> My responses in red:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 			
> 				 But why bother to do works of faith at all if those works are unnecessary? Serious question.


They are not a prerequisite for salvation. That doesn't mean there's no reason to do them.

Nobody can become righteous in God's sight by doing good works. But when God has made a person righteous in his sight, through Jesus, and changed that person from the inside out, then doing good works is the natural result. The motivations Christians have to do good works isn't so as to become a Christian, it's to be what God has already made us. It's like when somebody tells a child to act their age.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> They are not a prerequisite for salvation. That doesn't mean there's no reason to do them.
> 
> Nobody can become righteous in God's sight by doing good works. But when God has made a person righteous in his sight, through Jesus, and changed that person from the inside out, then doing good works is the natural result. The motivations Christians have to do good works isn't so as to become a Christian, it's to be what God has already made us. It's like when somebody tells a child to act their age.


OK, then.  That's how I see the teachings about works in the Catholic Church also.  So I guess we're in agreement more than either of us thought.

----------


## erowe1

> Another question for Calvinists:  since your Doctrine says that God has pre-determined who will be saved, why do you bother to proselytize to Catholics and others who disagree with your Doctrine?  What good does it do to try to convert people who can't be saved, according to your Doctrine?  If we haven't been selected by God, we're doomed already.....right?


First of all, nobody knows who else is elect. So we can never say that someone is doomed already. There may be times when it's best to give up on proselytizing someone, but never from the very outset just because they're not Christians yet.

In the Bible, the fact that God is the one who brings about the change in others actually positively incentivizes evangelism, rather than disincentivizing it.




> Acts 13:47-49
> 
> 47 For so the Lord has commanded us:
> 
> ‘I have set you as a light to the Gentiles,
> That you should be for salvation to the ends of the earth.’”[a]
> 48 Now when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and glorified the word of the Lord. And as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed.
> 
> 49 And the word of the Lord was being spread throughout all the region.





> Acts 18:9-11
> 
> 9 Now the Lord spoke to Paul in the night by a vision, “Do not be afraid, but speak, and do not keep silent; 10 for I am with you, and no one will attack you to hurt you; for I have many people in this city.” 11 And he continued there a year and six months, teaching the word of God among them.


We speak God's Word knowing that God will not let that be in vain. It will bring about the effect God desires for it. When that Gospel reaches a person whose heart God has prepared at just the right time, a miracle happens, and we get to be a part of it.

This conviction does affect the way we view evangelism. But the way it affects us is not to teach us not to do it, but to teach us how to look at it. I think that a lot of people see evangelism as them trying to get other people to have some response to what they say that will get them into heaven. It can become like salesmanship. In a lot of churches all kinds of emotional tricks are played in altar calls to get people hyped up so they want to "come forward" or raise their hand or pray some sinner's prayer.

Biblical evangelism isn't like that:



> 2 Corinthians 2:14-17
> 
> 14 Now thanks be to God who always leads us in triumph in Christ, and through us diffuses the fragrance of His knowledge in every place. 15 For we are to God the fragrance of Christ among those who are being saved and among those who are perishing. 16 To the one we are the aroma of death leading to death, and to the other the aroma of life leading to life. And who is sufficient for these things? 17 For we are not, as so many, peddling the word of God; but as of sincerity, but as from God, we speak in the sight of God in Christ.

----------


## erowe1

..

----------


## Terry1

The doctrine of Calvinism in the U.S. is mainly taught in reformed Baptist and Presbyterian churches.  Not all Baptist churches are reformed though, some are "free will" Baptists.  The word to avoid is "Reformed".  The Lutheran's also share part of that same reformed doctrine too, although Lutheran's will argue on different points of the five point doctrine.

The obvious teaching to avoid is that God causes and ordains sin and death in order to cure it, which is insanity and not Biblical.  Avoid these teachings.  The Catholics are correct, along with some other major denominations that aren't reformed, and some non denominations who don't subscribe to these reformed doctrines either.

Calvinism isn't even within the continuum of those teachings that exist within the will of God.

----------


## acptulsa

> He wasn't able to respond since he was too busy telling people like me we are not Christians yesterday





> It seems like you get called a heretic if you simply quote those verses.   Apparently those verses are the heretical part of the Bible, and you're supposed to only read the non heretical part of the Bible.


It would seem that if you fear no evil, they can't mount a good offense.  And if they can't mount a good offense, they seem to have no defense.  Even so, ignoring Matthew 25:31-46 never seems to make it go away.

I guess that's why, in religion and in so many other things, those who do the most kicking are the very ones who don't have a leg to stand on.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> First of all, nobody knows who else is elect. So we can never say that someone is doomed already. There may be times when it's best to give up on proselytizing someone, but never from the very outset just because they're not Christians yet.
> 
> In the Bible, the fact that God is the one who brings about the change in others actually positively incentivizes evangelism, rather than disincentivizing it.


YOU may not know who is elect, but God would (if Calvinist Doctrine is correct).  It goes on to say:




> *The Efficacious Call of the Spirit or Irresistible Grace*
> In addition to the outward general call to salvation which is made to everyone who hears the gospel, the Holy Spirit extends to the elect a special inward call that inevitably brings them to salvation. The eternal call (which is made to all without distinction) can be, and often is, rejected; whereas the internal call (which is made only to the elect) cannot be rejected; it always results in conversion. By mean, of this special call the Spirit irresistibly draws sinners to Christ. He is not limited in His work of applying salvation by mans will, nor is He dependent upon mans cooperation for success. The Spirit graciously causes the elect sinner to cooperate, to believe, to repent, to come freely and willingly to Christ. God, grace. therefore, is invincible; it never fails to result in the salvation of those to whom it is extended.



http://www.graceonlinelibrary.org/re...parison-chart/

Now, help me out here, because I've seen evidence in this thread that Calvinists don't take words at face value....but it seems to me that the above text implies that the elect cannot resist being saved in the end.  Why must any of you do anything for someone who isn't elect?  And if they are elect, it seems that your intervention is completely unnecessary.  

Correct me if that's wrong.

----------


## Terry1

Calvinism needs to be exposed for what it is and people need to be made aware of just how spiritually dangerous this doctrine is.  That's why I try to back up everything I claim with Gods word.  These people need to be shown before it's too late for them.  This is what we're supposed to do, but we're also not supposed to be punching bags for these people caught in this web of lies who want to tell everyone else that they're "evil" and "unsaved" when they're the ones who have no evidence that they exist within the will of God or the state of elect.  Without repentance and the belief that one needs to continue repenting of sin until they day they die, their souls are in mortal danger without feeling the need to perform a work of faith based upon obedience to the Holy Spirit.  

Because by them not believing they need to continue repenting---they're also not acting in obedience to the Holy Spirit and they have no fruit of the Spirit as a result of this.  John 15:-5 and Hebrews 6:4-

Editing to add too that Calvinism and the Quran are strikingly similar in doctrine.  Anyone can search that for themselves.  They both hold the core belief that God causes and ordains sin in order to cure it.

----------


## acptulsa

> He wasn't able to respond since he was too busy telling people like me we are not Christians yesterday





> ...but we're also not supposed to be punching bags for these people caught in this web of lies who want to tell everyone else that they're "evil" and "unsaved" when they're the ones who have no evidence that they exist within the will of God or the state of elect.


The case can be made that testing the faith of the faithful is God's work.

Of course, when I read Job, and I read about Jesus' forty days in the desert, I see who God usually picks to do this thing for Him.  And that makes me want to avoid doing it myself...





> Now, help me out here, because I've seen evidence in this thread that Calvinists don't take words at face value....but it seems to me that the above text implies that the elect cannot resist being saved in the end.  Why must any of you do anything for someone who isn't elect?  And if they are elect, it seems that your intervention is completely unnecessary.  
> 
> Correct me if that's wrong.


Well, you know what the hippies used to say.  If it feels good, do it.

----------


## Terry1

> The case can be made that testing the faith of the faithful is God's work.
> 
> Of course, when I read Job, and I read about Jesus' forty days in the desert, I see who God usually picks to do this thing for Him.  And that makes me want to avoid doing it myself...


Well Jesus Himself often had to correct his own disciples who wanted to kick ass and call fire down from heaven upon those who rejected the Gospel of Jesus Christ as in the event with James and John here:

Luke 9:
54 And when His disciples James and John saw this, they said, “Lord, wilt Thou that we command fire to come down from heaven and consume them, even as Elijah did?”

55 But He turned and rebuked them and said, “Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of.
56 For the Son of Man is not come to destroy men’s lives, but to save them.” And they went to another village.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> @*FreedomFanatic*: what is your opinion of what Terry1 posted above?  I'm not going to debate you about it, but I would really like to hear your take on these quotes from the Book of Revelation, Thessalonians 1 & 2 and James 2.   They sound pretty straightforward to me.  Are they wrong?


I'm going to try to find where I answered this later today.



> I've prayed about this last night.  Try to imagine someone who was not raised as you, who sees your argument above and sees how you dismiss people who live by Romans 10:9-10.
> 
> *To me it appears as ridiculous as saying:*  The gospel Paul preached to them in Philippians 2:12 is we must "work out our salvation with fear and trembling."  James 2:24 clearly tells us we are saved "NOT by Faith Alone."   Jesus in Matthew Matt 16: 27  tells us we will be judged by our deeds.   Galatians 1:8 says anyone who preaches anything different is "anathema."
> 
> What's the difference between your dogma and my hypothetical one above?


If you believe you are right about this, why don't you view us as anathema?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> You can see how this could certainly befuddle a poor Catholic's mind, can't you?


Of course, this is probably gibberish to you.  Just like the differences between Rome and the Orthodox are gibberish to me.  I don't even see why the churches split, they teach the same gospel AFAIK.  Let me make it simple for you.  Ignore OTC, ignore anyone affiliated with OTC, particularly agrammatos.  Assume, unless proven otherwise, that if someone is anathemizing a Calvinist, and is themselves "Calvinistic", they are probably from OTC.

----------


## erowe1

> YOU may not know who is elect, but God would (if Calvinist Doctrine is correct)


Correct.

And that's not just Calvinist doctrine, but also if Roman Catholic doctrine.

----------


## erowe1

> Why must any of you do anything for someone who isn't elect?


Since we can't know who's elect, we can't be dissuaded from evangelizing anyone on the basis of their not being elect.




> And if they are elect, it seems that your intervention is completely unnecessary.


That's right. If they become saved, we get 0% of the credit for it. God gets 100% of the credit. Our evangelism is a tool that God uses. And that's what motivates us, not the hope that we, by our own power, could ever save anyone.

This precise point, which you see as a mark against the evangelism of those who believe that God is the one who does all of the work in saving people, I see as a mark agains the evangelism of those who don't believe that. They seem to think that other peoples' salvation depends on them, on their intellect, or smooth words, or charisma, or something. So we have people who think they can't share the Gospel because they don't believe they have those abilities, and we have others who try to work people up and convince them to make some emotional response, like used car salesmen. When you see that the salvation of another person's soul depends not on your abilities, but on God's, then your evangelism becomes a humble act of obedience that revolves around him and not you.

----------


## Nang

> Why must any of you do anything for someone who isn't elect?  And if they are elect, it seems that your intervention is completely unnecessary.  
> 
> Correct me if that's wrong.


It is God's means that believers proclaim the gospel; through which God calls and draws His own to faith in the righteousness of Jesus Christ.

Matthew 28:18-20; Romans 10:14-15; John 6:37, 44-45, Romans 8:29-30

The preacher has no idea who God is calling and drawing, thus he proclaims the gospel to all men, indiscriminately, leaving the results in the hands of sovereign God.

God determines who will hear His call and believe and who will not.  John 12:37-41; Isaiah 6:9-10; Matthew 22:14

----------


## acptulsa

> That's right. If they become saved, we get 0% of the credit for it.


And well you shouldn't.  Because according to Calvin, even admitting that it's possible for someone to 'become saved' and cross over the allegedly unbridgeable gap between the non-elect and the elect is heresy.

Anyone hungry?  Because the barbeque is on erowe today!

----------


## Nang

> And well you shouldn't.  Because according to Calvin, even admitting that it's possible for someone to 'become saved' and cross over the allegedly unbridgeable gap between the non-elect and the elect is heresy.
> 
> Anyone hungry?  Because the barbeque is on erowe today!


*
God determines who will hear His call and believe and who will not. John 12:37-41; Isaiah 6:9-10; Matthew 22:14; Luke 8:10; 10:20-22; II Corinthians 4:3; Acts 25:27; Romans 11:6-10*

----------


## acptulsa

> *
> God determines who will hear His call and believe and who will not. John 12:37-41; Isaiah 6:9-10; Matthew 22:14; Luke 8:10; 10:20-22; II Corinthians 4:3; Acts 25:27; Romans 11:6-10*


That's nice.  Does any of it actually support Calvin's view that the elect are born saved and everyone else is born damned?

----------


## Cabal



----------


## cajuncocoa

> Since we can't know who's elect, we can't be dissuaded from evangelizing anyone on the basis of their not being elect.
> 
> 
> 
> That's right. If they become saved, we get 0% of the credit for it. God gets 100% of the credit. Our evangelism is a tool that God uses. And that's what motivates us, not the hope that we, by our own power, could ever save anyone.
> 
> This precise point, which you see as a mark against the evangelism of those who believe that God is the one who does all of the work in saving people, I see as a mark agains the evangelism of those who don't believe that. They seem to think that other peoples' salvation depends on them, on their intellect, or smooth words, or charisma, or something. So we have people who think they can't share the Gospel because they don't believe they have those abilities, and we have others who try to work people up and convince them to make some emotional response, like used car salesmen. When you see that the salvation of another person's soul depends not on your abilities, but on God's, then your evangelism becomes a humble act of obedience that revolves around him and not you.


I think you missed the point. It's not about who gets credit. The point is, if someone is deemed "elect" YOU don't have to DO anything. They are already saved. Nothing you do or they do can change that. So sit back and chill....God's got this.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> And well you shouldn't.  Because according to Calvin, even admitting that it's possible for someone to 'become saved' and cross over the allegedly unbridgeable gap between the non-elect and the elect is heresy.
> 
> Anyone hungry?  Because the barbeque is on erowe today!


Is crow on the menu?

----------


## acptulsa

> Nothing you do or they do can change that. So sit back and chill....God's got this.


People like you take all the deliciously arrogant fun out of fundamentalism.  What good is damentalism?

----------


## Nang

> That's nice.  Does any of it actually support Calvin's view that the elect are born saved and everyone else is born damned?



Can you cite and quote Calvin teaching this? 

The elect are born elect, and the non-elect are born non-elect.  Romans 9:11

----------


## Nang

> I think you missed the point. It's not about who gets credit. The point is, if someone is deemed "elect" YOU don't have to DO anything. They are already saved. Nothing you do or they do can change that. So sit back and chill....God's got this.


And you miss the point . . . *God uses the means of preaching to call His own.*  It is hearing the word of God that saves sinners, and God has commissioned preachers to proclaim that word.  Romans 10:14-17

The justified live by faith, alone . . . not by just being zapped by God to believe, or by their arbitrarily choosing to believe.  

So it is necessary Christians evangelize in obedience to their commission from the Lord.  Matthew 28:18-20

----------


## cajuncocoa

> And you miss the point . . . *God uses the means of preaching to call His own.*  It is hearing the word of God that saves sinners, and God has commissioned preachers to proclaim that word.  Romans 10:14-17
> 
> The justified live by faith, alone . . . not by just being zapped by God to believe, or by their arbitrarily choosing to believe.  
> 
> So it is necessary Christians evangelize in obedience to their commission from the Lord.  Matthew 28:18-20


Let's let your previous post answer this for us:







> Can you cite and quote Calvin teaching this? 
> 
> *The elect are born elect*, and the non-elect are born non-elect. Romans 9:11


That seems to suggest to me that Calvinists don't need to go around evangelizing to the elect....to quote Lady Gaga, they are Born That Way.  And nothing you can do will save the non-elect.  


So, go grab a bite of lunch and check out the political threads on the board.  Your work has been done for you by The Lord Himself.

----------


## Christian Liberty

Calvinism does not claim God NEEDS us to do his work.  He could save people without faith if he wanted to.  But the Bible says he doesn't do that.  He saves through faith.  And he uses the regenerate elect to preach the gospel. We don't know who the elect are, so we preach to all and plead with all to believe.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Calvinism does not claim God NEEDS us to do his work.  He could save people without faith if he wanted to.  But the Bible says he doesn't do that.  He saves through faith.  And he uses the regenerate elect to preach the gospel. We don't know who the elect are, so we preach to all and plead with all to believe.


FF, it doesn't matter if *YOU* know.  God knows.  And the elect are born that way.  So you can go now and enjoy the rest of your life.  God's got this.

----------


## acptulsa

> Can you cite and quote Calvin teaching this? 
> 
> The elect are born elect, and the non-elect are born non-elect.  Romans 9:11





> And you miss the point . . . *God uses the means of preaching to call His own.*  It is hearing the word of God that saves sinners, and God has commissioned preachers to proclaim that word.  Romans 10:14-17
> 
> The justified live by faith, alone . . . not by just being zapped by God to believe, or by their arbitrarily choosing to believe.  
> 
> So it is necessary Christians evangelize in obedience to their commission from the Lord.  Matthew 28:18-20


Nang, you cannot have it both ways.  Either we have no control over whether we are elect or not or we do.

Just because God is omnipotent enough to know in advance what influences will hold sway over us and what we will choose _does not mean that in our own lame perception of the passage of our mortal time we do not choose._

The fact that you call choosing to believe--which you should consider a human's most important decision of all--arbitrary and the fact that you airily put it in the same sentence as 'God zapp[ing]' people to believe indicates to me that you're missing some vital points.  One of these is that Jesus indicated that it's important to God that we choose to love Him.

If it were important to the process for us to actually understand how God's omnipotence works or what it's actually like to be omnipotent, one would think He would have made us capable of understanding that.  I'm not capable of comprehending omnipotence, and if you think you are capable of it then I'm about to call you arrogant.  To try to create a dogma based on an impossible understanding of God's omnipotence sounds to me like a good way to make yourself blind even to things that Jesus the Teacher taught us, and is therefore a way to introduce evil into God's house undetected like the merchants in the ancient temple.

If our actions are necessary for those who are born elect to become elect, then no one is born elect.  God may well be able to foresee that they will become saved, but this ability of God does not make them born elect.  It does not.  If they were born elect, then nothing we do could save them because they were never in any danger at all.

Now explain to me how screeching at people that they have to agree with a conclusion that even Calvin himself could ultimately never reconcile (and being childish about it) is better than approaching faith with the wonder and innocence of a child, minding our Teacher when He says none of us are without sin so we're not allowed to throw stones at each other, and spending our time working together to soothe the sick and feed the poor instead.  Please.

----------


## Nang

> That seems to suggest to me that Calvinists don't need to go around evangelizing to the elect.


.

Believers do not go around evangelizing the elect, they evangelize sinners.  Believers do not know who is elect or who is non-elect or who God will call or who God will not call to believe their message.

They simply preach the good news of Jesus Christ, and leave salvation in the hands of God . . . for even the elect are born sinners, dead in trespasses and sins, who are by the nature inherited from Adam, are children of wrath, just as the others.  * Ephesians 2:1-3*

----------


## Christian Liberty

> FF, it doesn't matter if *YOU* know.  God knows.  And the elect are born that way.  So you can go now and enjoy the rest of your life.  God's got this.


The problem being that this view assumes that the elect are regenerated independently of human means.  When in reality God regenerates the elect through the means of Christians preaching the gospel.  For curiosity, are you arguing against Calvinism here or against evangelism?

----------


## cajuncocoa

> The problem being that this view assumes that the elect are regenerated independently of human means.  When in reality God regenerates the elect through the means of Christians preaching the gospel.  For curiosity, are you arguing against Calvinism here or against evangelism?


Let me ask you to look at this website:
http://www.graceonlinelibrary.org/re...parison-chart/

According to what is said there about Calvinism, the elect cannot be separated from God eternally.  There is an "inward call" that cannot be resisted, and it is said to "inevitably bring them to salvation."  It says this call is given by the Holy Spirit.  Is this website wrong about what you believe?  If not, then of course the elect are "regenerated independent of human means."  If this is wrong, please explain (or provide another link....not a Bible verse) to show where it is wrong.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> .
> 
> Believers do not go around evangelizing the elect, they evangelize sinners.  Believers do not know who is elect or who is non-elect or who God will call or who God will not call to believe their message.
> 
> They simply preach the good news of Jesus Christ, and leave salvation in the hands of God . . . for even the elect are born sinners, dead in trespasses and sins, who are by the nature inherited from Adam, are children of wrath, just as the others.  * Ephesians 2:1-3*


Nang, THERE IS NO POINT IN EVANGELIZING THE NON-ELECT.  According to Calvinism, they cannot be saved!  It's a waste of time.

----------


## acptulsa

> .
> 
> Believers do not go around evangelizing the elect, they evangelize sinners.  Believers do not know who is elect or who is non-elect or who God will call or who God will not call to believe their message.
> 
> They simply preach the good news of Jesus Christ, and leave salvation in the hands of God . . . for even the elect are born sinners, dead in trespasses and sins, who are by the nature inherited from Adam, are children of wrath, just as the others.  * Ephesians 2:1-3*





> The problem being that this view assumes that the elect are regenerated independently of human means.  When in reality God regenerates the elect through the means of Christians preaching the gospel.  For curiosity, are you arguing against Calvinism here or against evangelism?


Now tell me how splitting hairs with Calvin and throwing stones at other people who are trying to answer that same call is God's work in aid of salvation, and not the devil's own work of distracting people from God's work.

