[Video] Why Islam Is The Anti Christ

[Jumbo Shrimp]

Oh, a "heretic", huh? So where are coming from then?

While both Arminius and Calvin were both heretics who are burning in hell (as there is no salvation outside the Church), Arminius was at least more logical and theologically sound than Calvinism, at least when it comes to free will.

In Arminianism, a person goes to hell because they are sinners and have rejected God's offer of Salvation through his Son, Jesus Christ. While in Calvinism, you go to Hell because God wanted you to go to hell. Had he not wanted you to go to Hell, he would have elected you unto Salvation.

The god of Calvinism is plain cruel.

 

[erowe1]

While both Arminius and Calvin were both heretics who are burning in hell

Burning in hell for what sins?

 

[Jumbo Shrimp]

Burning in hell for what sins?

Heresy, for starters.

 

[erowe1]

Heresy, for starters.

Whose heresy? Their own?

 

[Jumbo Shrimp]

Whose heresy? Their own?

They were heretics, and unless they repented (which there is no evidence of), they are surely in He'll.

 

[Sola_Fide]

They were heretics, and unless they repented (which there is no evidence of), they are surely in He'll.

Heresy based on ...what?

 

[erowe1]

They were heretics, and unless they repented (which there is no evidence of), they are surely in He'll.

But in post #74 you quoted 2 Corinthians 5:18, 19:

"And all things are of God who has reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ. To wit that God was in Christ, reconciling the WORLD unto himself, NOT imputing their trespasses unto them."

And you used that to argue that Calvinists are heretics because they believe Jesus didn't save the whole world, but only the elect. And here you are saying Jesus didn't save the whole world, but only those who repent and belong to the Church.

Notice what the verse says (and you yourself emphasized the word "not"): "NOT imputing their trespasses unto them."

So if you insist that what 2 Corinthians 5:18-19 says, it says about the whole world, and not only some, then when you turn around and say that some people (members of the world) are in hell, how can that be, if their trespasses are not imputed to them? Whose trespasses are they being punished for?

 

[Jumbo Shrimp]

Heresy based on ...what?

Sacred Scripture and Holy Tradition.

Calvinists believe that God predestines some men to evil and hell.
Armininians believe that they can save themselves apart from God's grace.

Both views are wrong, heretical, and dangerous.

 

[Jumbo Shrimp]

But in post #74 you quoted 2 Corinthians 5:18, 19:


And you used that to argue that Calvinists are heretics because they believe Jesus didn't save the whole world, but only the elect. And here you are saying Jesus didn't save the whole world, but only those who repent and belong to the Church.

Notice what the verse says (and you yourself emphasized the word "not"): "NOT imputing their trespasses unto them."

So if you insist that what 2 Corinthians 5:18-19 says, it says about the whole world, and not only some, then when you turn around and say that some people (members of the world) are in hell, how can that be, if their trespasses are not imputed to them? Whose trespasses are they being punished for?

1. Man cannot be saved without the efficacious and gratuitous grace given by God alone. The elect that God chooses are are not chosen because God foresees how the elect will respond to His grace, but because of His grace alone. The Council of Trent tells us that the gift of final perseverance cannot be obtained or merited, but it is given by God as a gift. Complete predestination, which includes first grace, as well as a series of graces up until glorification, is gratuitous and is chosen by God previous to foreseen merits. It is not based upon God's foreknowledge. Finally no man can boast of being better than another, because it is God's grace only that can elevate man to being better than another, not one's own choices or works. If we say that we choose or act better than another apart from God's grace, and as a result we are saved because of that choice or act, then we surely will be able to boast that we are better than another.

2. God did not predestine anyone to evil, or to hell. The penalty of damnation is a result of man's final impenitence, not caused by God, but only permitted by Him. So when a man commits evil, he does so willfully. When man does good, he is helped by God's grace. God also in some way wills that all men be saved, but not all men will be saved. Man is saved by God's grace, and man is condemned by his own freewill. God did not remove freewill from man. If man had no freewill God's justice would mean nothing.

