Doctrine of devils

In the Bible God is always portrayed to be the antagonist of Satan. Always! If Calvinism were true Jesus has joined up with this diabolical wicked being because the Lord allegedly only cares for some of His lost created souls. And who are they according to Calvinism, His hand picked elect.

 

God is never portrayed to be the antagonist of Satan. That is pure nonsense, Ray. You know better.

You continue to repeat false statements against Calvinism. Calvinism has never made Jesus join up with Satan. Your tactics reveal a fundamental lack of understanding or a fundamental lack of integrity: either you don't know what you are talking about, or you know and your are purposely misrepresenting it. Either way, it is unacceptable.

 

Hey Ray

Nice point. The noble Calvinistic attempt to glorify God has actually made God the author of evil. Who needs a satan when we are all following scripts pre-determined from before the foundation of the world?

Lloyd

 

Greetings

Prophecy? What is your problem with prophecy. God is able to know in advance how He will do things! Why would you doubt God's abilities??

The how and why God will bring about things has nothing to do with human free will in embracing Jesus.

Yea or Nay in prophecy has nothing to do with personal salvation. Don't get yourself wrapped around a truth that doesn't apply to salvation.

Lloyd

 

Greetings

Your so-called proofs are pretty lame. Let me show you.

Point 1. Yes! This is false. However, this is no relief for a Calvinist. When Calvin’s error makes God pre-determine everything, then Calvin’s error unwittingly makes God the author of sin. You have to do far more than say “false.”

Point 2. Yes! This is also false. However, this is no relief for a Calvinist either. When Calvin’s error makes God pre-determine everything, then Calvin’s error unwittingly makes God aloof. You have to do far more than say “false.” How is it that God can be personal to those whom He has capriciously not picked?

Point 3. Finally, this also is false. But again, Calvin is shown to be errant. When God picks and chooses from before the foundations of the world, His personal covenantal relationships are closed to whosoever may believe in Jesus. You have to do far more than say “false.” How can God pay for the sins of the entire world yet deny the saving benefits to those who would believe but haven’t been chosen?

You have to wiggle around the obvious natural conclusions of Calvin’s error. Actually, I’m rather disappointed in your lame responses PL. In a rather strange way, I can see why the likes of BobRyan can condemn Calvin with such passion.

A mere denial of these three evils is not an appropriate defense of Calvinism. In truth, Calvinism has no good biblical defense that can answer these three questions without self condemnation.

Lloyd

 

Who called them proofs. They weren't. They were assertions. They have long been proved wrong elsewhere. I made no attempt to prove your points wrong here. I simply made an assertion. One problem in this discussion is that you people don't understand the difference between an assertion and proof, or between a position and argumentation for the position. You state something (such as you did) and then assume it is true. Then you read what someone writes (such you did to me) and assume it is something it is not. Either way, you are not making arguments for a position.

Bad argumentation. You assert Calvin was in error, without first asserting what Calvin believed or taught, and without second showing it to be actual error. See my point above about confusing assertions with proof.

Then you say that this error (whatever it is) makes God the author of sin. You have started from a faulty premise since you have not demonstrated or proven the error, but assuming we know what you intended, you are still wrong. God's control does not make God the author of sin. That is blasphemy, and Calvinism at large does not believe that. Calvinism, becuase of its commitment to Scripture, explicity states that God is not the author of sin.

So yes, your point #1 was false.

Several more errors. First, you again assert Calvin's error without proof. See above for the problems you have created. Second, you say God is therefore aloof. Yet you have offered no proof of that. You simply made an assertion. (Remember that is what you charged me with in the beginning. Do really intend to do it yourself?)

Then you ask a bad question. You say "How can God be personal to those whom He has capriciously not picked?" This is a real cornucopia of problems. First, the "personal-ness" of God is not a "to you" kind of thing. God is a personal God. It does not come and go based on the person. Second, you charge God with "capricious" choice. Yet you proved no such thing, and the Bible plainly declares that God's choice in salvation is not capricious. The Bible says God's choice is for his own glory. So not only did you make a bad argument, you denied what Scripture plainly says.

Again, just a truckload of problems (Seeing a pattern here??). First you again assert Calvin's error without proof. Second, you talk about God's covenantal relationships without defining what you are talking about. Third, you ask another bad question. Where is there any one who "would believe" but wasn't chosen? You are asserting that a group of people exists. Please demonstrate the existence of these people. Your assertion that they exist is not the same as proof that they exist (the same old pattern that you have fallen into).

AGain, same old problem. You assert my response was lame. YEt it clearly wasn't. I made no attempt to argue anything or prove anything. I made an assertion.