People don't actually choose but we help them choose.  Works don't get you into heaven but if you have what it takes to get into heaven you can't help but do the works.  If you drink Miller Lite because it's less filling, and don't agree with me that it must be drunk because it allegedly tastes great, then you may be drinking Miller Lite, but _you aren't a Miller Lite drinker!!_

God, please save us from ourselves while we still have a little time left in this mortal life to pull our heads out and go do Your Work together!

----------


## Deborah K

> Nang, you cannot have it both ways.  Either we have no control over whether we are elect or not or we do.
> 
> Just because God is omnipotent enough to know in advance what influences will hold sway over us and what we will choose _does not mean that in our own lame perception of the passage of our mortal time we do not choose._
> 
> The fact that you call choosing to believe--which you should consider a human's most important decision of all--arbitrary and the fact that you airily put it in the same sentence as 'God zapp[ing]' people to believe indicates to me that you're missing some vital points.  One of these is that Jesus indicated that it's important to God that we choose to love Him.
> 
> If it were important to the process for us to actually understand how God's omnipotence works or what it's actually like to be omnipotent, One would think He would have made us capable of understanding that.  I'm not capable of comprehending omnipotence, and if you think you are capable of it then I'm about to call you arrogant.  To try to create a dogma based on an impossible understanding of God's omnipotence sounds to me like a good way to make yourself blind even to things that Jesus the Teacher taught us, and is therefore a way to introduce evil into God's house undetected like the merchants in the ancient temple.
> 
> If our actions are necessary for those who are born elect to become elect, then no one is born elect.  God may well be able to foresee that they will become saved, but this ability of God does not make them born elect.  It does not.  If they were born elect, then nothing we do could save them because they were never in any danger at all.
> ...


Agreed.  And may I add that James reminds us that anyone who claims to be religious and doesn't control his/her tongue is only fooling themselves and their religion isn't worth much.

----------


## Nang

> Nang, you cannot have it both ways.  Either we have no control over whether we are elect or not or we do.


God elects, not men.  




> Just because God is omnipotent enough to know in advance what influences will hold sway over us and what we will choose _does not mean that in our own lame perception of the passage of our mortal time we do not choose._
> 
> The fact that you call choosing to believe--which you should consider a human's most important decision of all--arbitrary and the fact that you airily put it in the same sentence as 'God zapp[ing]' people to believe indicates to me that you're missing some vital points.  One of these is that Jesus indicated that it's important to God that we choose to love Him.


Please provide scripture that Jesus taught that sinners *choose* to love Him.

My bible teaches just the opposite, and says that *God chooses* whom He wills to believe.




> If it were important to the process for us to actually understand how God's omnipotence works or what it's actually like to be omnipotent, One would think He would have made us capable of understanding that.  I'm not capable of comprehending omnipotence, and if you think you are capable of it then I'm about to call you arrogant.


Those God chooses to regenerate through the resurrection power of the Holy Spirit, are enabled to believe in the gospel of Jesus Christ that saves.  Without the Holy Spirit, no man can comprehend the gospel, for it is spiritual.  Thus, one must be born again from their dead spiritual state, and given a new heart, ears, and eyes to see truth to believe and repent of their sins.  (John 3:3) Otherwise they remain dead and under the wrath of God.  (I Corinthians 2:4-16)





> If our actions are necessary for those who are born elect to become elect, then no one is born elect.


You fail to make proper distinction between theological (biblical) terms.  "Elect" is related to, but distinct from "regenerate."  Election is according to God's eternal decree, and regeneration occurs in the elect in temporal time.  




> God may well be able to foresee that they will become saved, but this ability of God does not make them born elect.  It does not.  If they were born elect, then nothing we do could save them because they were never in any danger at all.


God has eternally chosen a people to be redeemed in Christ, according to His sovereign decree, will, and good purpos




> Now explain to me how screeching at people that they have to agree with a conclusion that even Calvin himself could ultimately never reconcile (and being childish about it) is better than approaching faith with the wonder and innocence of a child, minding our Teacher when he says none of us are without sin so we're not allowed to throw stones at each other, and spending our time working together to soothe the sick and feed the poor instead.  Please.


Your resorting to ad hominem is duly noted.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Now explain to me how screeching at people that they have to agree with a conclusion that even Calvin himself could ultimately never reconcile (and being childish about it) is better than approaching faith with the wonder and innocence of a child, minding our Teacher when he says none of us are without sin so we're not allowed to throw stones at each other, and spending our time working together to soothe the sick and feed the poor instead.  Please.


 It really sucks when your own words (and those of your fellow Calvinists) are shown to be so twisted in -- or lacking in -- logic that you have to beg off this way.

But it's an excellent point, and probably the most intelligent comment made by a Calvinist on this board today.  I'll take this to mean the RPF Calvinists will put their time to better use than preaching that Catholics (and other heretics) are going to hell.

----------


## moostraks

> God elects, not men.  
> 
> 
> 
> Please provide scripture that Jesus taught that sinners *choose* to love Him.
> 
> My bible teaches just the opposite, and says that *God chooses* whom He wills to believe.


Gonna repost since new member seems to want to ignore:




> Few questions in theology bear as directly on the lives of ordinary believers as does that of the relationship between grace and free will. As Christians, we know that we are to seek to please God and obey His commandments; yet we also believe that He helps us in such a way that to think that we have pleased Him, through our own unaided efforts, would be an act of pride. Already there is, if not outright contradiction, at least considerable tension between these two beliefs. The tension grows worse when we also take into account the conviction, firmly rooted in Scripture, that salvation is in some sense the result of divine election. Our Lord states in the sixth chapter of the Gospel of John, all that the Father giveth me shall come to me (6:37), and a few verses later, no man can come to me except the Father which hath sent me draw him (6:44).1 Taking these two statements together, it would seem that to be called by the Father is both a necessary and sufficient condition for coming to Christ (which here is tantamount to salvation). Yet in the same chapter Christ also exhorts his audience as if the choice were theirs. He urges them, Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life (6:27), and, when they ask him what they must do to work the works of God, he replies, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent (6:29). Apparently, although to be chosen by God is both necessary and sufficient for salvation, that does not exclude the necessity of our own choice, and indeed of our labouring. This is very confusing. It seems both that the will of the Father is the sole cause of our salvation, and that we too are, in some sense, a cause. 
> 
> There are here two different but related questions. First is that of how our efforts to please God can be consistent with the fact that we are totally dependent upon His aid. Second is that of how salvation can be both determined by Gods choice and dependent on our free response. As regards the second question, Scripture adds the further complication that Gods election has in some sense been fixed from all eternity. St. Paul writes in his epistle to the Ephesians that God hath chosen us in him [that is, Christ] before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ unto himself, according to the good pleasure of his will (1:4-6). This doctrine makes the second question harder, for it rules out the possibility that God might perform His election in response to unfolding events. Yet even without it, there would remain the basic question of how human free will can have any efficacy, given that divine choice seems to determine all. 
> 
> My purpose in this paper is to see what light can be shed on these questions by the writings of St. John Chrysostom. Before beginning, it may be well to say a word about what I see as the proper spirit in which to approach this sort of inquiry. One way to think about St. Chrysostom is that he is one voice among many offering guidance in the interpretation of Scripture. On this view he has no more intrinsic authority than any other commentator; our job is to weigh his arguments and decide for urselves whether they provide an adequate interpretation of the text. Such an approach would be foreign to Orthodoxy, for it gives no weight to the place of St. Chrysostom within Holy Tradition. For us as Orthodox, Chrysostom is not merely one commentator among others; he is the commentator, the one whose exegeses have, more than any others, been taken up and absorbed into the very fabric of Orthodoxy. This does not mean that he is infallible. No doubt he had his blind spots, as we all do. But it does mean that for us he is not simply an isolated voice stating his own private opinions. He is one who spoke on behalf of the Tradition, and who has been accepted by the Church as having spoken well. If we find his statements incomplete or obscure, we are freeindeed, obligatedto supplement them as necessary from elsewhere in the Tradition in order to determine their fuller meaning. This is, I believe, the way in which Chrysostom himself would have us read him. 
> 
> So much for preliminaries. Now for the first question: how can our own efforts can be efficacious given our complete dependence on grace? Here I think it is helpful to distinguish three levels at which divine grace operates. The first is that of external circumstances, including the actions taken by others with whom we are engaged. This level may be illustrated through Chrysostoms exegesis of the episode in which Jacob deceived his father, Isaac, so as to receive the blessing intended for Esau. As Chrysostom sees it, there are two points in this story where divine aid is apparent: in the ease with which Isaac was deceived (failing to recognize his own son!), and in the fact that Esau conveniently did not return until it was too late. By arranging matters in this way, God cooperated (συνήργησε) with Jacob.2 Yet He did not do so without regard to Jacobs own effort. Not only had Jacob and his mother, Rebecca, done what was expected of them, the one heeding his mothers advice, the other playing her part completely; various details of the story also indicate that Jacob was still in a state of anxiety and his apprehension increased, all this happening for us to learn from it that the loving Lord does not idly give evidence of His characteristic providence unless He sees on our part as well fervor in action.3 So God gave heed not only to Jacobs obedience but also to the ardor of his desire. All of this illustrates, according to Chrysostom, that it is neither the case that everything is due to help from on high (rather, we too must contribute something), nor on the other hand does He require everything of us, knowing as He does the extraordinary degree of our limitations; on the contrary, out of fidelity to His characteristic love and wishing to find some occasion for demonstrating His own generosity, He awaits the contribution of what we have to offer.4 
> 
> There is an interesting detail in this statementnamely, that it is a sign of Gods generosity that He allows things to depend partly on us. Already we see here one of Chrysostoms most characteristic themes. That God allows us an independent role is not a kind of weakness or negligence on His part, but a sign of His goodness. An analogy would be that of a parent who is capable of doing everything for his child, but instead waits for the child to act, gauging his own action in response to the childs commitment and zeal. Does not ordinary human experience suggest that this is often how love works? Only by being allowed to make his own contribution can the child grow into a mature adult, one capable of freely returning his parents love. 
> ...


http://www.russianorthodox-stl.org/grace_freewill.html

Now I know new member would like to argue this is a commentary and not as relevant as her beloved Luther and reformers but it is no different that what she is wanting to slit hairs over and includes Scripture references on a topic that deserves more than proof texting.

----------


## acptulsa

> Please provide scripture that Jesus taught that sinners *choose* to love Him.


We are all sinners, are we not?




> 26And He said to him, "What is written in the Law? How does it read to you?" 27And he answered, "YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR STRENGTH, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND; AND YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF." 28And He said to him, "You have answered correctly; DO THIS AND YOU WILL LIVE."


I say my understanding of our omniscient and omnipotent God is imperfect.  If you say yours is perfect, then I say you're even more arrogant than I am.  Preaching to the choir is considered a waste of time.  Going across the street to the other church and yelling at their choir is no less a waste of time.

In the end, it all comes down to the same answer:




> So sit back and chill....God's got this.

----------


## Nang

> Now explain to me how screeching at people that they have to agree with a conclusion that even Calvin himself could ultimately never reconcile (and being childish about it) is better than approaching faith with the wonder and innocence of a child, minding our Teacher when he says none of us are without sin so we're not allowed to throw stones at each other, and spending our time working together to soothe the sick and feed the poor instead. Please.






> It really sucks when your own words (and those of your fellow Calvinists) are shown to be so twisted in -- or lacking in -- logic that you have to beg off this way.



These are acptulsa's words, not mine.

----------


## moostraks

> It really sucks when your own words (and those of your fellow Calvinists) are shown to be so twisted in -- or lacking in -- logic that you have to beg off this way.
> 
> But it's an excellent point, and probably the most intelligent comment made by a Calvinist on this board today.  I'll take this to mean the RPF Calvinists will put their time to better use than preaching that Catholics (and other heretics) are going to hell.


New member does not quote properly. Look back and you will see who these words should be attributed to, acptulsa.

----------


## moostraks

Forum burp...

----------


## cajuncocoa

> New member does not quote properly. Look back and you will see who these words should be attributed to, acptulsa.


Ah, OK....no wonder it made so much sense.  Apologies to both.

----------


## moostraks

> These are acptulsa's words, not mine.


What is amusing is she gave you credit for being smart enough to end the argument which you did not do. If I had to venture a guess the twisted has to do with your prior logic. My guess from watching the exchange transpire.

----------


## moostraks

> Ah, OK....no wonder it made so much sense.  Apologies to both.

----------


## Nang

> We are all sinners, are we not?


Yes.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> What is amusing is she gave you credit for being smart enough to end the argument which you did not do. *If I had to venture a guess the twisted has to do with your prior logic.* My guess from watching the exchange transpire.


Exactly

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Nang, THERE IS NO POINT IN EVANGELIZING THE NON-ELECT.  According to Calvinism, they cannot be saved!  It's a waste of time.


We don't know who the non-elect are.

----------


## moostraks

> God elects, not men.  
> 
> 
> 
> Please provide scripture that Jesus taught that sinners *choose* to love Him.
> 
> My bible teaches just the opposite, and says that *God chooses* whom He wills to believe.


Re-post for new member to understand the historic position of the church fathers, the men who protected the Scriptures and dedicated their life to the Faith.




> Epistle of Barnabas 100 A.D. 1:139 (losing salvation) "Take heed, lest resting at our ease, as those who are the called [of God], we should fall asleep in our sins, and the wicked prince, acquiring power over us, should thrust us away from the kingdom of the Lord." 1:139 (chap. 4) "This means that the man perishes justly, who, having a knowledge of the way of righteousness, rushes off into the way of darkness. (chap. 5) (Presumably the way of righteousness is open to him).
> 
> 
> Mathetes 130 A.D. 1:25 "Come, then after you have freed [or purified] yourself from all prejudices possessing your mind" 1:29 "having been a disciple of the Apostles..." To Diognetus 2, 10.
> 
> "as a Savior He sent Him, and as seeking to persuade, not to compel us; for violence has no place in the character of God." chapter 7
> 
> 
> Justin Martyr wrote 135-165 A.D. 1:177 "And again, unless the human race have the power of avoiding evil and choosing good by free choice, they are not accountable for their actions..." 1:177 "The words cited above, David uttered 1500 years before Christ... But lest some suppose, from what has been said by us, that we say that whatever happens, happens by a fatal necessity, because it is foretold as known beforehand, this too we explain." 1:177 most of the page. The First Apology of Justin 43, 44.
> ...


http://www.biblequery.org/Doctrine/P...Calvinists.htm

Go  ahead complainers and mock wall of text to try and divert attention to the number of historic references on the issue of free will. Go ahead and complain about ONE selection and act like the totality of the list is irrelevant. This isn't for those who are willfully blind because they have a special elect status to protect at the expense of Christian charity and love for others. This is for those who have ears to hear and are searching this issue from a perspective of early writings.

----------


## Dr.3D

> We don't know who the non-elect are.


Doesn't matter anyway.   If it's all fixed and can't be changed, there is no need to evangelize to anyone.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> We don't know who the non-elect are.


Already addressed....it doesn't matter if WE know. God knows, He chose them, they are born elect, they cannot be separated due to the Holy Spirit's internal call, and no amount of evangelizing will save those who do not have said "internal call."

----------


## moostraks

> We don't know who the non-elect are.


Seems to me like a way to make the church relevant when the doctrine speaks otherwise from those of us watching you guys "evangelize". I always thought the idea was preposterous, like some special sauce to activate the elect. Now I think it is the means by which others can crow about their chosen place and mock those that disagree with them by threatening hellfire and damnation.

----------


## erowe1

> Already addressed....it doesn't matter if WE know. God knows, He chose them, they are born elect, they cannot be separated due to the Holy Spirit's internal call, and no amount of evangelizing will save those who do not have said "internal call."


But it does matter if we know.

If we don't know, then the whole argument that believing in election would dissuade us from evangelizing the nonelect doesn't work.

And again, this applies the same for Roman Catholics as it does for Calvinists.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Already addressed....it doesn't matter if WE know. God knows, He chose them, they are born elect, they cannot be separated due to the Holy Spirit's internal call, and no amount of evangelizing will save those who do not have said "internal call."


You said there was no point in preaching to the non-elect.  Implying that we even know who those people are so we could avoid teaching to them.  Our preaching is just as predestined by God as the results.




> Seems to me like a way to make the church relevant when the doctrine speaks otherwise from those of us watching you guys "evangelize". I always thought the idea was preposterous, like some special sauce to activate the elect. Now I think it is the means by which others can crow about their chosen place and mock those that disagree with them by threatening hellfire and damnation.


Not exactly.  We preach because we DON'T want you to go to Hell.  Maybe God does, I don't know.  If he does, you certainly won't believe.  But, we don't want you to go there, so we share the good news of Christ's ACCOMPLISHED REDEMPTION and pray that God opens your eyes that you may see.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> But it does matter if we know.
> 
> If we don't know, then the whole argument that believing in election would dissuade us from evangelizing the nonelect doesn't work.
> 
> And again, this applies the same for Roman Catholics as it does for Calvinists.


Why do you think Rome rarely evangelizes?  Because they believe this argument.

----------


## acptulsa

> We don't know who the non-elect are.


We're given _some_ clues...




> By this shall all know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.





> Now I think it is the means by which others can crow about their chosen place and mock those that disagree with them by threatening hellfire and damnation.


Hm.  Doesn't sound very loving.  Could it be harder to tell than Jesus said it was?  Or could it be that those who proclaim themselves to be The Elect don't actually know who the non-elect are?

I think I shall ask not for whom the bell tolls, myself...





> You said there was no point in preaching to the non-elect.  Implying that we even know who those people are so we could avoid teaching to them.  Our preaching is just as predestined by God as the results.


You have _so_ not been listening.

If you don't love us enough to listen to us, how can we believe you love us enough to want to save us?

----------


## Dr.3D

Nobody should have to evangelize to the elect because they are the elect and there is no way they are going to hell.

----------


## erowe1

> Nobody should have to evangelize to the elect because they are the elect and there is no way they are going to hell.


God could use whatever means he wanted to save them. And since that's true, he can and does use the preaching of the Gospel.

If you're implying that God shouldn't do it that way, I'd just ask why not?

At any rate, it still comes down to the fact that God does predestine who will believe the Gospel, and he does command the Church to proclaim it. It seems like people are just asking, "Why would God do a thing like that?" But they don't actually have any reason to say he doesn't.

----------


## Dr.3D

> God could use whatever means he wanted to save them. And since that's true, he can use the preaching of the Gospel.


Or He could just let the Holy Spirit do it.

No need to evangelize to the elect, they are saved already.   And there is no need to evangelize to the non elect as they are lost already.
That leaves me with the question as to why Jesus would want us to evangelize at all?

----------


## acptulsa

> God could use whatever means he wanted to save them.


He can?  So it isn't necessarily Your Way or The Highway?

----------


## erowe1

> He can?  So it isn't necessarily Your Way or The Highway?


Correct. It's his way or the highway.

----------


## erowe1

> Or He could just let the Holy Spirit do it.
> 
> No need to evangelize to the elect, they are saved already.   And there is no need to evangelize to the non elect as they are lost already.
> That leaves me with the question as to why Jesus would want us to evangelize at all?


Of course he could do that. And he does. But the preaching of the Gospel is part of the work the Holy Spirit does. You can complain that God shouldn't do it that way. But that isn't an argument against predestination.

What you're doing is making up some version of the doctrine of predestination that the people you're trying to argue against don't actually believe, and then telling them they should believe it, and then telling them it's wrong. But there's nothing that says that a person can't believe in both predestination and a duty to evangelize. And in fact, I do believe in both, and I assume others here do too.

----------


## Dr.3D

> Of course he could do that. And he does. But the preaching of the Gospel is part of the work the Holy Spirit does. You can complain that God shouldn't do it that way. But that isn't an argument against predestination.


Sure it is.   All of this typing we have been doing is for naught as everything has already been decided.   This is a moot subject as far as who is going to be saved.

----------


## moostraks

> God could use whatever means he wanted to save them. And since that's true, he can and does use the preaching of the Gospel.
> 
> If you're implying that God shouldn't do it that way, I'd just ask why not?
> 
> At any rate, it still comes down to the fact that God does predestine who will believe the Gospel, and he does command the Church to proclaim it. It seems like people are just asking, "Why would God do a thing like that?" But they don't actually have any reason to say he doesn't.


I'm not trying to change your opinion, but the whole thing seems rather contrived. Instead of evangelizing and knocking the dust off their sandals because the elect as you say will be activated by this teaching, we have those who agree with this belief system not preaching their word and letting it work its magic but rather running around trying to beat the holy into people and then spending most of their energy calling people idiots and telling them to perform an act they then mock them by saying they cannot do. So forgive me but it seems largely a charade to act holier than thou and belittle others with impunity.

----------


## Deborah K

> You said there was no point in preaching to the non-elect.  Implying that we even know who those people are so we could avoid teaching to them.  Our preaching is just as predestined by God as the results.
> 
> 
> Not exactly.  We preach because we DON'T want you to go to Hell.  Maybe God does, I don't know.  If he does, you certainly won't believe.  But, we don't want you to go there, *so we share the good news of Christ's ACCOMPLISHED REDEMPTION and pray that God opens your eyes that you may see*.


That's not entirely true.  You (meaning Calvies) also insult, condescend, and pass judgment.  The Bible teaches against that.  If your goal is to lead a soul to truth, you won't do it by using that approach, and based on how you all congratulate each other, I'm guessing you already know that.  Your motives are very questionable to me.

I've been a member a looooong time.  There was once a time when there was no religious sub-forum.  I made a personal appeal to have a religious sub-forum here, and it was hotly debated (in private, amongst other senior members and the owners).  The owners (Josh and Bryan at the time) in their wisdom, decided to try it.  I've never been very interested in debating other Christians all this time, and never knew much about Calvinism until I began to notice that calvies were attacking other Christians.  I have to tell you, your way (not just you, but the others who ascribe to your views) of evangelizing has caused more division, offense, and distraction than I think I've ever seen on RPFs.  It's dangerous.  It really needs to stop.  It isn't Christ-like at all.  