God wills all men to be saved, (I Tim 2:4) and God predestines some to be saved. (Rom 8:29). Why God leaves some men to their own freewill destruction and chooses others to be saved is a mystery that none of us will know until eternity. We cannot know or understand the mind of God. These two truths should keep us on the boat, neither falling into despair, nor into presumption. No man can know for sure if he is predestined, and yet man knows that he should rely on God for everything, even prayer. God's sovereignty is never upset, and the fact that men can choose how they live and respond to God is never compromised. Somehow all of this falls into God's sovereign creation, a creation that he predestines, yet allows to remain free.

 

[erowe1]

1. Man cannot be saved without the efficacious and gratuitous grace given by God alone. The elect that God chooses are are not chosen because God foresees how the elect will respond to His grace, but because of His grace alone. The Council of Trent tells us that the gift of final perseverance cannot be obtained or merited, but it is given by God as a gift. Complete predestination, which includes first grace, as well as a series of graces up until glorification, is gratuitous and is chosen by God previous to foreseen merits. It is not based upon God's foreknowledge. Finally no man can boast of being better than another, because it is God's grace only that can elevate man to being better than another, not one's own choices or works. If we say that we choose or act better than another apart from God's grace, and as a result we are saved because of that choice or act, then we surely will be able to boast that we are better than another.

2. God did not predestine anyone to evil, or to hell. The penalty of damnation is a result of man's final impenitence, not caused by God, but only permitted by Him. So when a man commits evil, he does so willfully. When man does good, he is helped by God's grace. God also in some way wills that all men be saved, but not all men will be saved. Man is saved by God's grace, and man is condemned by his own freewill. God did not remove freewill from man. If man had no freewill God's justice would mean nothing.

God wills all men to be saved, (I Tim 2:4) and God predestines some to be saved. (Rom 8:29). Why God leaves some men to their own freewill destruction and chooses others to be saved is a mystery that none of us will know until eternity. We cannot know or understand the mind of God. These two truths should keep us on the boat, neither falling into despair, nor into presumption. No man can know for sure if he is predestined, and yet man knows that he should rely on God for everything, even prayer. God's sovereignty is never upset, and the fact that men can choose how they live and respond to God is never compromised. Somehow all of this falls into God's sovereign creation, a creation that he predestines, yet allows to remain free.

Could you relate this to the point you made earlier when you quoted 2 Corinthians 5:18-19?

I thought the reason you quoted it was because it says "world" and you were accusing Calvinists of not applying what it says to the whole world. But if you yourself don't apply what it says to the whole world, then what was your point?

 

[Sola_Fide]

Could you relate this to the point you made earlier when you quoted 2 Corinthians 5:18-19?

I thought the reason you quoted it was because it says "world" and you were accusing Calvinists of not applying what it says to the whole world. But if you yourself don't apply what it says to the whole world, then what was your point?

This is of course where the council of Trent has some trouble. The council of Trent rejects the entire (biblical) concept of imputation, and instead introduces the concept of "infusion". Man is infused with grace so that he can merit his own justification. Entirely unbiblical...

 

[Sola_Fide]

The difference between imputation and infusion. This explains it perfectly:

http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=29

In returning to the Bible, the Protestant Reformers utterly rejected the idea that works wrought by the power of the Holy Spirit in us can obtain the grace of justification. Although the Roman Catholic position on good works and infused grace was clothed with the appearance of sanctity, Luther discerned that it was a diabolical doctrine devised to lead men astray from the objective Gospel. Roman Catholic doctrine teaches men to trust in God’s work in them. God’s work and their own works become indistinguishable. Roman Catholic theology leads them actually to depend upon their own works. Armed with the great teaching of the sinfulness of man’s nature, Luther was able to show that the good works of the best saints are defiled by the sinfulness and imperfection of human nature. “For there is not a just man on Earth who does good and does not sin”(Ecclesiastes 7:20). “But we are all like an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are like filthy rags” (Isaiah 64:6). “If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us” (1 John 1:8). Good works, declared the Reformers, can only be considered good if the merits of Jesus are added to them to make up for their deficiency and imperfection.