Yet without truth. The posts of Bob remind me of 2 Peter where Peter describes some teachers as being clouds without water. If there was ever an apt description of Bob's posts here, it is clouds without water. They are long and involved, but rarely based on any legitimate exegesis or thought. They are merely the musings of a mind unwilling to accept the words of Scritpure.

I agree. I had no intention of defending Calvinism in that post.

This is simply false. Calvinism is very easily defended from Scripture if you are willing to listen to it. Most people have their own conceptions and thus are not willing to listen to Scripture. Truth be told, your mind is so made up that even if there was proof in Scripture you would reject it. You are interested in preserving your position.

 

Greetings Pastor Larry

Let's hear it then! Why would you waste these several past posts speaking only in vague generalities? The three accusations unanswered must theologically end Calvin's small error.

The absence of biblical references is a RED FLAG as to the validity of your propositions.

Meanwhile, common sense readings of God's Word shows that forgiveness and pardon are extended freely to the entire (whole) world (I John 2:2). John could have said, “for the world” or “for those who would believe,” but he said “the whole world.” A normal reading will lead us to the plain understanding of the all-inclusiveness of Christ’s death.

Second, “God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not imputing their trespasses to them” (2 Cor 5:19 ). Can it legitimately be asserted that “the world” means less than all humanity? Paul could have easily said “the elect” or “those who believe,” but the inspired text simply says “the world.”

Third, it was the OT sacrificial system that required blood alone for atonement. “When I see the blood I will pass over you” (Exod 12:13 ). “Blood makes atonement for the soul” (Lev 17:11 ). So, Jesus would say, “For this is my blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins” (Matt 26:28). In contrast to His blood being shed for many, 1 Tim 2:6 says that Christ “gave Himself a ransom for all” and the immediate context (1 Tim 2:1-6) qualifies the term “all.” It refers not to all the elect, but to “all men” (2:1) and “all who are in authority” (2:2), and indicates that God desires “all men to be saved” (2:4).

See how easily scripture flows to support the Free Grace position!

Yes! Because God offers a universal atonement, He is not the author of sin. We all have a free will to choose for Christ or not. Calvin is wrong.

Yes! Because God has paid for the sins of the whole world in total, He is not a capricious tyrant. Calvin is wrong.

Yes! Because God has moved in Christ and desires that none perish, He is immanently related to us. Calvin is wrong.

Can one have T-U-L-I-P without the U? Not a chance. Calvin botches the other letters as well. It is just easiest to keep thumping on your weakest link.

Lloyd

 

This has been done ad nauseum for centuries in public print. It has been done here for several years in direct response. It has been heard.

[/qb]Because I was responding in a very specific way to a very specific post.

These three accusations are not "unanswered." They have been answered many many times, both here and elsewhere.

Not if you are thinking. I was not addressing things biblically. I was addressing the fallacy of your approach. You approached the topic wrongly. You made false assertions based on illegitimate premises. This is like complaining that I didn't use Scripture to answer a claim that God is a little green genie who lives in a rusty pop can. It is so flawed on its face that it doesn't need a scriptural answer.

Again, several problems. First "forgiveness and pardon aren't extended freely to the entire world." The offer is extended. The forgiveness and pardon are extended only to those who believe. Second, your understanding of 1 John 2:2 may not properly deal with teh meaning of propitiation there. If Jesus "atoned for sins" then he paid for them. The atonement is not a pile of possibility, but an act of certainty. It is an actual payment, not a pile from which payment might be made. So, under this understanding, if Jesus atoned for the sins of the entire world then all men are saved. That is universalism.

On the other hand, if you take "propitiation" as a reference to the general nature or the sufficiency of Christ's death, then you believe that Christ's death is sufficient for the sins of the whole world. Calvinists believe that.

This leads to universalism. If God does not count sins against people, then there is no basis on which to send them to hell. They go to heaven. If he did that for all men without exception, then no one goes to hell; all go to heaven. Is that what you believe?

No one disputes that. That is not at issue.

To use your own argument against you, why did he say many? He could have said "all" but chose not to. Should we assume that Christ didn't die for all since he used a different word? (You see how illegitimate that form of argumentation is??)

Many Calvinists don't disagree with this. Some would argue that the "all" refers to "all without distinction" and base it on the context where "all men" are broken down into categories. But many Calvinists believe this verse is talking about the sufficiency of Christ's death. There is no conflict here.

Who disagrees with free grace? There is no other kind. Calvinists believe in free grace, and the Scriptures you have cited above don't disagree with calvinism in the least.