We are a diverse group in this freedom movement.  And I mean what I 'say' in my signature about diversity finding unity in the message of freedom.  We need to be able to act like grown-ups and debate without attacking each other.  My guess is, when Dr. Paul visits this site, he probably cringes when he peruses this sub-forum.  Shame on us!

----------


## erowe1

> Sure it is.   All of this typing we have been doing is for naught as everything has already been decided.   This is a moot subject as far as who is going to be saved.


Your'e just making that up though. I don't believe that, and you know I don't. Nor would it be logically necessary for someone who believes in predestination to believe that.

----------


## erowe1

> You (meaning Calvies) also insult, condescend, and pass judgment.


Source?

----------


## acptulsa

> Correct. It's his way or the highway.


His way is tolerance.




> Source?


You don't believe that she thinks that's necessary and I don't believe that you think that's necessary.

An engineer can design a car but can't necessarily build or repair one.  A mechanic can't design a car but can build and repair one.  If we are to drive, we need both.

What if Heaven requires people who understand as you do and people who understand as I do in order to be Heaven?  Would that make you tolerant of me?

----------


## Dr.3D

> Your'e just making that up though. I don't believe that, and you know I don't. Nor would it be logically necessary for someone who believes in predestination to believe that.


Of course you can't admit this would be the ultimate truth.  It would invalidate your belief in predestination.

----------


## erowe1

> Instead of evangelizing and knocking the dust off their sandals because the elect as you say will be activated by this teaching, we have those who agree with this belief system not preaching their word and letting it work its magic but rather running around trying to beat the holy into people and then spending most of their energy calling people idiots and telling them to perform an act they then mock them by saying they cannot do.


That's not what I see. The modern missionary movement was born out of what you would call Calvinism. Great evangelists like George Whitfield, Jonathan Edwards, and Charles Spurgeon were Calvinists. The churches that I've seen that are Calvinist are very evangelistic, and the churches that I've seen that poo poo evangelism have never been anything remotely close to Calvinist.

Or are you just talking about someone in particular on the internet?

----------


## Deborah K

> Source?


Please.  Look up posts from  FF, Nang, and Sola and how they have related to Terry, Moostraks, and others.

----------


## erowe1

> Of course you can't admit this would be the ultimate truth.  It would invalidate your belief in predestination.


No it wouldn't. It would invalidate that false belief in predestination of that person who inferred from it that there is no duty for the church to evangelize.

But it would have no implications at all for a belief in predestination that does not lead to that conclusion.

That's the whole problem with that line of argument.

----------


## erowe1

> Please.  Look up posts from  FF, Nang, and Sola and how they have related to Terry, Moostraks, and others.


Then why did you say "(meaning Calvies)"?

----------


## Dr.3D

> No it wouldn't. It would invalidate that false belief in predestination of that person who inferred from it that there is no duty for the church to evangelize.
> 
> But it would have no implications at all for a belief in predestination that does not lead to that conclusion.
> 
> That's the whole problem with that line of argument.


So you are implying the elect are only elect if they are evangelized to?  Would it require those doing the evangelizing to also be elect?

----------


## erowe1

> So you are implying the elect are only elect if they are evangelized to?  Would it require those doing the evangelizing to also be elect?


No to both questions.

I'm not even sure where you got that I was implying that. Reading over the quote you're replying to I don't see anything that would suggest either of those conclusions.

----------


## Deborah K

> Then why did you say "(meaning Calvies)"?


Nitpick much??  What's your point?

----------


## cajuncocoa

> You said there was no point in preaching to the non-elect.  Implying that we even know who those people are so we could avoid teaching to them.  Our preaching is just as predestined by God as the results.
> .


I implied no such thing. I said it doesn't matter that WE don't know who they are. God knows who they are, and if they're born with the internal call given by the Holy Spirit and their salvation is pre-determined and infallible, what is required by you? It sounds like God has it taken care of....you can go to a ball game and stop insulting, judging, condemning, and evangelizing non-Calvinists. Nothing you do or say can change what God has pre-determined. God is perfect. He doesn't require anything from us.

----------


## Dr.3D

> No to both questions.
> 
> I'm not even sure where you got that I was implying that.


So why evangelize to someone who is already one of the elect?   Seems like if they are predestined to being saved, they wouldn't need any help in making the choice to believe.   Oops, I used the word choice.  My bad.

----------


## cajuncocoa

A lot of circular arguments and twisted logic by Calvinists in this thread.

----------


## Nang

> Of course he could do that. And he does. But the preaching of the Gospel is part of the work the Holy Spirit does. You can complain that God shouldn't do it that way. But that isn't an argument against predestination.
> 
> What you're doing is making up some version of the doctrine of predestination that the people you're trying to argue against don't actually believe, and then telling them they should believe it, and then telling them it's wrong. But there's nothing that says that a person can't believe in both predestination and a duty to evangelize. And in fact, I do believe in both, and I assume others here do too.


Good summary of the dialogue and I too, believe in both *eternal* predestination/election and *temporal* evangelism by the saints.

Jesus prayed to the Father:  "Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven . . ."

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Source?


Seriously??

----------


## erowe1

> Nitpick much??  What's your point?


I don't see it as nitpicking.

If you wanted to complain about something those people said, then your complaint is about them as individuals. I see nothing about that that has anything at all to do with Calvinism, or any reason for you to sweep Calvinists together with a judgment like that, if that was your only reason for doing so. And I don't see how you can somehow get an argument against Calvinism from that.

You could have as easily said "(meaning Christians)" or "(meaning people with fingers)" or any other thing that had nothing to do with what you were talking about.

Somebody said the other day that Calvinists always call people names, but then when they did a google search to back it up, it turned out that they found millions and millions of hits for Calvinists getting called names and zero hits for Arminians getting called names.

----------


## erowe1

> Seriously??


Yes.

----------


## acptulsa

> Nitpick much??  What's your point?


His point is that you were baptized and you have accepted Jesus and you love God with all your heart and you're doing your imperfect best to go and sin no more and to feed the hungry and comfort the sick, but you're still doing it wrong.

There, I think that answers your second question.  What was the first question again?

----------


## erowe1

> So why evangelize to someone who is already one of the elect?


First of all, because God commands us to. Even if that were the only reason (and it isn't), it would be reason enough.

Second of all, we don't know who is elect.

Third of all, the hope that the people we evangelize are elect is a great incentive to evangelize, rather than the opposite. It encourages us to be a part of what God is doing, and to look forward to the miraculous results that he will bring about, which we could never do of our own power.

----------


## erowe1

..

----------


## erowe1

> His point is that you were baptized and you have accepted Jesus and you love God with all your heart and you're doing your imperfect best to go and sin no more and to feed the hungry and comfort the sick, but you're still doing it wrong.
> 
> There, I think that answers your second question.  What was the first question again?


Can you quote anything I said that resembled that in any way?

----------


## TER

just ran across this little parody and I know it is off the thread topic, but I thought everyone (including our Calvinist friends here) might get a chuckle:

Calvinist Christmas


On the first day of Christmas my Calvie explained to me, the fallen nature of man.

On the second day of Christmas my Calvie explained to me, called and chosen and the fallen nature of man.

On the third day of Christmas my Calvie explained to me, John chapter six, called and chosen, and the fallen nature of man.

On the fourth day of Christmas my Calvie explained to me, Synod of Dordt, John chapter six, called and chosen, and the fallen nature of man.

On the fifth day of Christmas my Calvie explained to me, 5 GOLDEN POINTS! Synod of Dordt, John chapter six, called and chosen and the fallen nature of man.

On the sixth day of Christmas my Calvie explained to me, world isn’t world, 5 GOLDEN POINTS! Synod of Dordt; John chapter six; called and chosen and the fallen nature of man.

On the seventh day of Christmas my Calvie explained to me, predestination, world isn’t world, 5 GOLDEN POINTS! Synod of Dordt; John chapter six; called and chosen and the fallen nature of man.

On the eighth day of Christmas my Calvie explained to me, belief is a work, predestination, world isn’t world, 5 GOLDEN POINTS! Synod of Dordt; John chapter six; called and chosen and the fallen nature of man.

On the ninth day of Christmas my Calvie explained to me, errors of middle knowledge, belief is a work, predestination, world isn’t world, 5 GOLDEN POINTS! Synod of Dordt; John chapter six; called and chosen and the fallen nature of man.

On the tenth day of Christmas my Calvie explained to me, Arminian heresy, errors of middle knowledge, belief is a work, predestination, world isn’t world, 5 GOLDEN POINTS! Synod of Dordt; John chapter six; called and chosen and the fallen nature of man.

On the eleventh day of Christmas my Calvie explained to me, Romans 8 & 9; Arminian heresy, errors of middle knowledge, belief is a work, predestination, world isn’t world, 5 GOLDEN POINTS! Synod of Dordt; John chapter six; called and chosen and the fallen nature of man.

On the twelfth day of Christmas my Calvie explained to me that I am really a Calvie, Romans 8 & 9; Arminian heresy, errors of middle knowledge, belief is a work, predestination, world isn’t world, 5 GOLDEN POINTS! Synod of Dordt; John chapter six; called and chosen and the fallen nature of man.

----------


## Nang

> First of all, because God commands us to. Even if that were the only reason (and it isn't), it would be reason enough.
> 
> Second of all, we don't know who is elect.
> 
> Third of all, the hope that the people we evangelize are elect is a great incentive to evangelize, rather than the opposite. *It encourages us to be a part of what God is doing,* and to look forward to the miraculous results that he will bring about, which we could never do of our own power.


Yes, evangelism is a great privilege . . . no matter what the cost.  And sometimes it is quite a cost.

----------


## erowe1

> A lot of circular arguments and twisted logic by Calvinists in this thread.


As a Roman Catholic, what's your answer to the same question?

Since Roman Catholicism teaches that God predestined who would be saved, does that imply that you should not evangelize?

----------


## Dr.3D

> First of all, because God commands us to. Even if that were the only reason (and it isn't), it would be reason enough.
> 
> Second of all, we don't know who is elect.
> 
> Third of all, the hope that the people we evangelize are elect is a great incentive to evangelize, rather than the opposite. It encourages us to be a part of what God is doing, and to look forward to the miraculous results that he will bring about, which we could never do of our own power.


There, you finally answered my question.
Why did it take so long for you to do so?

----------


## TER

*Omelettes, Eggs, and Predestination*


A great Chef once predestined a three-egg omelette to be set before the King. Early in the morning, before a single egg was cracked, he set out the cookware, the recipe, a dozen eggs, and the fresh spices. He made a solemn promise to the King . . . “No matter what happens, this omelette I make will be brought to you, delicious, wholesome, and on-time!”

When the proper time came, the Chef cracked the first egg into a small bowl. It looked perfect. The yolk was a deep, rich yellow, obviously just bursting with flavor. He quickly scrambled the egg, and then poured it into the larger bowl where he was preparing the omelette.

He then cracked the second egg. It too looked fantastic. He scrambled that egg too, and then added it to the first.

But when he cracked the third egg, his nose wrinkled at the pungent, sulfurous odor. This egg had gone bad, and it was clearly unfit for the King. The Chef discarded this foul egg, and then thoroughly washed out the little bowl he was using.

Then the Chef cracked the fourth egg. It looked beautiful just like the first two eggs. The Chef smiled, scrambled it, and added it to the omelette. Then he proceeded to skillfully add the filling, the seasonings, and the spices. And he cooked the omelette to perfection.

As promised, the great Chef brought his perfect omelette to the King. It was delicious, wholesome, and on-time.

Interestingly, the Chef’s predestination of the *omelette* was not equivalent to a predestination of any individual *egg*. The Chef could pick up any given egg with the *intention* of adding it to the omelette, and yet make a decision to cast out the eggs that are found to be rotten. Yet the individual rotten eggs do not interfere with the creation of the perfect omelette.

The predestination of a corporate body (the Church) does not require predestination of that body’s members (individual people).

Of course, an egg cannot choose whether to be fresh or rotten. But people can choose. And according to Jeremiah 18, the Potter’s predestination of the clay is dependent on the clay’s disposition toward the Potter. If the clay chooses to be stubborn, then the Potter makes the clay into a vessel fit for destruction. But if the clay chooses to repent, then the Potter makes the clay into a vessel fit for glory.

God has predestined the Church for glory. Nothing can stop the Church from arriving at that intended goal. There will be a Marriage Supper of the Lamb, and Christ will wed His Bride.

But will this individual person or that individual person be a part of that Church? Well, that is all up to individual choice. Do you choose to be a fresh egg, or a rotten egg? The choice is up to you.

----------


## erowe1

> There, you finally answered my question.
> Why did it take so long for you to do so?


Your post was at 3:52 and mine was at 3:58.

I didn't know that there was such a rush.

----------


## Nang

> *Omelettes, Eggs, and Predestination*
> 
> 
> A great Chef once predestined a three-egg omelette to be set before the King. Early in the morning, before a single egg was cracked, he set out the cookware, the recipe, a dozen eggs, and the fresh spices. He made a solemn promise to the King . . . “No matter what happens, this omelette I make will be brought to you, delicious, wholesome, and on-time!”
> 
> When the proper time came, the Chef cracked the first egg into a small bowl. It looked perfect. The yolk was a deep, rich yellow, obviously just bursting with flavor. He quickly scrambled the egg, and then poured it into the larger bowl where he was preparing the omelette.
> 
> He then cracked the second egg. It too looked fantastic. He scrambled that egg too, and then added it to the first.
> 
> ...



You are as clever as Van Til, but absolute truth is not analogous.

----------


## TER

A new fragrance designed for Calvinist Men from John Calvin Klein will soon be released. The product will be absolutely free for all men who can prove that they are among the elect.

(Producing a ‘certificate of election’ signed by God and pre-dated before your birth will be sufficient to receive the product for free).




Another product released about the same time will be sold (and recognizable by its distinctive  black bottle) and labeled “Reprobate, by Unchristian Dior.” That fragrance will also be free for all those God has Predestined to Hell before Birth (Romans 9:11) No coupon or proof of reprobation will be needed for this product, one just has to say that they are an Arminian (or non-Calvinist). The cost of this product will be underwritten by John Sproul and RC Piper, to the Glory of Calvin’s God.

(NOTE : Any Calvinist who is reading this – this is satire. I know you at least smiled because it was predestined that you would!)

----------


## Dr.3D

> Your post was at 3:52 and mine was at 3:58.
> 
> I didn't know that there was such a rush.


I started this line of thought at 3:22 with post 204.   Perhaps you didn't understand the point I was trying to make at the time.

----------


## TER

> You are as clever as Van Til, but absolute truth is not analogous.


I don't know who Van Til is, but I will go Google him!

----------


## erowe1

> I started this line of thought at 3:22 with post 204.   Perhaps you didn't understand the point I was trying to make at the time.


You posted 204 at 3:22. It wasn't a question. I responded to it at 3:27, directly quoting your post in post #205.

----------


## Nang

> I don't know who Van Til is, but I will go Google him!



Super!  But you still may not get the inside joke . . .

----------


## TER

He seems like a nice enough guy.  Thanks for the compliment!

----------


## TER

> Super!  But you still may not get the inside joke . . .

----------


## Deborah K

> I don't see it as nitpicking.
> 
> If you wanted to complain about something those people said, then your complaint is about them as individuals. I see nothing about that that has anything at all to do with Calvinism, or any reason for you to sweep Calvinists together with a judgment like that, if that was your only reason for doing so. And I don't see how you can somehow get an argument against Calvinism from that.
> 
> You could have as easily said "(meaning Christians)" or "(meaning people with fingers)" or any other thing that had nothing to do with what you were talking about.
> 
> Somebody said the other day that Calvinists always call people names, but then when they did a google search to back it up, it turned out that they found millions and millions of hits for Calvinists getting called names and zero hits for Arminians getting called names.


More circular reasoning.  The members I mentioned ascribe to a specific theology.  And you're not being honest about a search on Calvinist behavior.  I use Bing, and here's what I got:  http://www.bing.com/search?q=why+are...db560607e29c7a

----------


## Deborah K

> Super!  But you still may not get the inside joke . . .


Do you have to be so rude?  Inside joke?  What inside joke?  I guess TER doesn't get to know because he doesn't rate....smh...grow up already.

----------


## TER

> Do you have to be so rude?  Inside joke?  What inside joke?  I guess TER doesn't get to know because he doesn't rate....smh...grow up already.


It's okay Deborah!  The picture of Mr. Van Til looks very distinguished.  I am sure he must have been a very pleasant man.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> First of all, because God commands us to. Even if that were the only reason (and it isn't), it would be reason enough.
> 
> Second of all, we don't know who is elect.
> 
> Third of all, the hope that the people we evangelize are elect is a great incentive to evangelize, rather than the opposite. It encourages us to be a part of what God is doing, and to look forward to the miraculous results that he will bring about, which we could never do of our own power.


See if this doesn't make more sense:

God commands ALL of us to convert non-believers.  If he pre-selected those He wanted to save, there would be no need because (1) everyone who *can* be saved is already saved and (2) no sense in wasting time on those who can't be saved.

We don't know who is elect saved.  Right! Only God knows.  But if we only had to concern ourselves with the elect/non-elect, our efforts would be wasted (see the sentence that comes right before this one).  But if there is hope for *everyone*, it makes sense to do what you say God commands!  We can turn a non-believer into a believer in Christ if their heart is open to it....and they can go from being eternally damned to being saved in that moment!

There is no hope in evangelizing people who are elect/non-elect.  If they are elect, they are already with you.  If they are non-elect, they are with the terrorists sorry, I meant they are already pre-destined to eternal fire.  

Now, doesn't that make more sense?

----------


## Dr.3D

> You posted 204 at 3:22. It wasn't a question. I responded to it at 3:27, directly quoting your post in post #205.


Just as I thought, I'm pretty sure you are not so dense you couldn't see the point I was trying to convey, so it must be that you are just trying to waste my time.

----------


## Dr.3D

> See if this doesn't make more sense:
> 
> God commands ALL of us to convert non-believers.  If he pre-selected those He wanted to save, there would be no need because (1) everyone who *can* be saved is already saved and (2) no sense in wasting time on those who can't be saved.
> 
> We don't know who is elect saved.  Right! Only God knows.  But if we only had to concern ourselves with the elect/non-elect, our efforts would be wasted (see the sentence that comes right before this one).  But if there is hope for *everyone*, it makes sense to do what you say God commands!  We can turn a non-believer into a believer in Christ if their heart is open to it....and they can go from being eternally damned to being saved in that moment!
> 
> There is no hope in evangelizing people who are elect/non-elect.  If they are elect, they are already with you.  If they are non-elect, they are with the terrorists sorry, I meant they are already pre-destined to eternal fire.  
> 
> Now, doesn't that make more sense?


Now it looks to me like you understood what I was saying.

----------


## VIDEODROME

Cajun basically summed up this Reformed thing.  It seems like the Chosen or elect will feel innately drawn toward Christianity.  

Maybe these guys are saying that because they're Elect they're compelled to seek out or evangelize to the elect noobies.  As if they're the most important pieces on God's big game board that he is bringing together or something. 

If that is the case, are they also predestined to be condescending to the rest of us informing us of our doom that we can't do anything about?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> You are as clever as Van Til, but absolute truth is not analogous.


Can you explain the whole Van Til/Gordon Clark dispute to me?  I know Clarkians generally despise Van Til, but I'm not really aware of why.  (Disclaimer: I know little of Van Til so if he said something obviously heretical, I'm unaware of it.)




> A new fragrance designed for Calvinist Men from John Calvin Klein will soon be released. The product will be absolutely free for all men who can prove that they are among the elect.
> 
> (Producing a ‘certificate of election’ signed by God and pre-dated before your birth will be sufficient to receive the product for free).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another product released about the same time will be sold (and recognizable by its distinctive  black bottle) and labeled “Reprobate, by Unchristian Dior.” That fragrance will also be free for all those God has Predestined to Hell before Birth (Romans 9:11) No coupon or proof of reprobation will be needed for this product, one just has to say that they are an Arminian (or non-Calvinist). The cost of this product will be underwritten by John Sproul and RC Piper, to the Glory of Calvin’s God.
> 
> (NOTE : Any Calvinist who is reading this – this is satire. I know you at least smiled because it was predestined that you would!)


LOL!

You do realize that its John Piper and RC Sproul, right?

----------


## Nang

> Can you explain the whole Van Til/Gordon Clark dispute to me?  I know Clarkians generally despise Van Til, but I'm not really aware of why.  (Disclaimer: I know little of Van Til so if he said something obviously heretical, I'm unaware of it.)


http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=220

----------


## VIDEODROME



----------


## cajuncocoa

> Now it looks to me like you understood what I was saying.


Of course!  I thought it was clear that we're on the same page here.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Cajun basically summed up this Reformed thing.  It seems like the Chosen or elect will feel innately drawn toward Christianity.  
> 
> Maybe these guys are saying that because they're *Elect they're compelled to seek out or evangelize to the elect noobies.*  As if they're the most important pieces on God's big game board that he is bringing together or something. 
> 
> If that is the case, are they also predestined to be condescending to the rest of us informing us of our doom that we can't do anything about?


I don't know if that's what they're thinking, but if the noobies are "born elect" what need is there for intervention?  (Rhetorical question for you, serious question for Calvinists)

----------


## TER

> LOL!
> 
> You do realize that its John Piper and RC Sproul, right?


I just copied and pasted it.  Honestly, I didn't catch that until you pointed it out to me.

Thanks for the LOL cause I really am just trying to lighten the mood a little bit.  Here is another one I found.  This post should become a sticky if there is ever a Calvinist subforum at RPF so that the other Christians (AKA the unelect) might be able to better understand the Calvinist terminology.