Wrote Luther, “No one can be certain that he is not continually committing mortal sin, because of the most secret vice of pride.” The pope condemned this statement in his bull excommunicating Luther, but the Reformer responded, “Therefore I must retract this article, and I say now that no one should doubt that all our good works are mortal sins, if they are judged according to God’s judgment and severity and not accepted as good by grace alone.” Again he declared, “Every good work is sin unless it is forgiven by the mercy of God.” In A Commentary on St Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians (176, 177), Luther thundered that the merits of all works, “before grace and after,” should be thrown down to Hell. Thus did this man of God teach that we can never look within us for any work of justifying merit.

Contrary to Roman Catholicism, the Protestants taught that while sanctifying grace within a believer enables him to do good works, only the merits of Christ can make those good works acceptable to God. Sanctifying grace does not make us the friends of God, they said, but is rather the result of Christ’s work done wholly outside of us. The most thorough and Biblical of the Reformed confessions of faith, the Westminster Confession, describes justification in these words:

Those whom God effectually calls, he also freely justifies: not by infusing righteousness into them, but by pardoning their sins, and by accounting and accepting their persons as righteous; not for anything wrought in them, or done by them, but for Christ’s sake alone; nor by imputing faith itself, the act of believing, or any other evangelical obedience to them, as their righteousness; but by imputing the obedience and satisfaction of Christ unto them, they receiving and resting on him and his righteousness by faith; which faith they have not of themselves, it is the gift of God.

 

[moostraks]

Where do you get this idea? From the effeminate men in robes who tell you this? Who interprets the "traditions"? Who interprets the interpretations of the traditions? Who interprets the interpretations of the interpretations of the traditions? Who interprets the intepretations of the interpretations of the interpretations of the traditions?

But to me it is very predictable that you would hold this view. It is no surprise that a man-centered theology which exalts man's will would also exalt man's authority in a church over the Word of God. It is all connected theologically.





Who knows what you're talking about here. Are you so confused as to think that a man named John Calvin is the only person to see the doctrines of grace in Scripture? Are you so confused as to think Paul didn't teach election? Who knows...




"This new system..." It's as if you (or wherever you are getting this from) is saying that the doctrines of grace are something new and novel. No, they are simply Biblical. It is the same thing Jesus and Paul taught. PAUL TAUGHT ELECTION IN THE VERSE YOU JUST QUOTED:



Paul is right. We should stand firm on what was passed on to us by the apostles by word or letter. Since the apostles have all gone to heaven, and since they cannot give us oral tradition, what God has preserved for us is the Scripture, which is all we need to be equipped for theology, philosophy, and life:

Apostolic succession. It is how the traditions are passed down within the Church so that faulty teaching does not mislead naive people. In matters of contention, one can look to those who have been charged with maintaining the original intent of the Bible and this is where a pedigree comes in handy. It is interesting that you will trust the Bible is inerrant, yet you act as if it was written down as the events occured.(well more like immediately upon death of the 12...)


Romans 10:17 Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word about Christ.

Ephesians 1:13 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,

2 Timothy 1:13 What you heard from me, keep as the pattern of sound teaching, with faith and love in Christ Jesus. 14 Guard the good deposit that was entrusted to you—guard it with the help of the Holy Spirit who lives in us.

2 Timothy 4:2 Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all long suffering and doctrine.

3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;

4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.


As for your unhealthy obsession with election, why do you suppose you focus all your energy on this issue? Your views as put forth by calvin on 2 Thessalonians 2 seem to dismiss the possibility of verse 10 implying they received not the love because of their unwillingness and for this they were sent strong delusion. Yeah, the doctrines of grace are a novel invention of a more modern era than the original intent put forth by Scripture. It was why Calvin had to dismiss apostolic succession. He went off the ranch in a bad way and his doctrine when analyzed does not hold up to the good fruits standards. Since you are so willing to critique and ridicule everyone else's professed faith base (and are still wildly trying to defame mine and still are off base...) why are you refusing to hold Calvin up to the same criticism? He murdered his opposition and would murder or ostracize those who did not obey him in Geneva.

Matthew 7:16 By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. 19Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.

Galatians 5:19 The acts of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; 20 idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions 21 and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.

22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law. 24 Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. 25 Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit. 26 Let us not become conceited, provoking and envying each other.

 

[Sola_Fide]

Apostolic succession. It is how the traditions are passed down within the Church so that faulty teaching does not mislead naive people. In matters of contention, one can look to those who have been charged with maintaining the original intent of the Bible and this is where a pedigree comes in handy. It is interesting that you will trust the Bible is inerrant, yet you act as if it was written down as the events occured.(well more like immediately upon death of the 12...)


Romans 10:17 Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word about Christ.

Ephesians 1:13 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,

2 Timothy 1:13 What you heard from me, keep as the pattern of sound teaching, with faith and love in Christ Jesus. 14 Guard the good deposit that was entrusted to you—guard it with the help of the Holy Spirit who lives in us.

2 Timothy 4:2 Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all long suffering and doctrine.

3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;

4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.


As for your unhealthy obsession with election, why do you suppose you focus all your energy on this issue? Your views as put forth by calvin on 2 Thessalonians 2 seem to dismiss the possibility of verse 10 implying they received not the love because of their unwillingness and for this they were sent strong delusion. Yeah, the doctrines of grace are a novel invention of a more modern era than the original intent put forth by Scripture. It was why Calvin had to dismiss apostolic succession. He went off the ranch in a bad way and his doctrine when analyzed does not hold up to the good fruits standards. Since you are so willing to critique and ridicule everyone else's professed faith base (and are still wildly trying to defame mine and still are off base...) why are you refusing to hold Calvin up to the same criticism? He murdered his opposition and would murder or ostracize those who did not obey him in Geneva.

Matthew 7:16 By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. 19Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.

Galatians 5:19 The acts of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; 20 idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions 21 and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.

22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law. 24 Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. 25 Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit. 26 Let us not become conceited, provoking and envying each other.

When I read this, I actually think that you believe that a man named John Calvin somehow created a new way to read the Bible. Even as bizarre and ridiculous as that is, when I read what you write, I actually think you believe it.

2nd Thessalonians 2:

2 Thessalonians 2:11-15 NIV

For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness.

But we ought always to thank God for you, brothers and sisters loved by the Lord, because God chose you as firstfruits to be saved through the sanctifying work of the Spirit and through belief in the truth.

He called you to this through our gospel, that you might share in the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.

God sends men powerful delusions so that they believe lies, and He chooses some to be saved through the Gospel, purely by grace. Take John Calvin's name out of your head, because that is just confusing you. Just read the verse I posted (the one you originally posted).

What does that verse say if not that God chose the church at Thessalonica, and he sends delusions to the ones who are not saved? Take Calvin, Luther, all those guys out of your mind.... What does the verse say?

 

[moostraks]

When I read this, I actually think that you believe that a man named John Calvin somehow created a new way to read the Bible. Even as bizarre and ridiculous as that is, when I read what you write, I actually think you believe it.

2nd Thessalonians 2:


God sends men powerful delusions so that they believe lies, and He chooses some to be saved through the Gospel, purely by grace. Take John Calvin's name out of your head, because that is just confusing you. Just read the verse I posted (the one you originally posted).