*A Dictionary to help Arminians better understand Calvinist terminology.*



All: The elect
Altar Call: An insult to God
Arminianism: Man centered theology
Assurance: hoping that you’re elect
Augustine: The first church father.
Calvinism: The gospel
Call (effectual): to be irresistibly dragged
Call (general): God’s justification to condemn the reprobate.
Catholicism: What Arminianism leads to.
Compatiblism: We are free to do whatever the Potter decrees us to do.
Contradiction: a mystery
Doctrines of Grace: Term that helps illustrate how God has given us Calvinists superior insight. Usage example: “I was an Arminian before being illuminated by the Doctrines of Grace.”
Doris Day: Singer of truth
To Draw: To drag
Easy believism: The false idea that you can believe in Jesus Christ and be saved. Can a rotten corpse believe? Nope, neither can you.
Eisegesis: Any Arminian interpretation of a difficult passage
Emergent: Synonymous with “heretic”, unless your name happens to be Mark Driscoll.
Esau: Someone God hated, not for any reason though.
Everyone: The elect
Exegesis: Any interpretation by James White, after all he’s a Greek scholar.
Faith (1): Something that the elect are zapped with after regeneration.
Faith (2): A work that gives pride to Arminians.
Fatalism: Nothing to see here, move along.
Faux Pas: Coming to church with a Bible translation other than the ESV.
Finney, Charles: Wicked man who ravaged the evangelical movement. (Really)
To Foreknow: To decree or to love, absolutely nothing to do with knowing before.
Four Point Calvinist: An Arminian
Frankenstein: Cool story about a dead monster that got zapped with lightning and then became alive. Great parallel to the way we are regenerated.
Free Will: Something that can’t exist because it would make God helpless if true.
Glory: Praise we give to God for anything wicked that has ever happened (except for the birth of Charles Finney).
God’s secret will: To save a few and reprobate the rest (secret to Arminians but not to us)
God’s revealed will: a mystery
Gospel of John: anything by John Piper
Hebrews: Skip this book and read the Gospel of John instead.
Hyper-Calvinists: Calvinists who care more about consistency than looking good.
Infralapsarianism: See “Four Point Calvinist”.
Infant damnation: Something that brings God glory.
James: Book that Luther wanted thrown out of the canon.
Jesus Loves Me, This I Know: Misleading children’s song.
Jesus Loves the Little Children: Another terrible song, obviously written by someone who didn’t take the time to do a proper exegesis of scripture.
John 3:16 [Open in Logos Bible Software (if available)] : Enigmatic verse. One must be a scholar to properly understand this passage. James White’s unbiased insights are recommended.
Kosmos: Greek word that means “elect”.
The Living Bible: I hope you’re joking.
Missions: A complete waste of time, see “altar call” for more info.
Mystery: The way God decrees sin but is not responsible for it.
NIV: Word for thought translation is heresy.
Paul: Author of Romans 9
Pelagian: Name to call Arminians, extra points if they don’t know what it means.
Polemic Atheist: Another name to call Arminians, good diversionary tactic when appealing to John Owen doesn’t work.
Preaching the Gospel: Something God commands, but the reason why is a mystery.
Pride: Something that works-based Arminians have in abundance, but we Calvinists don’t after being chosen by God.
Regeneration: See “Frankenstein”.
Reprobate: Those whom God justly damns to maximize His glory.
Rick Warren: worthless author, read something by John Gill instead.
The Road to Rome: Where synergism always leads to.
Robot: Don’t say that word!
Servetus: A heretic who got what he deserved.
Shipwreck: Misleading term, because the “ship” wasn’t really floating in the first place.
Sovereignty: meticulous micromanagement
Supralapsarianism: God orchestrated the fall for His glory, the central truth of scripture.
Wesley, John: A false apostle of free will (not kidding)
Whitefield, George: Wesley’s superior
Whosoever: The elect
World: The elect

----------


## Christian Liberty

> http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=220


That was interesting.  I'd like to see Van Til's side and compare.  Most of the stuff in the article I did agree with, but I cannot abide the "Author of sin" concept, and I do believe that would make God evil.



> I just copied and pasted it.  Honestly, I didn't catch that until you pointed it out to me.
> 
> Thanks for the LOL cause I really am just trying to lighten the mood a little bit.  Here is another one I found.  This post should become a sticky if there is ever a Calvinist subforum at RPF so that the other Christians (AKA the unelect) might be able to better understand the Calvinist terminology.
> 
> *A Dictionary to help Arminians better understand Calvinist terminology.*
> 
> 
> 
> All: The elect
> ...


I did kind of laugh at this, despite the fact that some of the definitions contradict each other (Ie. The list defines hyper-calvinism as a bad thing yet defines "missions" in a hyper-calvinistic way.)  Also, I lean infralapsarian, so I guess I'm really an Arminian too

I also want to point out that nobody except SF has definitively stated that I'm not saved.  I have stated that I don't know.  I don't think Nang knows either.  Erowe1 believes there are saved Arminians, and I think the rest of the Calvinists here agreed with him.


BTW: If there was really a Reformed subforum here, that should NOT be posted, because its not accurate.

----------


## TER

okay last one and that is it!

----------


## moostraks

> I just copied and pasted it.  Honestly, I didn't catch that until you pointed it out to me.
> 
> Thanks for the LOL cause I really am just trying to lighten the mood a little bit.  Here is another one I found.  This post should become a sticky if there is ever a Calvinist subforum at RPF so that the other Christians (AKA the unelect) might be able to better understand the Calvinist terminology.
> 
> *A Dictionary to help Arminians better understand Calvinist terminology.*
> 
> 
> 
> All: The elect
> ...


Really, really enjoyed this as an outsider from Calvinism now it is so accurate for those who need cliff notes when meeting their first hyper-Calvinist/reformed.

----------


## Terry1

> okay last one and that is it!


I love those animations.  LOL

----------


## VIDEODROME

ouch

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> A new fragrance designed for Calvinist Men from John Calvin Klein will soon be released. The product will be absolutely free for all men who can prove that they are among the elect.
> 
> (Producing a ‘certificate of election’ signed by God and pre-dated before your birth will be sufficient to receive the product for free).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another product released about the same time will be sold (and recognizable by its distinctive  black bottle) and labeled “Reprobate, by Unchristian Dior.” That fragrance will also be free for all those God has Predestined to Hell before Birth (Romans 9:11) No coupon or proof of reprobation will be needed for this product, one just has to say that they are an Arminian (or non-Calvinist). The cost of this product will be underwritten by John Sproul and RC Piper, to the Glory of Calvin’s God.
> 
> (NOTE : Any Calvinist who is reading this – this is satire. I know you at least smiled because it was predestined that you would!)


LOL  IOU a +rep

----------


## Terry1

> God elects, not men.  
> 
> 
> 
> Please provide scripture that Jesus taught that sinners *choose* to love Him.
> 
> My bible teaches just the opposite, and says that *God chooses* whom He wills to believe.



The last time I posted these scriptures to back up the free will and that mankind *willingly* chooses to love God---you then went into some twisted Calvi spiel about an "autonomous free will".  Fact is Nag, people do have a free will to choose and nothing you say in attempt to pervert the word of God will change that.

There's no such thing as an "autonomous free will*.  God created mankind with the ability to choose, just the same as He did Lucifer and a third of heaven that rebelled against God---*willingly* they could have either obeyed or disobeyed because God created them this way---period.

*Exodus 25:2 
 Speak unto the children of Israel, that they bring me an offering: of every man that giveth it willingly with his heart ye shall take my offering.

 Psalm 54:6 
I will freely sacrifice unto thee: I will praise thy name, O Lord; for it is good.

 Judges 5:2 
 Praise ye the Lord for the avenging of Israel, when the people willingly offered themselves.

Judges 5:9 
 My heart is toward the governors of Israel, that offered themselves willingly among the people. Bless ye the Lord

 1 Chronicles 29:9
 9 Then the people rejoiced, for they had offered willingly, because with a loyal heart they had offered willingly to the Lord; and King David also rejoiced greatly.

  1 Chronicles 29:17 
 I know also, my God, that thou triest the heart, and hast pleasure in uprightness. As for me, in the uprightness of mine heart I have willingly offered all these things: and now have I seen with joy thy people, which are present here, to offer willingly unto thee.

 2 Chronicles 17:16 
 And next him was Amasiah the son of Zichri, who willingly offered himself unto the Lord; and with him two hundred thousand mighty men of valour.

 .Nehemiah 11:2 
 And the people blessed all the men, that willingly offered themselves to dwell at Jerusalem

 .Hosea 5:11 
 Ephraim is oppressed and broken in judgment, because he willingly walked after the commandment.

 1 Corinthians 9:17 
For if I do this thing willingly, I have a reward: but if against my will, a dispensation of the gospel is committed unto me.

 .Philemon 1:14 
 But without thy mind would I do nothing; that thy benefit should not be as it were of necessity, but willingly.

 1 Peter 5:2 
 Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind;

 23.2 Peter 3:5 
For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: 


1 Peter 5 

5 The elders who are among you I exhort, I who am a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that will be revealed:  2 Shepherd the flock of God which is among you, serving as overseers, not by compulsion but willingly*

----------


## Terry1

> ouch


Wow---never saw that quote by TJ before.  That's pretty awesome.  Thanks for sharing that.

----------


## Miss Annie

> The last time I posted these scriptures to back up the free will and that mankind *willingly* chooses to love God---you then went into some twisted Calvi spiel about an "autonomous free will".  Fact is Nag, people do have a free will to choose and nothing you say in attempt to pervert the word of God will change that.
> 
> There's no such thing as an "autonomous free will*.  God created mankind with the ability to choose, just the same as He did Lucifer and a third of heaven that rebelled against God---*willingly* they could have either obeyed or disobeyed because God created them this way---period.
> 
> *Exodus 25:2 
>  Speak unto the children of Israel, that they bring me an offering: of every man that giveth it willingly with his heart ye shall take my offering.
> 
>  Psalm 54:6 
> I will freely sacrifice unto thee: I will praise thy name, O Lord; for it is good.
> ...


Great post Terry!!

----------


## RJB

Oh come on.  Leave the Calvinist leaning folks alone.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Oh come on.  Leave the Calvinist leaning folks alone.


They started it!

----------


## erowe1

> More circular reasoning.  The members I mentioned ascribe to a specific theology.  And you're not being honest about a search on Calvinist behavior.  I use Bing, and here's what I got:  http://www.bing.com/search?q=why+are...db560607e29c7a


The members you names subscribe to lots of things. Why would you associate the charge you made with Calvinism. Why do you think it had anything to do with it?

That bing search shows the same thing. Once again, Calvinists are on the receiving end of the name calling.

----------


## erowe1

> Just as I thought, I'm pretty sure you are not so dense you couldn't see the point I was trying to convey, so it must be that you are just trying to waste my time.


I replied to you in 5 minutes both times. Where was the question that I supposedly took so long to answer?

----------


## acptulsa

> Free Will: Something that can’t exist because it would make God helpless if true.


This is the part that gets me.  God can do anything--except create a free being (arguably 'in His own image') and suffer it to live.

No wonder it's so hard to find a Calvinist with a sense of humor.




> The members you names subscribe to lots of things. Why would you associate the charge you made with Calvinism. Why do you think it had anything to do with it?


Why are you blaming her?  That's the way God made her.

----------


## erowe1

> This is the part that gets me.  God can do anything--except create a free being (arguably 'in His own image') and suffer it to live.
> 
> No wonder it's so hard to find a Calvinist with a sense of humor.


The other side of that is when believe that God can do anything except create beings with free will and predestine what they will choose without eliminating their free will.

I see that a lot.

----------


## acptulsa

> The other side of that is when believe that God can do anything except create beings with free will and predestine what they will choose without eliminating their free will.
> 
> I see that a lot.


I imagine you do.  That would require changing the meaning of the word 'predestine'.  Predicting it?  Sure, why not?  He's omniscient, after all.  Shouldn't be a major problem.  Pre_destination_ of the course of free will?  Really?

Sure, God can do something and then turn around and undo it.  But I doubt He's that silly.  Can't help but think He uses his time more efficiently than that.

----------


## Deborah K

> The members you names subscribe to lots of things. Why would you associate the charge you made with Calvinism. Why do you think it had anything to do with it?
> 
> That bing search shows the same thing. Once again, Calvinists are on the receiving end of the name calling.


I've already answered this.  Obviously not to your liking but whateva.  The bing search shows links to articles where people try to explain *why* Calvies are known to be so disagreeable, etc.  Honestly Erowe, is this your idea of an exercise in being disingenuous?

----------


## Deborah K

> Why are you blaming her?  That's the way God made her.


I have free will.

----------


## erowe1

> I've already answered this.  Obviously not to your liking but whateva.  The bing search shows links to articles where people try to explain *why* Calvies are known to be so disagreeable, etc.  Honestly Erowe, is this your idea of an exercise in being disingenuous?


No. I just don't see why you felt the need to paint with a broad brush like that, and why you're sticking to it. Your complaint was against certain individuals. It wasn't about Calvinism or anything having to do with Calvinism. To me it looked a lot like when people say negative things about all people belonging to a race or sex. Calvinism is a system of Christian doctrine, not a personality type. The fact that you can point to millions of other cases of Calvinists being victims of that doesn't make it better. Notice here how you say "Calvies are known to be so disagreeable," like that's a factual claim. Do you really not see why that's wrong?

If we did a search for explanations for why Asians are known to be bad drivers, would that tell us more about Asians, or about anti-Asian racists?

----------


## acptulsa

> I have free will.


So _you_ say...




> No. I just don't see why you felt the need to paint with a broad brush like that, and why you're sticking to it. Your complaint was against certain individuals. It wasn't about Calvinism or anything having to do with Calvinism. To me it looked a lot like when people say negative things about all people belonging to a race or sex. Calvinism is a system of Christian doctrine, not a personality type.


Speaking of disagreeableness, you're the only person to neg rep me in this thread.

To be fair, however, you had some reason to.  You aren't one of the people this thread was aimed at, Calvinist or not.  And to lump you in with them is stereotyping.  If I did that, I apologize.

Of my own free will.

----------


## Deborah K

> No. I just don't see why you felt the need to paint with a broad brush like that, and why you're sticking to it. Your complaint was against certain individuals. It wasn't about Calvinism or anything having to do with Calvinism. To me it looked a lot like when people say negative things about all people belonging to a race or sex. Calvinism is a system of Christian doctrine, not a personality type. The fact that you can point to millions of other cases of Calvinists being victims of that doesn't make it better. Notice here how you say "Calvies are known to be so disagreeable," like that's a factual claim or something. Do you really not see why that's wrong?


So you're accusing me of stereotyping?  If that's the case, then you're probably right.  I should have included words like "some".  There.  All better?

----------


## erowe1

> I imagine you do.  That would require changing the meaning of the word 'predestine'.


No it wouldn't.

Unless you define "free will" in a way that eliminates the possibility of predestination. But then if you did that, it would be you who limited God.

----------


## erowe1

> So you're accusing me of stereotyping?  If that's the case, then you're probably right.  I should have included words like "some".  There.  All better?


Better. But still wrong. What you said really had nothing to do with Calvinism at all.

I don't think there's any way around it being stereotyping.

----------


## Deborah K

> So _you_ say...
> 
> 
> 
> Speaking of disagreeableness, you're the only person to neg rep me in this thread.
> 
> To be fair, however, you had some reason to.  You aren't one of the people this thread was aimed at, Calvinist or not.  And to lump you in with them is stereotyping.  If I did that, I apologize.
> 
> Of my own free will.


No, it was predestined. Stop confusing me.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> okay last one and that is it!


LMFAO!!!

----------


## erowe1

> Speaking of disagreeableness, you're the only person to neg rep me in this thread.


Since you said this, why don't you also say what post it was for?

----------


## Deborah K

> Better. But still wrong. What you said really had nothing to do with Calvinism at all.
> 
> I don't think there's any way around it being stereotyping.


According to you, perhaps.  I don't feel the need to further clarify my previous statement.  That's my story and I'm stickin to it.  damnit.

----------


## Dr.3D

> I replied to you in 5 minutes both times. Where was the question that I supposedly took so long to answer?


I've already been suckered into wasting too much of my time.   You are not going to fool me into wasting any more of it.

----------


## acptulsa

> No it wouldn't.
> 
> Unless you define "free will" in a way that eliminates the possibility of predestination.


Doesn't everybody?




> But then if you did that, it would be you who limited God.


God set the rules, not me.  He's the one who divided the darkness from the light and called it good.  If opposites exist, it's His will.  And not my place to argue with it.

----------


## erowe1

> As a Roman Catholic, what's your answer to the same question?
> 
> Since Roman Catholicism teaches that God predestined who would be saved, does that imply that you should not evangelize?


CC,

Unless I missed it, I don't think you answered this. I'm still curious how you would.

----------


## erowe1

> Doesn't everybody?


No. But I think that happens a lot here when people talk about "free will."

----------


## acptulsa

> Nitpick much??  What's your point?





> His point is that you were baptized and you have accepted Jesus and you love God with all your heart and you're doing your imperfect best to go and sin no more and to feed the hungry and comfort the sick, but you're still doing it wrong.
> 
> There, I think that answers your second question.  What was the first question again?


I confessed my sin.  Did I really commit that sin so often that someone who actually cared would have trouble figuring out where I committed it?




> Since you said this, why don't you also say what post it was for?

----------


## erowe1

> I confessed my sin.  Did I really commit that sin so often that someone who actually cared would have trouble figuring out where I committed it?


I don't follow what you're asking.

I just think it's worth pointing out that, if you're going to complain about that neg rep publicly, the people you're complaining to should be able to see that it was for you making up unflattering words to put in my mouth that don't reflect anything I've ever said in this or any other thread, and not for just disagreeing with you or something like that.

----------


## acptulsa

> No. But I think that happens a lot here when people talk about "free will."


I don't think it has anything to do with that.  I think it has more to do with confusing predestination and prediction.

And I think that's insulting to God.  I think predicting where a toy car will wind up despite a multitude of variables is a damned sight more impressive than making a slot car track for it.




> I don't follow what you're asking.
> 
> I just think it's worth pointing out that, if you're going to complain about that neg rep publicly, the people you're complaining to should be able to see that it was for you making up unflattering words to put in my mouth that don't reflect anything I've ever said in this or any other thread, and not for just disagreeing with you or something like that.


I already said my sin was lumping you in with the people who inspired this thread by saying ugly things about other Christians and publicly said you didn't fit the description.

That said, did you look at the post you quoted?  Did you notice that I had not only quoted my offense for all to see, but had quoted the post I was responding to so it wouldn't lack context?  Do we really need to keep harping on it after all of that?

----------


## erowe1

> I don't think it has anything to do with that.  I think it has more to do with confusing predestination and prediction.


No it doesn't.

Many people believe in both predestination (not just prediction, but positive predestination) and free will. There's nothing about the definition of either term that excludes the possibility of the other, unless you simply adopt special definitions of them that are mutually exclusive.

A lot of the talk I've seen about free will has come from Roman Catholics. Well, according to the Roman Catholic Church itself, in its official creeds, which it considers ecumenical, predestination and free will are both true. Many Calvinists (if not most) agree. Augustine certainly agreed.

It's this kind of thing that gets people to caricature predestination as if it makes us all puppets, which is not what anyone I've encountered who believes in predestination actually thinks.

----------


## acptulsa

> No it doesn't.
> 
> Many people believe in both predestination (not just prediction, but positive predestination) and free will. There's nothing about the definition of either term that excludes the possibility of the other...


Well, I guess I'm just an idiot, because I can't wrap my head around it.

----------


## RJB

> The members you names subscribe to lots of things. Why would you associate the charge you made with Calvinism. Why do you think it had anything to do with it?
> 
> That bing search shows the same thing. Once again, *Calvinists are on the receiving end of the name calling*.


I do not wish to seem like Im turning my back on my usual allies but I agree with Erowe1 on this thread.  On another day I may have rashly joined in the dog pile.  But it stinks getting piled on.  

Because you may be mad at Sola dont act like Sola towards other Calvinist leaning people.  I respect Erowe1.  I disagree with him a lot, but he actually reads what you post and will pick it apart if he suspects error.  He was taunted above for taking his time replying.  I would prefer a much delayed thoughtful response than a rash one.

I dont know.  To me its sad seeing a thread that starts with Jesus words Greater love devolve so badly.  I naively envisioned something better.  My plans are not Gods plans LOL.  I know FF turned it this way originally, but he has the fire of youth in him.  He reminds me of myself a few years ago.  He asked why I don't anathematize him as he does me.  Why should I do that to the cross Christ gives me to bear? 

This Lent, I am making myself pray for 5 minutes before typing each post.  I say this not to brag, but to say it has helped put things in perspective.  TER suggested making the sign of the cross before clicking send.  He said if signed with haste or malice the post should be read over for anger.  Its made a difference.

----------


## erowe1

> Well, I guess I'm just an idiot, because I can't wrap my head around it.


It doesn't mean you're an idiot. But affirming one does not entail denying the other.

----------


## acptulsa

> It doesn't mean you're an idiot. But affirming one does not entail denying the other.


That's all the education you have for me?

So now you're calling me an idiot...

But don't worry.  I won't negrep you for saying I'm too stupid to understand how free will and predestination aren't exact opposites.

I have another cheek, and I know how to use it.

----------


## Nang

> Many people believe in both predestination (not just prediction, but positive predestination) and free will.


I agree, other than I would change "free" will to" human willful moral agency."

God created man in His image to possess a secondary agency of willful cause and effect, to enable the creature to be able to choose his socks, his job, his wife, etc.

Such secondary exercise of willfulness, does not include usurping God's sovereign will or overruling God's sovereign will.

That is Calvinism 101.