What does that verse say if not that God chose the church at Thessalonica, and he sends delusions to the ones who are not saved? Take Calvin, Luther, all those guys out of your mind.... What does the verse say?

Again I will ask before addressing your point, if all is predetermined and none of the information you share is of value to others because He has decided the fate of all parties, why do you persist? Can you not answer this?

I am not confused. Calvinism/Doctrines of Grace is based upon Calvin's Institutes. It is not sola scriptura, because one is in need of Institutes in order to puzzle out the logic used in the Calvinist tulip. Calvin created a method of understanding Scriptures that furthered a self serving goal. When one takes the time to look at the history of John Calvin, then one gains a perspective of why he chose the viewpoints he put forth. So why are you refusing to address the historical background as you have no problem insulting other people's choices?

I already discussed 2 Thessalonians 2. You quote from verse 11 but as I said if you back up to verse 10 and then think at it from a viewpoint that makes it not conflict with other Scriptures, one could understand that in their unwillingness they did not receive the love of truth, for this the consequence was the sending of strong delusions. You see love is one of those gifts that is exhibited by those who embrace the narrow path. You are so obsessed with seeing predestination in every verse that you cannot conceive of it in any other manner. Why are you so possessed with the need to publicly claim this elect status? If you are a member of the elect, where is your humility to those you believe cannot change their status as you claim them to be destined for hell? You seem so joyful in your ridiculing others.

 

[Sola_Fide]

Again I will ask before addressing your point, if all is predetermined and none of the information you share is of value to others because He has decided the fate of all parties, why do you persist? Can you not answer this?

I am not confused. Calvinism/Doctrines of Grace is based upon Calvin's Institutes. It is not sola scriptura, because one is in need of Institutes in order to puzzle out the logic used in the Calvinist tulip. Calvin created a method of understanding Scriptures that furthered a self serving goal. When one takes the time to look at the history of John Calvin, then one gains a perspective of why he chose the viewpoints he put forth. So why are you refusing to address the historical background as you have no problem insulting other people's choices?

I already discussed 2 Thessalonians 2. You quote from verse 11 but as I said if you back up to verse 10 and then think at it from a viewpoint that makes it not conflict with other Scriptures, one could understand that in their unwillingness they did not receive the love of truth, for this the consequence was the sending of strong delusions. You see love is one of those gifts that is exhibited by those who embrace the narrow path. You are so obsessed with seeing predestination in every verse that you cannot conceive of it in any other manner. Why are you so possessed with the need to publicly claim this elect status? If you are a member of the elect, where is your humility to those you believe cannot change their status as you claim them to be destined for hell? You seem so joyful in your ridiculing others.

So, then you do understand that God violates man's will.

If God sends men strong delusions so that they believe lies, irregardless of if you think that occurs before or after what man decides, then you admit that God does violate the will.

But you have said that man is a free moral agent. How can man be a free moral agent if God prevents men from believing the truth?






Also, you never addressed (and can't explain) why the verse says God CHOSE the church at Thessalonica. I'm not talking about John Calvin, or Martin Luther, or John Owen, or John Gill or anybody right now. I'm talking about the text of Scripture which the effiminate men in robes you listen to tell you to ignore. Why does the text say God chooses if He doesn't?

 

[moostraks]

So, then you do understand that God violates man's will.

If God sends men strong delusions so that they believe lies, irregardless of if you think that occurs before or after what man decides, then you admit that God does violate the will.

But you have said that man is a free moral agent. How can man be a free moral agent if God prevents men from believing the truth?






Also, you never addressed (and can't explain) why the verse says God CHOSE the church at Thessalonica. I'm not talking about John Calvin, or Martin Luther, or John Owen, or John Gill or anybody right now. I'm talking about the text of Scripture which the effiminate men in robes you listen to tell you to ignore. Why does the text say God chooses if He doesn't?