> It's this kind of thing that gets people to caricature predestination as if it makes us all puppets, which is not what anyone I've encountered who believes in predestination actually thinks.


Yep.  And you know why?

Because sinners are not happy with having a "secondary-level" of cause and effect, but from the garden man has wanted to "be like God" and possess powers equal with God.  aka "original sin."

The opposition to the limited will taught by Reformers is . . . it is not ENOUGH.

They want to have a free will and "be like God," as Satan lied and told A&E they could be.

That is the crux of all the arguments on this site and amongst Christendom at large.

The original lie, temptation, and failure of man at large continues over and over and over . . .

----------


## Deborah K

> I do not wish to seem like I’m turning my back on my usual allies but I agree with Erowe1 on this thread.  On another day I may have rashly joined in the dog pile.  But it stinks getting piled on.  
> 
> Because you may be mad at Sola don’t act like Sola towards other Calvinist leaning people.  I respect Erowe1.  I disagree with him a lot, but he actually reads what you post and will pick it apart if he suspects error.  He was taunted above for taking his time replying.  I would prefer a much delayed thoughtful response than a rash one.
> 
> I don’t know.  To me it’s sad seeing a thread that starts with Jesus’ words “Greater love…” devolve so badly.  I naively envisioned something better.  My plans are not God’s plans LOL.  I know FF turned it this way originally, but he has the fire of youth in him.  He reminds me of myself a few years ago.  He asked why I don't anathematize him as he does me.  Why should I do that to the cross Christ gives me to bear? 
> 
> This Lent, I am making myself pray for 5 minutes before typing each post.  I say this not to brag, but to say it has helped put things in perspective.  TER suggested making the sign of the cross before clicking send.  He said if signed with haste or malice the post should be read over for anger.  It’s made a difference.


Admittedly your thread was hijacked and (some) of the calvies were piled on, and I think it was backlash from the other 2 or 3 threads where (some) of the calvies did the piling.  They ganged up on members who disagree with them.  When that happens, there's going to be pushback.   I've already posted (in here, I believe) why I think the way I do about (some) of them now.  Most especially the recruit.  And I hope that doesn't become the norm around here.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> ouch


TJ shows his unregeneracy.  So what?

----------


## Deborah K

> That's all the education you have for me?
> 
> So now you're calling me an idiot...



Here's my take on it from another thread, where it was subsequently implied that I want to be like God:




> I will be the first to admit that I do not fully understand the dynamics of our Holy Father creating the will of man.  Scripture is clear that God is sovereign and knows the future.  It is also clear that we're held responsible for our actions, and that we are to live our lives making wise decisions.  How these facts work together is an issue that is well beyond our limited minds to comprehend, which is why there is no consensus on it.   I see our free will and God's sovereignty as a comfort, and not an issue to be debated.  It isn't difficult for me to believe that God is sovereign, that he created us with free will, that he allows things to happen, that he sometimes intervenes, and that he has a plan.
> 
> I will never believe that God is a puppet master controlling everything and everyone at all times.

----------


## RJB

> Admittedly your thread was hijacked and (some) of the calvies were piled on, and I think it was backlash from the other 2 or 3 threads where (some) of the calvies did the piling.  They ganged up on members who disagree with them.  When that happens, there's going to be pushback.   I've already posted (in here, I believe) why I think the way I do about (some) of them now.  Most especially the recruit.  And I hope that doesn't become the norm around here.


I know.  I'm not trying to be holier than thou.  Usually I'd be the one to gleefully start it.

----------


## acptulsa

> I agree, other than I would change "free" will to" human willful moral agency."
> 
> God created man in His image to possess a secondary agency of willful cause and effect, to enable the creature to be able to choose his socks, his job, his wife, etc.


By the grace of God we've agreed on something.




> Yep.  And you know why?
> 
> Because sinners are not happy with having a "secondary-level" of cause and effect, but from the garden man has wanted to "be like God" and equal with God.
> 
> Their opposition to the limited will taught by Reformers is . . . it is not ENOUGH.
> 
> They want to have a free will and be like God.
> 
> That is the crux of all the arguments on this site and amongst Christendom at large.


It is possible to have free will without being anything remotely like the equal of God.  There's plenty of room in between those extremes.

----------


## moostraks

> By the grace of God we've agreed on something.
> 
> 
> 
> It is possible to have free will without being anything remotely like the equal of God.  There's plenty of room in between those extremes.


Well that would involve hearing the position of the other side and then stating an argument on the points put forth. Sticking fingers in ones ears and saying we are not going back that far is rarely productive for discourse. I try to head it off at the pass by telling them they ain't gonna like my answer but I will respond and they can wet their pants over my sources. Such is life...

----------


## RJB

Philippians 2:5* In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus:*

6Who, being in very nature God,
    did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;

7 rather, he made himself nothing
    by taking the very nature of a servant,
    being made in human likeness.

*8 And being found in appearance as a man,
    he humbled himself
    by becoming obedient to death
        even death on a cross!*



9 Therefore God exalted him to the highest place
    and gave him the name that is above every name,

10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
    in heaven and on earth and under the earth,

11 and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord,
    to the glory of God the Father

----------


## cajuncocoa

> CC,
> 
> Unless I missed it, I don't think you answered this. I'm still curious how you would.


You didn't miss it; I missed your question until now.  

Here's an article that answers your question:
http://www.catholic.com/magazine/art...ed-for-freedom

----------


## erowe1

> You didn't miss it; I missed your question until now.  
> 
> Here's an article that answers your question:
> http://www.catholic.com/magazine/art...ed-for-freedom


I was asking you about how you would answer your own question about why to evangelize if peoples' responses to evangelism were already predestined. I don't think that article gave an answer to that. It seems to me that if it's not a problem for the author of that article, and if you agree with that article, then how can you think that it has to be a problem for Calvinists? The exact same questions that you were asking us would apply in exactly the same way to that author, who also believes that it's already determined that the elect will be saved and the non-elect will not.

Incidentally, that article confirms exactly what I was saying to acptulsa earlier. There is nothing about belief in predestination that entails a denial of free will. The author of that article attempts to contrast his own view with Calvinism and to make it sound like when Calvinists believe in predestination it gives them some obligation to deny free will, unlike him. But that's just a straw man.

----------


## cajuncocoa

editing

----------


## erowe1

> Because Catholics believe people have free will!  We have choices!  That's the difference.


Why is it that you think a Catholic can believe in both predestination and free will but a Calvinist can't?

And I still don't see how that affects the answer to your question.

The situation you described in asking it is still the same. You have the elect, who are going to be saved with absolute certainty according to God's unchangeable decree. And you have the non-elect who aren't. Earlier you seemed to be saying that this situation removes any duty to evangelize, since, according to you, holding these beliefs about predestination obligated a person to believe that their evangelism could not accomplish anything. But if you don't actually believe that, then what were you getting at in those questions?

----------


## cajuncocoa

> I was asking you about how you would answer your own question about why to evangelize if peoples' responses to evangelism were already predestined. I don't think that article gave an answer to that. It seems to me that if it's not a problem for the author of that article, and if you agree with that article, then how can you think that it has to be a problem for Calvinists? *The exact same questions that you were asking us would apply in exactly the same way to that author, who also believes that it's already determined that the elect will be saved and the non-elect will not.*
> 
> Incidentally, that article confirms exactly what I was saying to acptulsa earlier. There is nothing about belief in predestination that entails a denial of free will. The author of that article attempts to contrast his own view with Calvinism and to make it sound like when Calvinists believe in predestination it gives them some obligation to deny free will, unlike him. But that's just a straw man.


I've been a Catholic for nearly 60 years.  I've never used terms such as "elect" and "non-elect" until I started speaking with the Calvinists on this thread yesterday.

From the article:




> A key area, among others, where Catholics and Calvinists diverge is at the definition of "dead in trespasses and sins" and "born anew." Calvinists seem not to understand that these are metaphors. Paul is speaking of a _spiritual_ death. Thus, the "dead" man to whom Ephesians 2:1 refers is still a human person complete with a living soul and a functioning intellect and will. No separation of soul and body requiring the reconstitution of personhood has occurred.
> Moreover, by "born anew" in John 3:3, Jesus did not mean the sinner’s soul somehow ceased to exist, needing to brought into being from non-being. If this were so, then there would truly be no sense in which the sinner would be able to cooperate with God in the process.
> The truth is: The soul of the unregenerate man "dead in sin" remains alive and able to know and to will (assuming we are talking about an adult convert). His soul is _spiritually_ dead. Even though an unregenerate soul cannot merit anything from God, this does not mean he cannot cooperate with God who calls him to salvation. This seems to be what we find in the case of Saul of Tarsus. If ever a man was "dead in sin," it was Saul. Yet, in Acts 22:16, he was asked to cooperate with the grace of God in the cleansing of his sins when Ananias said to him, "rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name."


I don't know whether this answers your question or not.  But I have stated many times that I will not come into the religion forum to defend my faith or my Church.  It does not need defending.  Calvinists on this board made what I consider to be a judgement against Catholics, that we are doomed and destined to eternity in hell for believing a false gospel.  In my opinion, it is for those Calvinists to back up their claim and defend what they believe.  

BTW, it wasn't you who made this accusation so my beef is not with you.  Unless you are going to say that you believe the same thing.  In which case, I will continue to show the lack of logic behind what is being thrown around here in the name of professing that all Catholics are doomed.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Why is it that you think a Catholic can believe in both predestination and free will but a Calvinist can't?
> 
> And I still don't see how that affects the answer to your question.
> 
> The situation you described in asking it is still the same. You have the elect, who are going to be saved with absolute certainty according to God's unchangeable decree. And you have the non-elect who aren't. Earlier you seemed to be saying that this situation removes any duty to evangelize, since, according to you, holding these beliefs about predestination obligated a person to believe that their evangelism could not accomplish anything. But if you don't actually believe that, then what were you getting at in those questions?



This passage from the article conforms with what I was taught as a Catholic, but seems to be at odds with what has been said by Calvinists on this board. (My comments in red)



> However, *this does not mean that God has predestined anyone for hell. According to Calvinist Doctrine, the pre-determined non-elect are predestined to hell, and there isn't anything anyone can do about it.* Indeed, the Bible cannot be any plainer than to say God is, "not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance" (2 Pt 3:9). God wills all to be save  *According to Calvinists in this thread, God most certainly does not will all to be saved, and we have been told that Jesus did not die for the sins of all....only for the pre-determined "elect".*  To be damned, a person must willfully reject God’s "predestined plan" for his salvation (cf. CCC 2037): simple enough.  *According to a Calvinist in this thread, the decision by God to select one as "elect" or "non-elect" occurs by the time one is born.  That gives no chance for one to willfully reject (or accept) God's plan for one's salvation.*

----------


## Kevin007

> I've been a Catholic for nearly 60 years.  I've never used terms such as "elect" and "non-elect" until I started speaking with the Calvinists on this thread yesterday.
> 
> From the article:
> 
> I don't know whether this answers your question or not.  But I have stated many times that I will not come into the religion forum to defend my faith or my Church.  It does not need defending.  Calvinists on this board made what I consider to be a judgement against Catholics, that we are doomed and destined to eternity in hell for believing a false gospel.  In my opinion, it is for those Calvinists to back up their claim and defend what they believe.  
> 
> BTW, it wasn't you who made this accusation so my beef is not with you.  Unless you are going to say that you believe the same thing.  In which case, I will continue to show the lack of logic behind what is being thrown around here in the name of professing that all Catholics are doomed.


keep in mind non-catholics, like myself didn't talk much about purgatory, Peter the first Pope, different types of sins, the rosary, praying to dead saints etc...... just sayin'.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> keep in mind non-catholics, like myself didn't talk much about purgatory, Peter the first Pope, different types of sins, the rosary, praying to dead saints etc...... just sayin'.


I don't want to misunderstand your meaning, so can you please clarify what this has to do with this discussion going on?

----------


## erowe1

> I don't know whether this answers your question or not.  But I have stated many times that I will not come into the religion forum to defend my faith or my Church.


It really doesn't answer it.

You may not have come to defend your Church's beliefs. But you seemed to be taking a stand against the doctrine of predestination earlier, implying that it can't be reconciled with a duty to evangelize, asking questions that you expected Calvinists to answer, and seeming very dissatisfied with their answers, which questions you're not willing to answer yourself.

If it really is true that the doctrine of predestination is incompatible with a duty to evangelize, then this problem can't just exist for Calvinists. It has to exist for Catholics too. And if it's not a problem for Catholics, then you can't turn around and insist that it must be one for Calvinists.

----------


## Kevin007

> I don't want to misunderstand your meaning, so can you please clarify what this has to do with this discussion going on?


read my reply in the context of reply to you.

----------


## erowe1

> This passage from the article conforms with what I was taught as a Catholic, but seems to be at odds with what has been said by Calvinists on this board. (My comments in red)


But that statement doesn't really change the situation.

When expressed the way that statement puts it, you still have what effectively ends up with the same results as double-predestination even if it formally rejects it.

What the Catholic view entails (and this too is something many Calvinists would agree with) is that all people begin in a natural state of sin. But God intervenes and predestines that the elect will be saved from that. The non-elect are not then positively predestined to be unsaved, but just left to choose to reject God as they are going to do by their own free will.

It still remains the case that the elect are with absolute certainty going to Heaven and the non-elect are with absolute certainty going to Hell, and that nothing anyone does can change whom God already predestined to be part of the elect and whom He didn't.

Some would say that this is the same thing as predestining people to Hell. The Roman Catholic Church insists that it is not.

I don't believe that believing this entails any less of a duty to evangelize. But if it did entail that, then it would entail it for both Calvinists and Catholics.

You say:



> According to a Calvinist in this thread, the decision by God to select one as "elect" or "non-elect" occurs by the time one is born.


Well, that is also the Catholic view.

You then say:



> That gives no chance for one to willfully reject (or accept) God's plan for one's salvation.


I disagree. And so, apparently, does the author of the article you posted.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> It really doesn't answer it.
> 
> You may not have come to defend your Church's beliefs. *But you seemed to be taking a stand against the doctrine of predestination earlier, implying that it can't be reconciled with a duty to evangelize, asking questions that you expected Calvinists to answer, and seeming very dissatisfied with their answers, which questions you're not willing to answer yourself.*
> 
> If it really is true that the doctrine of predestination is incompatible with a duty to evangelize, then this problem can't just exist for Calvinists. It has to exist for Catholics too. And if it's not a problem for Catholics, then you can't turn around and insist that it must be one for Calvinists.


I'm not the one trying to shove my beliefs down others' throats by proclaiming to them that they are going to burn in hell forever if they don't come to the one and only gospel as taught by Calvinists.  I've had enough of it (as did RJB who started this thread) and decided that I would educate myself on this Calvinist doctrine.  When I did, I learned some things that didn't make logical sense to me when coupled with the attempts of some on this board who are trying to save those who cannot be saved if one follows what a Calvinist is supposed to believe.

For the record, I have a few issues with the Catholic Church.  That's why I'm not going to come here and defend everything that a Catholic is "supposed" to believe.  I'm an individual, I don't do "collectives" ....and I don't tend to believe something just because I'm "supposed to". Matters of my relationship with God the Father and Jesus the Son are no exception.  Some would say that means I'm not a Catholic, but they're wrong.  I  just can't defend everything the Catholic Church believes or does, but I know I belong there more than I would belong anywhere else.   Jesus passed the torch to Peter (the first Pope)...that's good enough for me.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> read my reply in the context of reply to you.


still no idea.  But that's OK.  I guess.

----------


## Kevin007

> I'm not the one trying to shove my beliefs down others' throats by proclaiming to them that they are going to burn in hell forever if they don't come to the one and only gospel as taught by Calvinists.  I've had enough of it (as did RJB who started this thread) and decided that I would educate myself on this Calvinist doctrine.  When I did, I learned some things that didn't make logical sense to me when coupled with the attempts of some on this board who are trying to save those who cannot be saved if one follows what a Calvinist is supposed to believe.
> 
> For the record, I have a few issues with the Catholic Church.  That's why I'm not going to come here and defend everything that a Catholic is "supposed" to believe.  I'm an individual, I don't do "collectives" ....and I don't tend to believe something just because I'm "supposed to". Matters of my relationship with God the Father and Jesus the Son are no exception.  Some would say that means I'm not a Catholic, but they're wrong.  I  just can't defend everything the Catholic Church believes or does, but I know I belong there more than I would belong anywhere else.   *Jesus passed the torch to Peter (the first Pope)...that's good enough for me.*


this is what you believe I respect that! However, I do not believe this belief and can show why I do not think Jesus named Peter as the "rock".

----------


## VIDEODROME

Everytime I read this I wind up at a point wondering why I should even care about this.  If you are right, God predestined me to be a skeptic and walk away from Christianity.  Or I'm unelect.  

Is it important for you guys to tell me God is sending me to Hell or something?  Is that apart of spreading the Good News?

----------


## Kevin007

> Everytime I read this I wind up at a point wondering why I should even care about this.  If you are right, God predestined me to be a skeptic and walk away from Christianity.  Or I'm unelect.  
> 
> Is it important for you guys to tell me God is sending me to Hell or something?  Is that apart of spreading the Good News?


are you a sinner? If so then Jesus did die for you.. but it is up to you whether to accept His free gift of salvation.

----------


## Dr.3D

> Everytime I read this I wind up at a point wondering why I should even care about this.  If you are right, God predestined me to be a skeptic and walk away from Christianity.  Or I'm unelect.  
> 
> Is it important for you guys to tell me God is sending me to Hell or something?  Is that apart of spreading the Good News?


LOL, that's what I keep wondering.   This all seems like some kind of theological circle jerk.

----------


## erowe1

> Everytime I read this I wind up at a point wondering why I should even care about this.  If you are right, God predestined me to be a skeptic and walk away from Christianity.  Or I'm unelect.


The fact that God predestined you to be a nonchristian so far doesn't actually prove you're not elect. God predestined everyone to start out that way and to remain that way for some time, including the elect.

Would you like God to change you? He can.

----------


## Dr.3D

> are you a sinner? If so then Jesus did die for you.. but it is up to you whether to accept His free gift of salvation.


And if he does, he knows he is one of "the elect."

----------


## cajuncocoa

> But that statement doesn't really change the situation.
> 
> When expressed the way that statement puts it, you still have what effectively ends up with the same results as double-predestination even if it formally rejects it.
> 
> What the Catholic view entails (and this too is something many Calvinists would agree with) is that all people begin in a natural state of sin. But God intervenes and predestines that the elect will be saved from that. The non-elect are not then positively predestined to be unsaved, but just left to choose to reject God as they are going to do by their own free will.
> 
> It still remains the case that the elect are with absolute certainty going to Heaven and the non-elect are with absolute certainty going to Hell, and that nothing anyone does can change whom God already predestined to be part of the elect and whom He didn't.
> 
> *Some would say that this is the same thing as predestining people to Hell.* The Roman Catholic Church insists that it is not.
> ...


Here's the bottom line, erowe1:  Some might say that.  But I'm not saying that. Have any Catholics on this board said this to you?  If they have, I haven't seen it....and if they have, they shouldn't. That's making a judgment on others, and God has made it clear that only He can do that.   Are you willing to say the same for your  fellow Calvinist?  That he should not have judged Catholics on this board that way?  If so, you and I are good and we have nothing more to talk about.  

The only reason I brought up what I did about evangelizing (which I have no problem with) is that it seems illogical for this person to tell me I'm predestined to hell while trying to get me to see the errors of my ways.  If I'm one of the non-elect and predestined to hell, it seems that Calvinist is wasting his time on  me.  For the record, and since I don't believe we are doomed that way, evangelizing makes sense and is a good thing (if the listener has an open heart).  

As I keep saying, I specifically addressed my questions this morning to FF and you jumped in to answer for him.  On the surface, your arguments seem to have a bit more logic than what I was hearing from him.  Maybe you both believe the same thing and you just have a better way of communicating it, I don't know...and I don't really care.  I just wish we could all follow the board guidelines and stop damning a whole group of people to hell for our beliefs.

Done.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> this is what you believe I respect that! However, I do not believe this belief and can show why I do not think Jesus named Peter as the "rock".


Don't need you to do that.  It's enough for me that you don't share my beliefs.  I'm OK with that.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Everytime I read this I wind up at a point wondering why I should even care about this.  If you are right, God predestined me to be a skeptic and walk away from Christianity.  Or I'm unelect.  
> 
> Is it important for you guys to tell me God is sending me to Hell or something?  Is that apart of spreading the Good News?


I would never approach the subject that way.  If that's how most people try to convert others, I'm guessing the success rate is not good.

----------


## Kevin007

> And if he does, he knows he is one of "the elect."


before anyone is saved they do not know....

----------


## Kevin007

> Don't need you to do that.  It's enough for me that you don't share my beliefs.  I'm OK with that.

----------


## Dr.3D

> before anyone is saved they do not know....


They won't really know till judgement day.

----------


## erowe1

> Here's the bottom line, erowe1:  Some might say that.  But I'm not saying that.


I'm not saying that anyone should say that. I'm just saying that the effect is still the same. The doctrine that God only predestines the elect to salvation and leaves the non-elect to go on to be unsaved, which they will do with certainty, still ends the same way as if God predestined both groups.

I'm not saying that the Roman Catholic Church is wrong to reject double predestination, just that it doesn't affect what we were talking about.

----------


## RJB

> They won't really know till judgement day.


I guess it could either be a nice or a hell of a surprise party.

----------


## VIDEODROME

> The fact that God predestined you to be a nonchristian so far doesn't actually prove you're not elect. God predestined everyone to start out that way and to remain that way for some time, including the elect.
> 
> Would you like God to change you? He can.


I guess that would depend on whether God wanted me to want him to change me.

----------


## Brett85

> I guess that would depend on whether God wanted me to want him to change me.