No, you are misrepresenting what I said. The people were willfully disobeying, this was evidenced in their lack of the fruit of love of the truth, therefore strong delusions were sent as a consequence. Do I think there are consequences for our actions? Uh, yeah. So people have turned from the truth and then get duped by an unethical being. Such is the manner of many wilfully (and sometimes not so willfully) disobedient acts done by mankind. Am I going to go through full text of Thessalonians with you? No. It was a waste of my time when I went through all of Romans for you to act as if it didn't exist then try to belittle me when I brought it to your attention and you still never really addressed my positions.

As for your constant disparaging comments about effeminate men in robes, you are barking up the wrong tree for trying to yank my chain with that one, but you might be suceeding in offending other people. Why do you feel justified in being so disgustingly rude? What are you trying to promote here if not strife and envy? What is your purpose if there is nothing you can change by discussing these issues? Where is your humility?

Matthew 7:16 By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. 19Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.

Galatians 5:19 The acts of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; 20 idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions 21 and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.

22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law. 24 Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. 25 Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit. 26 Let us not become conceited, provoking and envying each other.

 

[Sola_Fide]

No, you are misrepresenting what I said. The people were willfully disobeying, this was evidenced in their lack of the fruit of love of the truth, therefore strong delusions were sent as a consequence. Do I think there are consequences for our actions? Uh, yeah.

So God is making people believe a lie and preventing them from coming to a knowledge of the truth. If God is sending them "a strong delusion so that they believe the lie" then that means that they are being prevented from coming to the truth.

This does not comport with the view of "free will". How can God take away your will and your will still be free? It makes no sense. Arminianism makes no sense. It is not Biblical or logical.

So people have turned from the truth and then get duped by an unethical being.

2nd Thessalonians 2:11-12

For this reason God will send upon them a deluding influence so that they will believe what is false, in order that they all may be judged who did not believe the truth, but took pleasure in wickedness

God sends the delusion, intentionally...so that they will believe the lie and be judged. How does this comport with "free will"? How can man be a free moral agent if God is sending people delusions and preventing them from believing the truth?

Such is the manner of many wilfully (and sometimes not so willfully) disobedient acts done by mankind. Am I going to go through full text of Thessalonians with you? No. It was a waste of my time when I went through all of Romans for you to act as if it didn't exist then try to belittle me when I brought it to your attention and you still never really addressed my positions.

No offense, but when you address the text of Romans in a serious manner, I will respond if I have time.

As for your constant disparaging comments about effeminate men in robes, you are barking up the wrong tree for trying to yank my chain with that one, but you might be suceeding in offending other people. Why do you feel justified in being so disgustingly rude?

I am exceedingly justified in hating evil and demeaning and offending any of the devil's schemes. Any false system that perverts the free grace of God into works-salvationism is evil, and therefore exceedingly worthy of the harshest condemnation.

Also, the people who promote the devil's false system of works-salvationism are also worthy of condemnation, because not only are they sons of hell, but they make the people who listen to them twice the sons of hell that they are. Paul called his opponents who taught works-salvationism in the the book of Galatians "fools". Martin Luther was a master of demeaning and deriding his opponents.

All I'm saying is that offensive language and demeaning language has it's place in the defense of the gospel.

What are you trying to promote here if not strife and envy? What is your purpose if there is nothing you can change by discussing these issues? Where is your humility?

It's not my job to convince anyone. I just defend God's free grace as the gospel declares it and the Spirit does the convicting. The best way to do this (in my mind) is to simply lay out a text of Scripture and see how your view of things comports with that text of Scripture. If your view of things is in direct contradition with the text, then sometimes all that needs to be done is to leave people with the understanding that what they believe is no longer Biblical.