Exactly.  According to the Calvinist theology there's only about a 10-20% chance that God will actually change you.  The vast majority of the people he doesn't want to save and just wants to burn in hell for all eternity.  So according to them God may just not want to save you and may want to simply torture you for all eternity for the purpose of having some entertainment.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> I'm not saying that anyone should say that. I'm just saying that the effect is still the same. The doctrine that God only predestines the elect to salvation and leaves the non-elect to go on to be unsaved, which they will do with certainty, still ends the same way as if God predestined both groups.
> 
> I'm not saying that the Roman Catholic Church is wrong to reject double predestination, just that it doesn't affect what we were talking about.


I've been a Catholic for almost 60 years.  I spent 8 years in Catholic school.  I have never given any thought to predestination before coming into this thread and reading up on Calvinist theory.   One more time:  I didn't bring any of this up to defend Catholicism or compare its teachings to Calvinism. I asked my original questions to FF (which you answered) and in my response to your post I told you this:



> I'm not looking to debate you. I know what I believe, and I will not be moved from it. *I'm asking to learn from the Calvinists to find out how they think. I'm looking to pick the brain of the Calvinists to see how they selectively choose to interpret certain verses of the Bible that seem to contradict what they claim*.


I was hoping to get these answers from FF because he was the one who (it seemed to me) was "selectively interpreting" Bible verses while ignoring others that other members posted.  

I apologize if I haven't adequately answered your questions, erode1, but as I said, I'm not the one shoving my beliefs on others.  I don't even come into this forum most of the time.  Yesterday was probably the first time I did.

----------


## Dr.3D

> I guess that would depend on whether God wanted me to want him to change me.


Jesus is waiting for you to let Him in.



> _NRS_ *Revelation 3:20* Listen! I am standing at the door, knocking; if you hear my voice and open the door, I will come in to you and eat with you, and you with me.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Exactly.  According to the Calvinist theology there's only about a 10-20% chance that God will actually change you.  The vast majority of the people he doesn't want to save and just wants to burn in hell for all eternity.  So according to them God may just not want to save you and may want to simply torture you for all eternity for the purpose of having some entertainment.


Where do you get those odds from?

I'd honestly be surprised if it was even 10%.  But that's irrelevant.  Erowe1 was right.  If this person wants to be changed, he can, by believing the gospel.  Yes, he'll only do so if God causes him to do so, but as far as he is concerned, his responsibility is to repent and believe.

I'm not really sure what the annihilationist issue has to do with this.  I am not an annihilationist, but there are Calvinists who are.  This issue is about election: eternal torment is a different issue entirely.

----------


## Nang

> Jesus is waiting for you to let Him in.


Bah . . .

This is exhortation written at large to* believers in the church* of Laodicea (Revelation 3:20), not to unsaved sinners.

----------


## Terry1

I don't think anyone's "piling up on the Calvinists"--I'd say the Calvinists like Nang, Sola and FF mainly are the one's getting piled on because they're the instagators all of the time.  You know what they say---what's good for the goose and all.  I'll give someone the same respect and more than they give me, but after so long being called, "idiot", "troll", "accused and lied upon" "abomination", "evil", "wicked", "satanic idiot--ect..ect...  This has all come from mainly three or four Calvinists in here that have literally given themselves a license to abuse other members who simply and respectfully don't agree with them.

There's comes a time after so long and so many members enduring the insane blathering and accusations from the few, that those few need their asses handed to them every once in a while.

----------


## Brett85

> Erowe1 was right.  If this person wants to be changed, he can, by believing the gospel.


But that really isn't true at all.  The odds are against someone believing the gospel and being changed, because God intentionally blinds the vast majority of people from hearing and accepting the gospel.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> But that really isn't true at all.  The odds are against someone believing the gospel and being changed, because God intentionally blinds the vast majority of people from hearing and accepting the gospel.


How is this relevant to what I said?

The command for all men is to repent and believe the gospel.  Every man without exception is commanded to do this.  Anyone without exception who does this will be saved.

----------


## RJB

> Everytime I read this I wind up at a point wondering why I should even care about this.  If you are right, God predestined me to be a skeptic and walk away from Christianity.  Or I'm unelect.  
> 
> Is it important for you guys to tell me God is sending me to Hell or something?  Is that apart of spreading the Good News?


Jesus told us to love each other as he has loved us.  Instead of meditating on the wondrous love that is beyond my love for my own children and meditating how I can spread it, we Christians seem to spend 1000s of posts on silly hypotheticals.  How many predestined souls can dance on a pinhead.  Why do so many of us act like pinheads?

Your posts crack me up.  You have a similar humor I had before I believed.  My suggestion is to ignore our silliness, but rather focus on God.  Pray a sincere prayer if you want the answers, but hold on tight, it will come.

Good night all.  God bless.

----------


## Dr.3D

> Bah . . .
> 
> This is exhortation written at large to* believers in the church* of Laodicea (Revelation 3:20), not to unsaved sinners.


They were neither hot nor cold.

----------


## Nang

> They were neither hot nor cold.



Correct . . . thus the exhortation to fellowship more closely with the Lord.

----------


## Dr.3D

> Correct . . . thus the exhortation to fellowship more closely with the Lord.


Just as one who doesn't know him would need.

----------


## Nang

> Just as one who doesn't know him would need.


Perhaps, but "lukewarm" does not necessarily describe "unsaved."

----------


## RJB

> Of course, this is probably gibberish to you.  Just like the differences between Rome and the Orthodox are gibberish to me.  I don't even see why the churches split, they teach the same gospel AFAIK.  Let me make it simple for you.  Ignore OTC, ignore anyone affiliated with OTC, particularly agrammatos.  Assume, unless proven otherwise, that if someone is anathemizing a Calvinist, and is themselves "Calvinistic", they are probably from OTC.


There are differences of course, but compare your threads of your reunions with you, Sola, agrammatos, and Icon o'clast vs Ed, HB, TER and I excitedly discussing Lent.  I would expect more brotherhood between you guys, that's all.

Now I REALLY am going to bed, G'night

----------


## Dr.3D

> Perhaps, but "lukewarm" does not necessarily describe "unsaved."


No, just in danger of being spit out.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> There are differences of course, but compare your threads of your reunions with you, Sola, agrammatos, and Icon o'clast vs Ed, HB, TER and I excitedly discussing Lent.  I would expect more brotherhood between you guys, that's all.
> 
> Now I REALLY am going to bed, G'night


agrammatos doesn't even believe I'm saved (I presume "Icon O'Clast" agrees with agrammatos on this).  I'm not sure what you expect me to do about an ultra-schismatic, it is what it is.  Sola and I get along just fine, as far as I can tell.

----------


## Brett85

> How is this relevant to what I said?
> 
> The command for all men is to repent and believe the gospel.  Every man without exception is commanded to do this.  Anyone without exception who does this will be saved.


Because even if people want to repent and be saved, they may not be able to since God will blind them from the truth and do whatever he needs to do to prevent them from being saved.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Because even if people want to repent and be saved, they may not be able to since God will blind them from the truth and do whatever he needs to do to prevent them from being saved.


I think this is a false understanding of Calvinism.  I am not teaching that God actively prevents sincere inquirers from finding the truth.  There are no such people.  Everyone naturally rejects God.  Every single person.  The elect God regenerates, he changes their hearts from their natural inclination toward enmity toward God to a heart of faithfulness and love toward God.  The reprobate God leaves dead in their sins.  He doesn't force them to reject him, they already wanted to do that anyway.

Of course, you could ask why God bothered to create them in the first place.  Romans 9:19-22 answers that question.  God obviously knew they would go to Hell when he chose not to save them.  He could have saved them if he wanted.  But its not like God looks at a reprobate person who is genuinely seeking and is like "Oh no, he's going to get saved if I don't turn his heart away from me."  I agree that that would be ridiculous, but that is not what happens.

----------


## Dr.3D

> Because even if people want to repent and be saved, they may not be able to since God will blind them from the truth and do whatever he needs to do to prevent them from being saved.


Doesn't sound like the loving father I know.

----------


## Brett85

> I think this is a false understanding of Calvinism.  I am not teaching that God actively prevents sincere inquirers from finding the truth.  There are no such people.  Everyone naturally rejects God.  Every single person.  The elect God regenerates, he changes their hearts from their natural inclination toward enmity toward God to a heart of faithfulness and love toward God.  The reprobate God leaves dead in their sins.  He doesn't force them to reject him, they already wanted to do that anyway.
> 
> 
> Of course, you could ask why God bothered to create them in the first place.  Romans 9:19-22 answers that question.  God obviously knew they would go to Hell when he chose not to save them.  He could have saved them if he wanted.  But its not like God looks at a reprobate person who is genuinely seeking and is like "Oh no, he's going to get saved if I don't turn his heart away from me."  I agree that that would be ridiculous, but that is not what happens.


But Calvinism teaches that God only gives grace to a select few and regenerates them, while not giving the same grace to everyone else.  And the people who get sent to hell aren't sent there because of anything that they did, but simply because they were unlucky and didn't have their names pulled out of a hat.  They didn't win God's lottery.  I mean, the logical conclusion is that God doesn't want to save the vast majority of the people he created.  He created them for the sole purpose of sending them to hell.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Doesn't sound like the loving father I know.


Me either.  Its a hyper-calvinist caricature.  I don't think even the Clarkians here would say that God actually blinds anyone who wants to repent and be saved.  That would be a heretical denial of total depravity anyway... nobody WANTS to be saved in his natural state.  TC doesn't actually understand Calvinism at all.

----------


## Nang

> agrammatos doesn't even believe I'm saved (I presume "Icon O'Clast" agrees with agrammatos on this).  I'm not sure what you expect me to do about an ultra-schismatic, it is what it is.  Sola and I get along just fine, as far as I can tell.


Join the club . . . my husband and I were condemned as unsaved too, for not allowing them to trash faithful members of our TULIP website.

Don't worry too much.  OTC cannot ultimately judge anyone to hell, but may themselves suffer discipline from the Lord for their presumptious attitudes towards sons of God . . . outside _their_ camp.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> But Calvinism teaches that God only gives grace to a select few and regenerates them, while not giving the same grace to everyone else.  And the people who get sent to hell aren't sent there because of anything that they did, but simply because they were unlucky and didn't have their names pulled out of a hat.  They didn't win God's lottery.  I mean, the logical conclusion is that God doesn't want to save the vast majority of the people he created.  He created them for the sole purpose of sending them to hell.


First of all, "luck" has nothing to do with it.  Special grace is not luck.

Second of all, your post destroys the very meaning of "grace", since you imagine that it is something we deserve.  If it wasn't, you wouldn't object to it being given to only some, instead, you would rejoice that it was given to you and thank God that he didn't punish you like you deserved.

Third of all, I can reconcile God creating certain people to send them to Hell by the fact that those people DESERVE to go to Hell, Biblically speaking.  The real question is not "why did God create most people for Hell", it is "why didn't God create us for Hell too?"

----------


## eduardo89

> I've been a Catholic for almost 60 years.  I spent 8 years in Catholic school.  I have never given any thought to predestination before coming into this thread and reading up on Calvinist theory.


I think that just shows the abysmal failure that Catholic education has been for the past half century or so. Predestination is something the Church has always taught, yet many (most?) American Catholics know nothing about it despite the fact that it is clearly stated in the Scripture (Matthew 25:34, Acts 13:48, Romans 8:28-30).

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Join the club . . . my husband and I were condemned as unsaved too, for not allowing them to trash faithful members of our TULIP website.
> 
> Don't worry too much.  OTC cannot ultimately judge anyone to hell, but may themselves suffer discipline from the Lord for their presumptious attitudes towards sons of God . . . outside _their_ camp.



I'm not actually worried about it, I was just addressing a post wondering why "we" ("reformed" people) don't get along with each other as well as the Babylonian churches.  Specifically, SF, "Icon O'Clast", and agrammatos were mentioned.  My response was that SF and I get along fine as far as I can tell, Icon O'Clast rarely posts here, and agrammatos is judging me as an unregenerate.  My question was how I could fellowship with someone who doesn't believe I'm saved and wants to continually insult me for it.  Its not possible.

I have no doubt OTC will suffer discipline, any there who are actually regenerate, that is.  Using Carpenter's own logic I've proven that he's unregenerate multiple times (in particular, I pointed out that he makes a literal interpretation of "days" in Genesis 1 an absolute gospel issue that no Christian can disagree with, yet he takes the "years" in Revelation 20 symbolically) but I'm not a doctrinal perfectionist and I don't judge anywhere near as strictly as they do, so they may be saved in spite of their confusion.  I hope so.  They're annoying, but I don't want them to go to Hell.

----------


## Brett85

> First of all, "luck" has nothing to do with it.  Special grace is not luck.
> 
> Second of all, your post destroys the very meaning of "grace", since you imagine that it is something we deserve.  If it wasn't, you wouldn't object to it being given to only some, instead, you would rejoice that it was given to you and thank God that he didn't punish you like you deserved.
> 
> Third of all, I can reconcile God creating certain people to send them to Hell by the fact that those people DESERVE to go to Hell, Biblically speaking.  The real question is not "why did God create most people for Hell", it is "why didn't God create us for Hell too?"


The wages of sin is death, and that's what we all deserve, death in the lake of fire.  You're right that none of us deserve grace.  But I also don't even agree that anyone deserves death in the lake of fire if God is responsible for our sins and not us.  If we're predestined to sin and God is responsible for our sin, I just don't see how anyone actually deserves to be thrown into the lake of fire for being forced to commit sins by God's decree.

----------


## Nang

> Using Carpenter's own logic I've proven that he's unregenerate multiple times (in particular, I pointed out that he makes a literal interpretation of "days" in Genesis 1 an absolute gospel issue that no Christian can disagree with, yet he takes the "years" in Revelation 20 symbolically)


As do Jim and I.  We are also a-mill.  Are you willing to judge us as unregenerate on such eschatological basis?

Do not fall into the same narrow trap they abide in . . .

----------


## Kevin007

> First of all, "luck" has nothing to do with it.  Special grace is not luck.
> 
> Second of all, your post destroys the very meaning of "grace", since you imagine that it is something we deserve.  If it wasn't, you wouldn't object to it being given to only some, instead, you would rejoice that it was given to you and thank God that he didn't punish you like you deserved.
> 
> Third of all, I can reconcile God creating certain people to send them to Hell by the fact that those people DESERVE to go to Hell, Biblically speaking.  The real question is not "why did God create most people for Hell", it is "why didn't God create us for Hell too?"


God does not send anyone to hell- noone. We choose to rebel. The bible says that He does not want anyone to go to hell/perish.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> The wages of sin is death, and that's what we all deserve, death in the lake of fire.


I'm not interested in having the duration of punishment debate now.  But you agree that none of us deserve grace.  Good.




> You're right that none of us deserve grace.  But I also don't even agree that anyone deserves death in the lake of fire if God is responsible for our sins and not us.  If we're predestined to sin and God is responsible for our sin, I just don't see how anyone actually deserves to be thrown into the lake of fire for being forced to commit sins by God's decree.


Who says God is responsible for their sins?







> As do Jim and I.  We are also a-mill.  Are you willing to judge us as unregenerate on such eschatological basis?
> 
> Do not fall into the same narrow trap they abide in . . .


No, of course not.  I don't even know that amillennialism is wrong, and its certainly not a gospel issue.  I also don't judge people who have different convictions about Genesis 1 to be unregenerate.

But Carpenter DOES judge those who have any conviction about Genesis 1 other than literal, 24 hour days to be unregenerate.  Thus, by his own, erroneous logic, he'd be unregenerate for believing in amillennialism.  *​I reject this logic.*

----------


## Christian Liberty

> God does not send anyone to hell- noone. We choose to rebel. The bible says that He does not want anyone to go to hell/perish.


If God did not want the reprobate to go to Hell, they wouldn't go there.  Otherwise God fails.

----------


## Brett85

> Who says God is responsible for their sins?


I just don't see how we can be responsible for our own sins if we have no free will and never actually make the choice to sin.  How are we responsible for sinning if God makes the choice for us to sin and not us?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I just don't see how we can be responsible for our own sins if we have no free will and never actually make the choice to sin.  How are we responsible for sinning if God makes the choice for us to sin and not us?


Who says God makes the choice for us to sin?

----------


## Kevin007

> If God did not want the reprobate to go to Hell, they wouldn't go there.  Otherwise God fails.


God can never fail, but men can and do. Just because you love your child and would do anything for them does not mean they cannot fail, have free will, rebel, etc etc...

----------


## VIDEODROME

Why isn't religion more like this guy?

----------


## Kevin007

btw- if it wasn't for the love of The Father and Son, all of us would go to Hell, deservedly so. It is only because of His perfect love and grace that some go to Heaven.

----------


## VIDEODROME

lmao I neg rep for that clip.  I'll wear that neg rep proudly if I got it for sharing a message of love and harmony.

----------


## Miss Annie

> lmao I neg rep for that clip.  I'll wear that neg rep proudly if I got it for sharing a message of love and harmony.


I am a believer in free speech....... so if I could make it up to you I would..... But....... You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to VIDEODROME again.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I used to just roll my eyes and ignore statements calling certain Christian denomination non-Christians, until the thread about the persecution of the Syrian Christians who were being killed. These were mostly Orthodox and Catholics who trace their roots not just spiritually but physically back to the Apostles. In that same thread, someone made a claim that the Orthodox and Catholics werent Christian.  
> 
> This is so offensive on many levels.  The biggest is the giving of ones life with HOPE, FAITH, and LOVE in the Saviour the Lord Jesus Christ in ones heart and lips can not be achieved by a non-Christian who has not the Holy Spirit in them.  Some of you keyboard Christians should seriously think of who you  pass Judgment on from your comfortable chairs.


The OP completely begs the question.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Why isn't religion more like this guy?


All man made religion is shades of Bishop Spong's religion.  Your religion is very similar to his.

----------


## VIDEODROME

> All man made religion is shades of Bishop Spong's religion.  Your religion is very similar to his.


I don't have as much certainty as him about an almighty God, but otherwise yeah we seem similar.

----------


## erowe1

> You're right that none of us deserve grace.  But I also don't even agree that anyone deserves death in the lake of fire if God is responsible for our sins and not us.


This is true. No Calvinist would disagree. We are responsible for our sins.

----------


## erowe1

> I just don't see how we can be responsible for our own sins if we have no free will and never actually make the choice to sin.


Again, Calvinists agree (generally). We make the choice to sin according to our nature.

I say generally, because I don't think that's an absolute rule. We all sinned in Adam, and we all are punished for that sin that humanity committed. But we, as individuals, did not choose to commit it ourselves. Our human race committed it through its representative head, the first man and common ancestor of us all.

So there are sins that we commit by making choices, and we really do make those choices. But that isn't the only kind of sin. And we are sinners already before we make any of them.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> I am a believer in free speech....... so if I could make it up to you I would..... But....... You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to VIDEODROME again.


Already did as soon as I saw his post last night.

----------


## erowe1

> But that really isn't true at all.


No. It's definitely true.

----------


## erowe1

> Because even if people want to repent and be saved, they may not be able to since God will blind them from the truth and do whatever he needs to do to prevent them from being saved.


Did you intend this as representative of a Calvinist view? If so, it's completely false. God never takes people who want to repent and be saved and prevents them from doing so. The only way anybody ever will want to repent and be saved is as a result of a work of grace that God does arousing that desire in them.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Did you intend this as representative of a Calvinist view? If so, it's completely false. God never takes people who want to repent and be saved and prevents them from doing so. The only way anybody ever will want to repent and be saved is as a result of a work of grace that God does arousing that desire in them.


I'm glad to hear that, erowe1...and I mean that sincerely. What TC posted is the impression that was given by other Calvinists. I'm happy to hear that's not the case.  I think God welcomes everyone comes to Him, who proclaims that Jesus is Lord.

----------


## Brett85

> Who says God makes the choice for us to sin?


How can you say that we ever make any choices on our own if there's no such thing as free will?

----------


## Brett85

> Again, Calvinists agree (generally). We make the choice to sin according to our nature.
> 
> I say generally, because I don't think that's an absolute rule. We all sinned in Adam, and we all are punished for that sin that humanity committed. But we, as individuals, did not choose to commit it ourselves. Our human race committed it through its representative head, the first man and common ancestor of us all.
> 
> So there are sins that we commit by making choices, and we really do make those choices. But that isn't the only kind of sin. And we are sinners already before we make any of them.


Actually, we aren't responsible for Adam's sin.  We're responsible for our own sins.  The Bible says that we inherited death from Adam, not sin.

1 Corinthians 15:22

For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive.

----------


## acptulsa

> ...and agrammatos is judging me as an unregenerate.  My question was how I could fellowship with someone who doesn't believe I'm saved and wants to continually insult me for it.  Its not possible.


Which is why this thread was created.  You don't believe that Salvation depends upon believing a day had to be twenty-four hours long even before the sun and the earth were created.  Good for you.  We all create God in our own image.  What can we do?  There are limits to our ability to understand.  We do the best we can.

But is it not an insult to God to assume He's as petty as we are?




> They're annoying, but I don't want them to go to Hell.


Well now.  That's reassuring.  So, you figure God predestines everyone.  Not unreasonable to figure that God makes us, makes all the variables, and knows how it will all turn out before He even begins it.  erowe1 says some are elect and the rest will be saved or not according to their own free will.  We have all seen those born with such a pure heart that we don't see how they could possibly go astray.  I look at what Jesus said and what Jesus did, and I say we are given free will to choose or not.  Given that God made us, made all the variables, and knows what could come of it, maybe I'm a fool.  Does it matter that much?  Really?

So, here I am, trying to do my best to love God and men enough to earn my way into heaven, there you are convinced you're elect and trying to be worthy of the term, and you scream at me that I'm going to Hell because I won't say that You're of the elect (as if it's my place to say) but you think I should be able to have fellowship with you even though you're annoying.

Don't go to hell, FF.  But do either have some respect for me or leave me alone, because it's really, really hard to have fellowship with you.

Now if you'll excuse me, I think giving comfort to the sick is much more important than smacking the faithful upside the head over whether or not the donkey colt Jesus rode was young enough that it was a miracle that it could support Jesus' weight as it trod the palm leaves...

----------


## erowe1

> Actually, we aren't responsible for Adam's sin.  We're responsible for our own sins.  The Bible says that we inherited death from Adam, not sin.
> 
> 1 Corinthians 15:22
> 
> For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive.


That's not the only passage of the Bible that mentions Adam.

In Romans 5:12 it says that in Adam, all sinned. And it goes on to say that we are condemned for that sin with the punishment of seat. Paul's proof of this is the simple fact of everybody's mortality. The verse you quoted only supports this. Even before any of us made any of our own choices to sin, we were already condemned to the punishment of death on account of what Adam did. To be condemned for something means to be responsible for it.

----------


## RJB

Back to the Syrian Christians.

Matthew 19:27-29 

Then Peter said to Him, "Behold, we have left everything and followed You; what then will there be for us?" And Jesus said to them, "Truly I say to you, that you who have followed Me, in the regeneration when the Son of Man will sit on His glorious throne, you also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. "And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or farms for My name's sake, will receive many times as much, and will inherit eternal life.

----------


## erowe1

> erowe1 says some are elect and the rest will be saved or not according to their own free will.


No I don't. I say that some are elect, and the rest by their own free will, making choices according to their sinful natures, will with 100% certainty not be saved.

----------


## erowe1

> So, here I am, trying to do my best to love God and men enough to earn my way into heaven


If at any point you come to the realization that that quest is hopeless, that you are just not capable of meeting the just demands of God, and being perfect as he is perfect. If you find that just when you think you've managed to discipline yourself to conform to his standards in one respect you find some other law of his that you keep breaking, know that he still offers you salvation by his grace, not as wages that are due you, but as a free gift, through faith in his son who died on the cross for sins he didn't commit. He came, not to save the righteous, but sinners.

----------


## acptulsa

> No I don't. I say that some are elect, and the rest by their own free will, making choices according to their sinful natures, will with 100% certainty not be saved.


Fair enough.

Thank you for making it possible for me to have fellowship with you by refraining from running around telling me I'm going to Hell because I'm not so sure you're right about that.  I appreciate it.





> If at any point you come to the realization that that quest is hopeless...


I know it's hopeless.  I know that trying to keep the poor fed is hopeless.  I know that trying to keep the sick comforted is hopeless.  But Jesus said to keep trying anyway.  So...

----------


## TER

> Actually, we aren't responsible for Adam's sin.  We're responsible for our own sins.  The Bible says that we inherited death from Adam, not sin.
> 
> 1 Corinthians 15:22
> 
> For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive.


Well said and worth repeating TC.  The teachings of the Church Fathers and of the Orthodox Church is that we inherited _death_ from Adam, and not the guilt of Adam's sin.  Such a proposition was initiated by St. Augustine, but he said this against the apostolic witness before him.   Unfortunately, what he wrote became the foundation to Western Christianity thought.  

*The Approach of the Orthodox Fathers* 

*As pervasive as the term original sin has become, it may come as a surprise to some that it was unknown in both the Eastern and Western Church until Augustine* (c. 354-430). The concept may have arisen in the writings of Tertullian, but the expression seems to have appeared first in Augustine's works. Prior to this the theologians of the early church used different terminology indicating a contrasting way of thinking about the fall, its effects and God's response to it. The phrase the Greek Fathers used to describe the tragedy in the Garden was ancestral sin. 

Ancestral sin has a specific meaning. The Greek word for sin in this case, _amartema_, refers to an individual act indicating that the Eastern Fathers assigned full responsibility for the sin in the Garden to Adam and Eve alone. The word _amartia_, the more familiar term for sin which literally means "missing the mark", is used to refer to the condition common to all humanity (Romanides, 2002). The Eastern Church, unlike its Western counterpart, *never speaks of guilt being passed from Adam and Eve to their progeny*, as did Augustine.* Instead, it is posited that each person bears the guilt of his or her own sin*. The question becomes, "What then is the inheritance of humanity from Adam and Eve if it is not guilt?" The Orthodox Fathers answer as one: *death*. (I Corinthians 15:21) "Man is born with the parasitic power of death within him," writes Fr. Romanides (2002, p. 161). Our nature, teaches Cyril of Alexandria, became "diseased...through the sin of one" (Migne, 1857-1866a). * It is not guilt that is passed on, for the Orthodox fathers; it is a condition, a disease.* 

In Orthodox thought Adam and Eve were created with a vocation: to become one with God gradually increasing in their capacity to share in His divine life-deification[2] (Romanides, 2002, p. 76-77). "They needed to mature, to grow to awareness by willing detachment and faith, a loving trust in a personal God" (Clement, 1993, p. 84). Theophilus of Antioch (2nd Century) posits that Adam and Eve were created neither immortal nor mortal. *They were created with the potential to become either through obedience or disobedience* (Romanides, 2002). 

The freedom to obey or disobey belonged to our first parents, "For God made man free and sovereign" (Romanides, 2002, p. 32).  To embrace their God-given vocation would bring life, to reject it would bring death, but not at God's hands. Theophilus continues, "...should he keep the commandment of God he would be rewarded with immortality...if, however, he should turn to things of death by disobeying God, he would be the cause of death to himself" (Romanides, 2002, p. 32) 

Adam and Eve failed to obey the commandment not to eat from the forbidden tree thus rejecting God and their vocation to manifest the fullness of human existence (Yannaras, 1984).  Death and corruption began to reign over the creation. "Sin reigned through death." (Romans 5:21)* In this view death and corruption do not originate with God; he neither created nor intended them. God cannot be the Author of evil. Death is the natural result of turning aside from God.* 

Adam and Eve were overcome with the same temptation that afflicts all humanity: to be autonomous, to go their own way, to realize the fullness of human existence without God. According to the Orthodox fathers* sin is not a violation of an impersonal law or code of behavior, but a rejection of the life offered by God* (Yannaras, 1984). This is the mark, to which the word _amartia_ refers. Fallen human life is above all else the failure to realize the God-given potential of human existence, which is, as St. Peter writes, to "become partakers of the divine nature" (II Peter 1:4).  St. Basil writes: "Humanity is an animal who has received the vocation to become God" (Clement, 1993, p. 76). 

In Orthodox thought God did not threaten Adam and Eve with punishment nor was He angered or offended by their sin; He was moved to compassion.[3] *The expulsion from the Garden and from the Tree of Life was an act of love and not vengeance so that humanity would not "become immortal in sin"* (Romanides, 2002, p. 32). Thus began the preparation for the Incarnation of the Son of God and the solution that alone could rectify the situation: the destruction of the enemies of humanity and God, death (I Corinthians 15:26, 56), sin, corruption and the devil (Romanides, 2002).      

It is important to note that salvation as deification is not pantheism because the Orthodox Fathers insist on the doctrine of creation _ex nihilo_ (Athanasius, 1981).  Human beings, along with all created things, have come into being from nothing.  Created beings will always remain created and God will always remain Uncreated. The Son of God in the Incarnation crossed the unbridgeable chasm between them. Orthodox hymnography frequently speaks of the paradox of the Uncreated and created uniting without mixture or confusion in the wondrous hypostatic union. The Nativity of Christ, for example, is interpreted as "a secret re-creation, by which human nature was assumed and restored to its original state" (Clement, 1993, p. 41). God and human nature, separated by the Fall, are reunited in the Person of the Incarnate Christ and redeemed through His victory on the Cross and in the Resurrection by which death is destroyed (I Corinthians 15:54-55). In this way the Second Adam fulfills the original vocation and reverses the tragedy of the fallen First Adam opening the way of salvation for all. 

The Fall could not destroy the image of God; the great gift given to humanity remained intact, but damaged (Romanides, 2002). Origen speaks of the image buried as in a well choked with debris (Clement, 1993).  While the work of salvation was accomplished by God through Jesus Christ the removal of the debris that hides the image in us calls for free and voluntary cooperation. St. Paul uses the word synergy, or "co-workers", (I Corinthians 3:9) to describe the cooperation between Divine Grace and human freedom. For the Orthodox Fathers this means asceticism (prayer, fasting, charity and keeping vigil) relating to St. Paul's image of the spiritual athlete (I Corinthians 9:24-27). This is the working out of salvation "with fear and trembling" (Philippians 2:12). *Salvation is a process involving faith, freedom and personal effort to fulfill the commandment of Christ to "love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength and your neighbor as yourself"* (Matthew 22:37-39). 

The great Orthodox hymn of Holy Pascha (Easter) captures in a few words the essence of the Orthodox understanding of the Atonement: "Christ is risen from the dead, trampling down death by death, And upon those in the tombs bestowing life" (The Liturgikon, Paschal services, 1989).  Because of the victory of Christ on the Cross and in the Tomb humanity has been set free, the curse of the law has been broken, death is slain, life has dawned for all. Maximus the Confessor (c. 580 - 662) writes that "Christ's death on the Cross is the judgment of judgment" (Clement, 1993, p. 49) and because of this we can rejoice in the conclusion stated so beautifully by Olivier Clement: "In the crucified Christ forgiveness is offered and life is given. For humanity it is no longer a matter of fearing judgment or of meriting salvation, but of welcoming love in trust and humility" (Clement, 1993, p. 49).

more at this link

----------


## Terry1

> But that really isn't true at all.  The odds are against someone believing the gospel and being changed, because God intentionally blinds the vast majority of people from hearing and accepting the gospel.


Well that's because they believe that they're the remnant and so does Fred Phelps who's a five point Calvinist from the Westboro Baptist Church.

----------


## erowe1

> I know it's hopeless.  I know that trying to keep the poor fed is hopeless.  I know that trying to keep the sick comforted is hopeless.  But Jesus said to keep trying anyway.  So...


He also said to believe in Him, and to be saved by doing so as a result of his work and not yours, with no further requirements.

If earning your way into Heaven is hopeless. Know that being saved by Jesus' works instead of your own gives perfect hope.

----------


## Brett85

> That's not the only passage of the Bible that mentions Adam.
> 
> In Romans 5:12 it says that in Adam, all sinned. And it goes on to say that we are condemned for that sin with the punishment of seat. Paul's proof of this is the simple fact of everybody's mortality. The verse you quoted only supports this. Even before any of us made any of our own choices to sin, we were already condemned to the punishment of death on account of what Adam did. To be condemned for something means to be responsible for it.


TER, do you have a response to the verse Erowe cited here?  Because it seems like he makes a good point.

----------


## TER

> TER, do you have a response to the verse Erowe cited here?  Because it seems like he makes a good point.


Sure, it is in the next paragraphs of the link I posted above.

*Augustine's Legacy* 

The piety and devotion of Augustine is largely unquestioned by Orthodox theologians, but his conclusions on the Atonement are (Romanides, 2002). Augustine, by his own admission, did not properly learn to read Greek and this was a liability for him. He seems to have relied mostly on Latin translations of Greek texts (Augustine, 1956a, p. 9). *His misinterpretation of a key scriptural reference, Romans 5:12, is a case in point* (Meyendorff, 1979). In Latin the Greek idiom_ eph ho_ which means _because of_ was translated as_ in whom_. *Saying that all have sinned in Adam is quite different than saying that all sinned because of him.* Augustine believed and taught that all humanity has sinned in Adam (Meyendorff, 1979, p. 144). *The result is that guilt replaces death as the ancestral inheritance* (Augustine, 1956b) Therefore the term _original sin_ conveys the belief that Adam and Eve's sin is the first and universal transgression in which all humanity participates. 

Augustine famously debated Pelagius (c. 354-418) over the place the human will could play in salvation. Augustine took the position against him that only grace is able to save, _sola gratis_ (Augustine, On the Predestination of the Saints, 7)[4]. From this a doctrine of predestination developed (God gives grace to whom He will) which hardened in the 16th and 17th centuries into the doctrine of two-fold predestination (God in His sovereignty saves some and condemns others). The position of the Church of the first two centuries concerning the image and human freedom was abandoned. 

The Roman idea of justice found prominence in Augustinian and later Western theology. The idea that Adam and Eve offended God's infinite justice and honor made of death God's method of retribution (Romanides, 2002). *But this idea of justice deviates from Biblical thought*. Kalomiris (1980) explains the meaning of justice in the original Greek of the New Testament: 

The Greek word _diakosuni_ ‘justice', is a translation of the Hebrew word _tsedaka_. The word means ‘the divine energy which accomplishes man's salvation.' It is parallel and almost synonymous with the word _hesed_ which means ‘mercy', ‘compassion', ‘love', and to the word _emeth_ which means ‘fidelity', ‘truth'. This is entirely different from the juridical understanding of ‘justice'. (p. 31) 

*The juridical view of justice generates two problems for Augustine*. *One*: how can one say that the attitude of the immutable God's toward His creation changes from love to wrath? *Two*: how can God, who is good, be the author of such an evil as death (Romanides, 1992)? The only way to answer this is to say, as Augustine did to the young Bishop, Julian of Eclanum (d. 454), that God's justice is inscrutable (Cahill, 1995, p. 65). Logically, then, justice provides proof of inherited guilt for Augustine, because since all humanity suffers the punishment of death and since God who is just cannot punish the innocent, then all must be guilty in Adam. Also, by similar reasoning, justice appears as a standard to which even God must adhere (Kalomiris, 1980). Can God change or be subject to any kind of standard or necessity? By contrast the Orthodox father, Basil the Great, attributes the change in attitude to humanity rather than to God (Migne, 1857-1866b). Because of the theological foundation laid by Augustine and taken up by his heirs, the conclusion seems unavoidable that a significant change occurs in the West making the wrath of God and not death the problem facing humanity (Romanides, 1992, p. 155-156). 

How then could God's anger be assuaged? The position of the ancient Church had no answer because its proponents did not see wrath as the problem. The Satisfaction Theory proposed by Anselm of Canterbury (c. 1033-1109) in his work Why the God-Man? provides the most predominant answer in the West[5]. The sin of Adam offended and angered God making the punishment of death upon all guilty humanity justified. The antidote to this situation is the crucifixion of the Incarnate Son of God because only the suffering and death of an equally eternal being could ever satisfy the infinite offense of the infinitely dishonored God and assuage His wrath (Williams, 2002; Yannaras, 1984, p. 152). God sacrifices His Son to restore His honor and pronounces the sacrifice sufficient. The idea of imputed righteousness rises from this. The Orthodox understanding that "the resurrection...through Christ, opens for humanity the way of love that is stronger than death" (Clement, 1993, p. 87) is replaced by a juridical theory of courtrooms and verdicts. 

The image of an angry, vengeful God haunts the West where a basic insecurity and guilt seem to exist. Many appear to hold that sickness, suffering and death are God's will. Why? I suspect one reason is that down deep the belief persists that God is still angry and must be appeased. Yes, sickness, suffering and death come and when they do God's grace is able to transform them into life-bearing trials, but are they God's will? Does God punish us when the mood strikes, when our behavior displeases Him or for no reason at all? Are the ills that afflict creation on account of God? For example, could the loving Father really be said to enjoy the sufferings of His Son or of the damned in hell (Yannaras, 1984)? Freud rebelled against these ideas calling the God inherent in them the sadistic Father (Yannaras, 1984, p. 153). Could it be as Yannaras, Clement and Kalomiris propose that modern atheism is a healthy rebellion against a terrorist deity (Clement, 2000)?  Kalomiris (1980) writes that there are no atheists, just people who hate the God in whom they have been taught to believe. 

*Orthodoxy agrees that grace is a gift, but one that is given to all not to a chosen few. For Grace is an uncreated energy of God sustaining all creation apart from which nothing can exist* (Psalm 104:29). *What is more, though grace sustains humanity, salvation cannot be forced upon us (or withheld) by divine decree.* Clement points out that the "Greek fathers (and some of the Latin Fathers), according to whom the creation of humanity entailed a real risk on God's part, laid the emphasis on salvation through love: ‘God can do anything except force a man to love him'. The gift of grace saves, but only in an encounter of love" (Clement, 1993, p. 81). Orthodox theology holds that divine grace must be joined with human volition.

----------


## acptulsa

> If earning your way into Heaven is hopeless. Know that being saved by Jesus' works instead of your own gives perfect hope.


Fine.  I'm not doing what Jesus said for me to do because He said that would be how He would separate the sheep from the goats on Judgement Day in Matthew 25.  I'm doing it because I'm grateful to Him for His perfect Grace.  Even if I'm not of The Elect I'm grateful to Him for His perfect Grace because I think some people I love are of The Elect.  And really want to do Him a favor every chance I get.

Is this silly argument over yet?

----------


## Brett85

> Fine.  I'm not doing what Jesus said for me to do because He said that would be how He would separate the sheep from the goats on Judgement Day in Matthew 25.  I'm doing it because I'm grateful to Him for His perfect Grace and really want to do Him a favor every chance I get.
> 
> Is this silly argument over yet?


I grew up in a church that basically taught the salvation by "faith alone" doctrine, but I've always been puzzled by passages like Matthew 25, and I've still never heard someone who believes in salvation by "faith alone" explain that passage in a way that makes sense.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Because even if people want to repent and be saved, they may not be able to since God will blind them from the truth and do whatever he needs to do to prevent them from being saved.





> Did you intend this as representative of a Calvinist view? If so, it's completely false. God never takes people who want to repent and be saved and prevents them from doing so. The only way anybody ever will want to repent and be saved is as a result of a work of grace that God does arousing that desire in them.





> I'm glad to hear that, erowe1...and I mean that sincerely. What TC posted is the impression that was given by other Calvinists. I'm happy to hear that's not the case.  I think God welcomes everyone comes to Him, who proclaims that Jesus is Lord.





> No I don't. I say that some are elect, and the rest by their own free will, making choices according to their sinful natures, will with 100% certainty not be saved.


OK, I'm confused again....and I'm not trying to badger you, erowe1....just trying to understand.  Please help me.

In the post to which I replied this morning (the one where you replied to TC) you seemed to reject the idea that God does not want everyone (the non-elect?) to be saved and said that people could "want to repent and be saved is as a result of a work of grace that God does arousing that desire in them."

Maybe I jumped to a wrong conclusion in assuming this meant that it is possible for the non-elect to be saved according to Calvinism, which goes against what other Calvinists have said on this board.

So....is it possible or impossible for the non-elect to be saved according to Calvinism?  That's the question I'm asking in this post.

----------


## Terry1

> this is what you believe I respect that! However, I do not believe this belief and can show why I do not think Jesus named Peter as the "rock".


Well Kevin, I assume you believe in "eternal security" in this life.  That's not biblical either.  Also most of the protestant churches today do the very same thing they accuse the Catholics of doing.  They have Obelisks, steeples, idols hanging around, they use symbology and create alters, they have statues created of fathers of their doctrines.  Some of the celebrate pagan Holidays. They all do this just the same as they accuse the Catholics of.  They teach unsound and false doctrines like the TULIP and "faith alone" or "grace alone" doctrines, when God said that we're saved "by Grace/His power and "Through Faith/Jesus/Yeshua.  Even the Messianics still practice Judaism, but they're still believers in the Lord Yeshua.

There's a whole lot of people out there doing things and believing things that God didn't call them to do, in fact quite the opposite.  So everyone can ask themselves why do people continue to practice and do what God told them NOT to do.  It's because our Lord warned us all about the many false teachers out there.  We were warned *heavily*, hence the seven warnings to the seven churches in Revelation chapters 2 and 3.  Those seven churches are representative of what the church world today of believers consists of.  

When our Lord specifically told you and everyone else that we're saved "BY GRACE AND THROUGH FATIH" He had a very good reason---He didn't mean by grace alone or by faith alone---He meant *exactly what the Word says and they can not be separated and still bring about a state of elect or salvation in anyone unless they are done in harmony and together.  It's grace that empowers us because Grace is the power of God and Faith is our Lord Jesus working through us to bring about "works of faith"/fruits of the Spirit that brings about and creates a state of elect in any believer.  

Attempting to separate Grace from Faith is the very same as attempting to separate God from Jesus and still think one can be in a state of Elect, which is impossible.

If I was to pick a doctrine that was closer to the center of Gods will than those who believe the "eternal security" doctrines and these heresies like TULIP---I would choose the Catholic doctrine, because although they have their baggage too, their core fundamental belief is more on par with the word of God than the protestants.

----------


## acptulsa

> I grew up in a church that basically taught the salvation by "faith alone" doctrine, but I've always been puzzled by passages like Matthew 25, and I've still never heard someone who believes in salvation by "faith alone" explain that passage in a way that makes sense.


I've never seen one try.  When I ask for that I get ignored.

Not that it matters.  God can set that as a benchmark and can know whether we're capable of meeting it when He creates us.  Doesn't mean striving for the goal isn't necessary on our end.  Striving for the goal of our own free will has a whole lot more to do with our salvation than then number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin--whether our fates are preordained or not.

Those who say we're all sinners but Calvinist preordination means The Elect don't have to work at it are people who, in my opinion, are probably not of The Elect.  Not that my opinion is worth a teaspoon of salt...

----------


## Brett85

> OK, I'm confused again....and I'm not trying to badger you, erowe1....just trying to understand.  Please help me.
> 
> In the post to which I replied this morning (the one where you replied to TC) you seemed to reject the idea that God does not want everyone (the non-elect?) to be saved and said that people could "want to repent and be saved is as a result of a work of grace that God does arousing that desire in them."
> 
> Maybe I jumped to a wrong conclusion in assuming this meant that it is possible for the non-elect to be saved according to Calvinism, which goes against what other Calvinists have said on this board.
> 
> So....is it possible or impossible for the non-elect to be saved according to Calvinism?  That's the question I'm asking in this post.