By the way, after a lot of study and thinking about this, I am beginning to agree with the Reformers that the "man of lawlessness" and the "mystery of lawlessness" that was at work even at that time was the ideas that led to Popery. 2nd Thessalonians in full:

Concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered to him, we ask you, brothers and sisters, not to become easily unsettled or alarmed by the teaching allegedly from us—whether by a prophecy or by word of mouth or by letter—asserting that the day of the Lord has already come. Don’t let anyone deceive you in any way, for that day will not come until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the man doomed to destruction. He will oppose and will exalt himself over everything that is called God or is worshiped, so that he sets himself up in God’s temple, proclaiming himself to be God.

Don’t you remember that when I was with you I used to tell you these things? And now you know what is holding him back, so that he may be revealed at the proper time. For the secret power of lawlessness is already at work; but the one who now holds it back will continue to do so till he is taken out of the way. And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will overthrow with the breath of his mouth and destroy by the splendor of his coming. The coming of the lawless one will be in accordance with how Satan works. He will use all sorts of displays of power through signs and wonders that serve the lie, and all the ways that wickedness deceives those who are perishing. They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness.

But we ought always to thank God for you, brothers and sisters loved by the Lord, because God chose you as firstfruits to be saved through the sanctifying work of the Spirit and through belief in the truth. He called you to this through our gospel, that you might share in the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.

So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.

May our Lord Jesus Christ himself and God our Father, who loved us and by his grace gave us eternal encouragement and good hope, encourage your hearts and strengthen you in every good deed and word.

I believe that Paul here is describing what would eventually become Popery. Popes have declared themselves as "Christ on earth" and "God on earth":

"The Pope and God are the same, so he has all power in Heaven and earth."

Pope Pius V, quoted in Barclay, Chapter XXVII, p. 218, "Cities Petrus Bertanous"

 

[Sola_Fide]

Again I will ask before addressing your point, if all is predetermined and none of the information you share is of value to others because He has decided the fate of all parties, why do you persist? Can you not answer this?

If all is predestined, why eat?

If all is predestined, why wake up?

If all is predestined, why pray?

The answer is that our eating, our waking up, and our praying is included in the predestination. God predestines the means as well as the ends.

I am not confused. Calvinism/Doctrines of Grace is based upon Calvin's Institutes.

Yep. You're confused. To be that uninformed about church history and the history of theology while trying to engage in debates about the issue is... really, really bad. You have Google...why not use it?

It is not sola scriptura, because one is in need of Institutes in order to puzzle out the logic used in the Calvinist tulip. Calvin created a method of understanding Scriptures that furthered a self serving goal. When one takes the time to look at the history of John Calvin, then one gains a perspective of why he chose the viewpoints he put forth. So why are you refusing to address the historical background as you have no problem insulting other people's choices?

So not only are you uninformed about the history of theological ideas, you are also uninformed about the history of Calvin in Geneva. But instead of trying to understand the magesterial reformation and the evolution of how Calvinism eventually led to the most free experiment in the history of mankind, you are going to continue in the idea that "Calvin murdered Servetus" when you don't even know anything about anything in regards to that time period.

When you understand the magesterial reformation, and when you understand that the entire world (Romanism and Protestantism) was a fusion of church and state at the time, and when you educate yourself about the events surrounding Servetus and Calvin's role in it (he wasn't even a citizen of Geneva at the time), then we can have a discussion about it.

If you are just googleing "Calvin murdered Servetus" without caring to educate yourself about what really happened and the situation of the time, then I have no respect for what you are saying...sorry. If you want to get into the massacres and slaughters of the millions of innocent people that have occured in the history of Popery, I'd be glad to send you some links.

You are so obsessed with seeing predestination in every verse that you cannot conceive of it in any other manner. Why are you so possessed with the need to publicly claim this elect status? If you are a member of the elect, where is your humility to those you believe cannot change their status as you claim them to be destined for hell? You seem so joyful in your ridiculing others.

But what do I have that God has not given me? Nothing. I don't boast about anything but God's grace alone.

I don't boast about my will. I don't boast about self-righteousness or goodness. I don't boast about my choices. I don't boast about my decisions.

I boast only in God's grace because I know my sinful heart and I know God's unyeilding holiness.

 

[moostraks]

So God is making people believe a lie and preventing them from coming to a knowledge of the truth. If God is sending them "a strong delusion so that they believe the lie" then that means that they are being prevented from coming to the truth.

This does not comport with the view of "free will". How can God take away your will and your will still be free? It makes no sense. Arminianism makes no sense. It is not Biblical or logical.







God sends the delusion, intentionally...so that they will believe the lie and be judged. How does this comport with "free will"? How can man be a free moral agent if God is sending people delusions and preventing them from believing the truth?





No offense, but when you address the text of Romans in a serious manner, I will respond if I have time.





I am exceedingly justified in hating evil and demeaning and offending any of the devil's schemes. Any false system that perverts the free grace of God into works-salvationism is evil, and therefore exceedingly worthy of the harshest condemnation.

Also, the people who promote the devil's false system of works-salvationism are also worthy of condemnation, because not only are they sons of hell, but they make the people who listen to them twice the sons of hell that they are. Paul called his opponenets who taught works-salvationism in the the book of Galatians "fools". Martin Luther was a master of demeaning and deriding his opponents.

All I'm saying is that offensive language and demeaning language has it's place in the defense of the gospel.




It's not my job to convince anyone. I just defend God's free grace as the gospel declares it and the Spirit does the convicting. The best way to do this (in my mind) is to simply lay out a text of Scripture and see how your view of things comports with that text of Scripture. If your view of things is in direct contradition with the text, then sometimes all that needs to be done is to leave people with the understanding that what they believe is no longer Biblical.


By the way, after a lot of study and thinking about this, I am beginning to agree with the Reformers that the "man of lawlessness" and the "mystery of lawlessness" that was at work even at that time was the ideas that led to Popery. 2nd Thessalonians in full:



I believe that Paul here is describing what would eventually become Popery. Popes have declared themselves as "Christ on earth" and "God on earth":

Your justification for your behavior is pathetic. So the fruits of the spirit only apply when your are in the company of good Calvinists? Why do you suppose we are to judge tree by its fruits and are told what the fruits of the Spirit are? You make it a point to be as belittling as possible to the people you address. You are so drunk on your own ego that you think you are valid in the manner you address people with your rude comments.

It is ridiculous that you make demands of people to address the sections of the Bible you put forth, screaming in all caps, and then refuse to acknowledge anything that opposes your viewpoint until you find it worthy of your attention. Who do you think you are to be so disrespectful of someone who makes an honest response to you? It is despicable behavior indicative of a haughty spirit. You seem to suffer from delusions of grandeur in thinking you should be compared to Paul and Martin Luther.

All admonishment should be undertaken carefully, to ensure that one doesn't get swept up into feeding our own ego. Your rude comments are extraneous. Is there a reason you felt the need to use the same descriptive for priests except to try and extract a negative reaction through its repetitive use? It is much how you feel the need to go after a person's religion as opposed to putting forth your viewpoint on the discussion at hand and letting the Spirit move. Or how you try to use belittling comments towards people so they come at the conversation in an angry manner. You can whitewash it any way you see fit, but most of us have enough discernment to see what you are doing is puffing yourself up, much like your obsession with seeing predestination in every bowl of corn flakes. My opinion is you are obsessed because it validates a lifestyle in which you think you can be absolved of all inappropriate behavior and be as verbally abusive to others without consequence. I am judging your behavior by your fruits and finding your character is lacking spiritual maturity worthy of teaching.

As for 2 Thessalonians-I can lead a horse to water but can't make them drink, so again- if a person embarks on willful disobediance then the consequence of be giving over to sure delusion is perfectly understandable. The concept is those in question have embarked on a path where they have turned their back on the Lord and at some point they are no longer given the opportunity but have sealed their ignorance. The Calvinist viewpoint of this is reading more into the matter than necessary imo.