I may have slightly misrepresented what Calvinism teaches earlier, so let me try to explain it better.  Calvinists believe in the doctrine of total depravity, which means that we're completely dead in our sins and our free will is bound by our depravity, and we aren't able to exercise our free will because of our depravity.  Thus, we aren't able to hear and accept the gospel on our own, without God regenerating us.  So they teach that God gives grace to the elect, the people who God chose to be saved from the very beginning of the world.  He chooses to regenerate those specific people, allowing them to hear and accept the gospel through his grace.  But everyone else he simply ignores and chooses not to regenerate.  He doesn't give the non elect the same grace that he gives the elect.  So yes, according to Calvinism, God wants all of the non elect to perish and not be saved.

----------


## erowe1

> In the post to which I replied this morning (the one where you replied to TC) you seemed to reject the idea that God does not want everyone (the non-elect?) to be saved and said that people could "want to repent and be saved is as a result of a work of grace that God does arousing that desire in them."


Nobody, by their own nature, will want to repent and be saved. The only way anybody ever will want to repent and be saved is by God doing a work of grace in their lives to arouse that desire. Absent such a work, every single one of us will reject God with 100% certainty. This does not require God to interfere with someone who was going to repent before God decided to blind them, because no such person exists.

But for the elect, and only the elect, God gives them the grace that leads them to faith.

----------


## erowe1

> I grew up in a church that basically taught the salvation by "faith alone" doctrine, but I've always been puzzled by passages like Matthew 25, and I've still never heard someone who believes in salvation by "faith alone" explain that passage in a way that makes sense.


First of all, I think it's worth pointing out that that is describing one particular judgment. In this case, it is a judgment of the Gentiles alive on the earth when Jesus returns according to how they treated his brethren, Israel, during the Tribulation.

That doesn't resolve the problem you're asking about. But I think it does undercut the ideas people have that they are going to be in this judgment.

To get to the issue you're asking about, I just see it as a judgment of separating the saved who undergo that judgment from the unsaved who undergo it by way of the litmus test of their works. Those works aren't how they become saved, but they are the evidence of the salvation that they will have had by God's grace.

----------


## TER

> I grew up in a church that basically taught the salvation by "faith alone" doctrine, but I've always been puzzled by passages like Matthew 25, and I've still never heard someone who believes in salvation by "faith alone" explain that passage in a way that makes sense.


The idea of being saved by faith alone was a foreign concept to the early Church and did not develop until much later in Christianity (indeed 1600 years later) as a deviation to the apostolic faith, so you are in good company if it this doctrine seems to be 'missing something'.

----------


## acptulsa

> Nobody, by their own nature, will want to repent and be saved.





> 44 Then they also will answer, "Lord, when was it that we saw you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not take care of you?' 45 Then he will answer them, "Truly I tell you, just as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.


Well Jesus, for one, seem to think they'd want to be saved.  I guess none of us want to repent, then.

I wonder if relenting is a necessary prerequisite to repentance..?

----------


## Terry1

> First of all, I think it's worth pointing out that that is describing one particular judgment. In this case, it is a judgment of the Gentiles alive on the earth when Jesus returns according to how they treated his brethren, Israel, during the Tribulation.
> 
> That doesn't resolve the problem you're asking about. But I think it does undercut the ideas people have that they are going to be in this judgment.
> 
> To get to the issue you're asking about, I just see it as a judgment of separating the saved who undergo that judgment from the unsaved who undergo it by way of the litmus test of their works. Those works aren't how they become saved, but they are the evidence of the salvation that they will have had by God's grace.


What can you do now erowe1---then say here again that "all doesn't mean all".  God's grace is extended to ALL MEN....ALL--meaning the world.  So then the only reason ALL MEN do not come to the Lord is because ALL MEN DO NOT CHOOSE GOD.

*Tistus 2*
*God's Grace Brings Salvation

11For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men,*

----------


## erowe1

> Well Jesus, for one, seem to think they'd want to be saved.


I don't see that from the verse you quoted.

Some do want to be saved, but Jesus taught that that's only as a result of God's work arousing that desire in them and that it does not come naturally.

----------


## acptulsa

> I don't see that from the verse you quoted.


So they did not wail, 'Lord, when did we see You..?' because they missed out on salvation, but merely as one last bout of academic perversity, because they just like to argue?

Interesting interpretation.  You figure I'm going to Hell because I don't share it with you?

----------


## erowe1

> So they did not wail, 'Lord, when did we see You..?' because they missed out on salvation, but merely as one last bout of academic perversity, because they just like to argue?


Complaining about a punishment after you got caught is not repentance.




> Interesting interpretation.  You figure I'm going to Hell because I don't share it with you?


Why do you keep asking things like this?

I've noticed a lot of people here seem to get really sensitive about whether or not they meet the criteria that other people think God has for sending people to Hell. I really don't get that. I've always just taken for granted that there are billions of people in the world who think that salvation requires something I don't have, and it's never bothered me to know that they think that.

----------


## acptulsa

Meanwhile, over in the other thread...




> Quit lying , you satanic idiot.


Talk about hopeless.

_*sigh*_




> Complaining about a punishment after you got caught is not repentance.


Didn't say it was, erowe1.  Just the opposite.  Narrowing the argument isn't the way to win it.

You'll never convince me that salvation is dependent upon what the definition if 'is' is.  Just because it's called 'God's Law' doesn't mean we all have to be lawyers to be saved.

----------


## Brett85

> First of all, I think it's worth pointing out that that is describing one particular judgment. In this case, it is a judgment of the Gentiles alive on the earth when Jesus returns according to how they treated his brethren, Israel, during the Tribulation.
> 
> That doesn't resolve the problem you're asking about. But I think it does undercut the ideas people have that they are going to be in this judgment.
> 
> To get to the issue you're asking about, I just see it as a judgment of separating the saved who undergo that judgment from the unsaved who undergo it by way of the litmus test of their works. Those works aren't how they become saved, but they are the evidence of the salvation that they will have had by God's grace.


There's a lot of disagreement among Christians in regards to eschatology; not every Christian agrees on when this judgment will actually occur and who will be judged.  But, Jesus did say that in this judgment the goats are those who are going to face eternal punishment, however you want to define that.  And he said that they will face this punishment because they didn't feed the poor, visit those in prison, etc.  I can accept the idea that if a believer has true faith, it will cause them to do all of the things listed in Matthew 25.  Still, there are a lot of non Christians who do the good works mentioned in Matthew 25.  That's why it's puzzling, because if you just looked at this passage in isolation without looking at the rest of the Bible, you could conclude that people could make it to heaven simply be doing good works.  I don't personally believe that, since so many other passages make it clear that you have to accept Christ to be saved.  But that particular passage seems strange to me since there's no mention of salvation by accepting Christ's gift on the cross.

----------


## erowe1

> There's a lot of disagreement among Christians in regards to eschatology; not every Christian agrees on when this judgment will actually occur and who will be judged.  But, Jesus did say that in this judgment the goats are those who are going to face eternal punishment, however you want to define that.  And he said that they will face this punishment because they didn't feed the poor, visit those in prison, etc.  I can accept the idea that if a believer has true faith, it will cause them to do all of the things listed in Matthew 25.  Still, there are a lot of non Christians who do the good works mentioned in Matthew 25.  That's why it's puzzling, because if you just looked at this passage in isolation without looking at the rest of the Bible, you could conclude that people could make it to heaven simply be doing good works.  I don't personally believe that, since so many other passages make it clear that you have to accept Christ to be saved.  But that particular passage seems strange to me since there's no mention of salvation by accepting Christ's gift on the cross.


All of that is what I was talking about in my last two sentences. I just don't see a real problem. Other scriptures promise that all who have saving faith are saved, and this passage doesn't contradict them.

----------


## Brett85

> The idea of being saved by faith alone was a foreign concept to the early Church and did not develop until much later in Christianity (indeed 1600 years later) as a deviation to the apostolic faith, so you are in good company if it this doctrine seems to be 'missing something'.


I can accept the idea of salvation by "faith alone" if you define faith as something that naturally produces good works.  Unfortunately, a lot of people who describe themselves as Christians don't define it that way, and believe that they can just go out and live whatever kind of lifestyle they want to live and sin as much as they want to, since they believe that all you have to do to be saved is believe that Jesus died and rose again.  So I think if someone is going to say that salvation is by "faith alone," the word "faith" has to be defined as something that naturally leads to good works.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> OK, I'm confused again....and I'm not trying to badger you, erowe1....just trying to understand.  Please help me.
> 
> In the post to which I replied this morning (the one where you replied to TC) you seemed to reject the idea that God does not want everyone (the non-elect?) to be saved and said that people could "want to repent and be saved is as a result of a work of grace that God does arousing that desire in them."
> 
> Maybe I jumped to a wrong conclusion in assuming this meant that it is possible for the non-elect to be saved according to Calvinism, which goes against what other Calvinists have said on this board.
> 
> So....is it possible or impossible for the non-elect to be saved according to Calvinism?  That's the question I'm asking in this post.





> I may have slightly misrepresented what Calvinism teaches earlier, so let me try to explain it better.  Calvinists believe in the doctrine of total depravity, which means that we're completely dead in our sins and our free will is bound by our depravity, and we aren't able to exercise our free will because of our depravity.  Thus, we aren't able to hear and accept the gospel on our own, without God regenerating us.  So they teach that God gives grace to the elect, the people who God chose to be saved from the very beginning of the world.  He chooses to regenerate those specific people, allowing them to hear and accept the gospel through his grace.  But everyone else he simply ignores and chooses not to regenerate.  He doesn't give the non elect the same grace that he gives the elect.  So yes, according to Calvinism, God wants all of the non elect to perish and not be saved.





> Nobody, by their own nature, will want to repent and be saved. The only way anybody ever will want to repent and be saved is by God doing a work of grace in their lives to arouse that desire. Absent such a work, every single one of us will reject God with 100% certainty. This does not require God to interfere with someone who was going to repent before God decided to blind them, because no such person exists.
> 
> But for the elect, and only the elect, God gives them the grace that leads them to faith.


Thanks and +rep to both of you for the clarification.

----------


## Brett85

> All of that is what I was talking about in my last two sentences. I just don't see a real problem. Other scriptures promise that all who have saving faith are saved, and this passage doesn't contradict them.


But it just seems like if you look at this passage in isolation you could conclude that a non believer could enter heaven, because there are non believers who feed the sick, give money to the poor, visit those in prison, etc.  See Phil4Paul's thread regarding that issue.  Again, I'm not saying I believe that, but I can see how someone can come to that conclusion by reading that passage by itself.

----------


## Terry1

> The idea of being saved by faith alone was a foreign concept to the early Church and did not develop until much later in Christianity (indeed 1600 years later) as a deviation to the apostolic faith, so you are in good company if it this doctrine seems to be 'missing something'.


Out of reps for you TER + reps!

----------


## moostraks

> I don't see that from the verse you quoted.
> 
> Some do want to be saved, but Jesus taught that that's only as a result of God's work arousing that desire in them and that it does not come naturally.


I would disagree with your position and would point folks to John 1:3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it. and

John 1:9 The true light that gives light to everyone was coming into the world. 10 He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. 11 He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. 12 Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God— 13 children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God.

----------


## erowe1

> I would disagree with your position and would point folks to John 1:3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it. and
> 
> John 1:9 The true light that gives light to everyone was coming into the world. 10 He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. 11 He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. 12 Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God— 13 children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s [sic] will, but born of God.


Your quote supports exactly what I said. Those who receive him do so, not as a result of any human decision or human will, but as a result of being born of God.

This theme that begins in John's prologue carried through the whole Gospel. And for those, like acptulsa, who only trust the red letters, it's found in a bunch of those parts of John too.

----------


## moostraks

> Your quote supports exactly what I said. Those who receive him do so, not as a result of any human decision or human will, but as a result of being born of God.
> 
> This theme that begins in John's prologue carried through the whole Gospel. And for those, like acptulsa, who only trust the red letters, it's found in a bunch of those parts of John too.


My disagreement comes in with the words light in _all_ mankind and the true light which gives light to _everyone_. _Then_, not being received by His own, to all who did receive Him, they become the children of God. So not just the elect are imbued with the light but all are and some will not receive Him and those who do then become the children of God.

----------


## TER

> I can accept the idea of salvation by "faith alone" if you define faith as something that naturally produces good works.  Unfortunately, a lot of people who describe themselves as Christians don't define it that way, and believe that they can just go out and live whatever kind of lifestyle they want to live and sin as much as they want to, since they believe that all you have to do to be saved is believe that Jesus died and rose again.  So I think if someone is going to say that salvation is by "faith alone," the word "faith" has to be defined as something that naturally leads to good works.


Well said.  Faith must be tied with works, otherwise it is a dead faith.  And I concur with what you say with regards to the dangers a theology of 'faith alone' leads, for then the believer may become complacent and even prideful to the degree where they believe to be saved just because they say it.  But by the fruits we can know the tree, and the fruits of faith are the good works.  Otherwise, it is a barren tree and our loving God does not desire us to be barren but to be fruitful.

----------


## erowe1

> But it just seems like if you look at this passage in isolation


But why would a Christian do that? Jesus himself didn't present it in isolation. And, as I said, it presents no contradiction of the doctrine of salvation by faith alone.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> OK, I'm confused again....and I'm not trying to badger you, erowe1....just trying to understand.  Please help me.
> 
> In the post to which I replied this morning (the one where you replied to TC) you seemed to reject the idea that God does not want everyone (the non-elect?) to be saved and said that people could "want to repent and be saved is as a result of a work of grace that God does arousing that desire in them."
> 
> Maybe I jumped to a wrong conclusion in assuming this meant that it is possible for the non-elect to be saved according to Calvinism, which goes against what other Calvinists have said on this board.
> 
> So....is it possible or impossible for the non-elect to be saved according to Calvinism?  That's the question I'm asking in this post.


I know Erowe1 replied to this ,but I want to add my answer: I'm on the same page as Erowe1 is.  The only reason anyone wants to be saved is because God has caused them to desire such.  God doesn't force anyone to disbelieve, they disbelieve already, because they are sinners.  We ALL disbelieve unless God regenerates us.




> Meanwhile, over in the other thread...
> 
> 
> 
> Talk about hopeless.
> 
> _*sigh*_


Yet you don't quote the post that provoked me to say that.  Terry1 is an idiot because she continually lies about what the Calvinistic position is (Saying that Calvinists don't believe in repentance and so forth.)  I don't know for sure whether she's doing it on purpose or if she has a mental disorder.  Either way, she's not worth anyone's time and should not be allowed to post here.

I guess Sola is better than me because he apologized for calling her an idiot.  I'm not going to.  She's a liar and she is evil. I don't mind that people disagree with us.  I don't even care if people believe we aren't Christians.  I certainly don't care if people ask for clarification (as Cajuncocoa has done multiple times here.)  But the lies are not cool. 






> There's a lot of disagreement among Christians in regards to eschatology; not every Christian agrees on when this judgment will actually occur and who will be judged.  But, Jesus did say that in this judgment the goats are those who are going to face eternal punishment, however you want to define that.  And he said that they will face this punishment because they didn't feed the poor, visit those in prison, etc.  I can accept the idea that if a believer has true faith, it will cause them to do all of the things listed in Matthew 25.  Still, there are a lot of non Christians who do the good works mentioned in Matthew 25.  That's why it's puzzling, because if you just looked at this passage in isolation without looking at the rest of the Bible, you could conclude that people could make it to heaven simply be doing good works.  I don't personally believe that, since so many other passages make it clear that you have to accept Christ to be saved.  But that particular passage seems strange to me since there's no mention of salvation by accepting Christ's gift on the cross.


I disagree with erowe1's interpretation of that passage myself (I don't think its talking about national Israel, but I guess that's the distinction between dispensational and covenental theological systems) but I don't think the distinction is relevant.  This passage is not saying that works is what makes the difference between salvation and damnation.  The point is that the sheep do not think they are good enough, and the goats do think they are good enough.  Consider that both sides question their judgments.  The sheep don't know that they helped Christ, and the Gentiles don't know that they didn't.  The Christians are naturally driven to good works, yet they don't think they are good.  The Gentiles think they are good, despite the fact that they don't do good works all the time.

One question I do  have though: I've read Matthew 25.  So, why would I still ask this question at the judgment?




> But it just seems like if you look at this passage in isolation you could conclude that a non believer could enter heaven, because there are non believers who feed the sick, give money to the poor, visit those in prison, etc.  See Phil4Paul's thread regarding that issue.  Again, I'm not saying I believe that, but I can see how someone can come to that conclusion by reading that passage by itself.


I can too, but its still wrong.

----------


## Terry1

> But why would a Christian do that? Jesus himself didn't present it in isolation. And, as I said, it presents no contradiction of the doctrine of salvation by faith alone.



*James 2:17 
Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.*

This doesn't mean what is says either does it erowe1.

----------


## acptulsa

> And for those, like acptulsa, who only trust the red letters, it's found in a bunch of those parts of John too.


Did I not quote Proverbs?  Any 'red letters' in the writings of Will Rogers?  Who's putting words in whose mouth now?




> Yet you don't quote the post that provoked me to say that.  Terry1 is an idiot because she continually lies about what the Calvinistic position is (Saying that Calvinists don't believe in repentance and so forth.)  I don't know for sure whether she's doing it on purpose or if she has a mental disorder.  Either way, she's not worth anyone's time and should not be allowed to post here.





> 34But Jesus was saying, "Father, forgive them; for they do not know what they are doing."





> 34"A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another, even as I have loved you, that you also love one another. 35"By this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another."


---




> But it just seems like if you look at this passage in isolation you could conclude that a non believer could enter heaven, because there are non believers who feed the sick, give money to the poor, visit those in prison, etc.  See Phil4Paul's thread regarding that issue.  Again, I'm not saying I believe that, but I can see how someone can come to that conclusion by reading that passage by itself.


Jesus said I am the Way and the Light.  If my tomcat does something that illuminates one of the darker corners of my heart and helps me see the Way, there is Jesus.

If I reject that Light and refuse to accept that glimpse of the Way because my cat is not a Christian, or a graduate of my favorite seminary school, or a Card-Carrying Calvinist, or whatever, I can't even claim the devil made an ass of me.  Because I surely was an ass to begin with.

Jesus goes where He will and operates in the way that He deems best.  It is not my place to tell the Lord that He has no right to move in mysterious ways.

I figure Jesus taught me to be tolerant for _my_ benefit, not His.

----------


## Nang

Jesus Christ is not a mystic.

The definition of God's "mysterious ways" is not human mysticism, but infinite and inexhaustible truths.   Deuteronomy 29:29.

----------


## acptulsa

> Jesus Christ is not a mystic.
> 
> The definition of God's "mysterious ways" is not human mysticism, but infinite and inexhaustible truths.   Deuteronomy 29:29.


Nobody said it was mysticism.  The fox does mysterious things, but then comes up with his prey.  Until it comes up with its prey, we think the fox is crazy.  After it comes up with its prey, we realize it knew something we didn't.

We are not omniscient.  A model railroader throws a switch over here, and a train over there changes direction.  The cat calls it an unfathomable mystery.  And so the Lord moves and we don't know why.  But it suits His purpose, and sometimes, if we wait a while and have faith, we find it suits our purpose too.

----------


## moostraks

> Nobody said it was mysticism.  The fox does mysterious things, but then comes up with his prey.  Until it comes up with its prey, we think the fox is crazy.  After it comes up with its prey, we realize it knew something we didn't.
> 
> We are not omniscient.  A model railroader throws a switch over here, and a train over there changes direction.  The cat calls it an unfathomable mystery.  And so the Lord moves and we don't know why.  But it suits His purpose, and sometimes, if we wait a while and have faith, we find it suits our purpose too.


I think nang might be anxious we are a bunch of hippies here. When one becomes a legal literalist it seems the beauty of the unseen is lost.

----------


## RJB

St. Paul says in Acts 20:22 “And now, compelled by the Spirit, I am going to Jerusalem, not knowing what will happen to me there. 23 I only know that in every city the Holy Spirit warns me that prison and hardships are facing me. 24 However, I consider my life worth nothing to me; my only aim is to finish the race and complete the task the Lord Jesus has given me—the task of testifying to the good news of God’s grace."

----------


## acptulsa

> ...the task of testifying to the good news of God’s grace."


And I'd like to thank you, moonstraks, Miss Annie and some others for spreading good news, making joyful noises and generally favoring honey over vinegar.

It's refreshing.

----------


## RJB

Ephesians 5:1-2 
Therefore be imitators of God, as beloved children; and walk in love, just as Christ also loved you and gave Himself up for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God as a fragrant aroma.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Ephesians 5:1-2 
> Therefore be imitators of God, as beloved children; and walk in love, just as Christ also loved you and gave Himself up for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God as a fragrant aroma.


Amen.

But... do you think anyone here disagrees with that?  Who?

----------


## RJB

> Amen.
> 
> But... do you think anyone here disagrees with that?  Who?


Not everyone posts in the religion section purely for disagreement.

----------


## mosquitobite

James 3:13-18





> 13 Who is wise and understanding among you? Let them show it by their good life, by deeds done in the humility that comes from wisdom. 14 But if you harbor bitter envy and selfish ambition in your hearts, do not boast about it or deny the truth. 15 Such “wisdom” does not come down from heaven but is earthly, unspiritual, demonic. 16 For where you have envy and selfish ambition, there you find disorder and every evil practice.
> 
> 17 But the wisdom that comes from heaven is first of all pure; then *peace-loving, considerate, submissive, full of mercy and good fruit*, impartial and sincere. 18 Peacemakers who sow in peace reap a harvest of righteousness.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Not everyone posts in the religion section purely for disagreement.


Fair enough  +rep.

----------