???? What makes you think Calvinism disagrees with any of that? We believe God offers a universal atonement. We do not believe that God is the author of sin. We believe man has a free will to choose for Christ or not.

The atonement is sufficient for all men, but as the Bible teaches, it is efficient only for those who believe. It saves no one who doesn't believe. God isn't the author of sin. JohnP who by his own admission is not a typical Calvinist is about the only one here who will say that God is. John is wrong on that. Man has a free will, and becuase of sin, he will always freely choose to reject Christ.

Calvinism doesn't teach that God is capricious.

What does "immanently" related to us mean? That doesn't make much sense. The word "immanent" has not much to do with relating.

Actually, the U is about hte easiest link because it is explicitly declared in Scripture. The others are the result of theological correlation.

Your objections here are hardly serious. They have been answered in so many forums for so long. It is amazing people still bring them up as if they are legitimate. They aren't.

 

Hey Larry

Ad nauseum is a truism only because the so-called proofs aren't proofs. For example,

Calvinism doesn't teach that God is capricious.</font>[/QUOTE]See! Your words hold to Bible, but the doctrine of pre-determinism contradicts your words. If God picks before the foundation of the world, then this is an arbitrary choice. Capricious is a fitting adjective for this determinism. I can't help it that the natural outworkings of Calvin's error doesn't sit right with you.

Your denial of God's capriciousness ought to open your eyes to the errors of determinism.

Your so-called defense of Calvinism is actually a proof of its weakness. It is amazing that you cannot see it. We keep brining up these errors hoping that somehow someway God's Spirit will open your eyes.

BTW did you notice how many Bible verses we both used? I used nine references. You could only muster "arguments."

Lloyd

 

Keep in mind that in your understanding, this is contradictory. That doesn't make it so. If you believe what Calvinism believse about "pre determinism," then you would see that it doesn't contradict my words. You are using your own definitions which is illegitimate.

To say that "capricious is a fitting adjective for this determinism" shows that you simply don't understand what you are talking about. God's election is not capricious. He tells us in Eph 1 that he elects for his own glory. How can his glory be capricious? You simply misunderstand.

I haven't really defended Calvinism. (Didn't I already explain that? Are you really not reading that closely?)

You have yet to bring up one actual error. You have brought up several assertions, which you leave unproven. You have brought up many misrepresentation, which count for nothing since no one believes what you are refuting anyway. Again, you are confusing assertions with argumentation and proof. The fact that you say something doesn't make it true.

Lloyd, Lloyd, Lloyd ... You surely didn't think this would fly did you? I quoted your references and agreed with many of them. In fact, I interacted with those verses (which you completely ignored, and for obvious reasons ... I showed that you were incorrect on some points and you don't want to admit that).

If you look through this forum, you will find that there is no lack of verses from me. To try to charge me with a lack of Scripture is absolutely laughable, and I think you know that.

Further, remember that I have not set out to defend Calvinism. I was addressing a very narrow objective.

 

I fail to see why there is such huge argument over this. We humans are limited to linear time and space, and limited to cause and effect. We therefore must live according to those rules. If we accept Christ, then we're saved. If we confess our sins, we willbe forgiven them. If we eat too much sugar, we'll get a stomach ache. Etc, etc etc.

God is not under the limitations of space and time, and the rules of space and time don't apply to Him. But they do apply to us. So when we attempt to explain or rationalize how or when God saves and chooses, we're deceiving ourselves, because how and when aren't phrases that apply to a God.

There's no need to sling scriptural arrows here.

 

Hey Pastor Larry

But Eph 1 uses "in Christ" or the referrent 11 times in 11 verses to show that we are not elected capriciously. God is clearly showing that our election is "in Christ." From before the foundation of the world, God has chosen Christ to be the center piece of redemption. Whosoever will may enter in. Calvinism botches Eph 1 really bad. It picks only the few words here and there that seem to support determinism ignoring the whole flavor of the context "in Christ."

There is no problem with biblical election if one does not lose sight of Jesus. When you omit this, then you end up with a pointless arbitrary and capricious election of individuals without any consideration of free will.

While you run behind the lame excuses of "not up to me to prove" I challenge you outright regarding this nonsense. Any and all Christian beliefs must be supported by Bible to be valid. Your appeals to arguments are subsequently meaningless without repeated references to Bible.

Calvinism cannot answer the charges either through scripture or the common sense outworkings of its presuppositions. God is not the author of sin. God does not pre-determine your next thought, word, or action. God is not an aloof capricious tyrant.

Calvin tried to honor God but presented a warped view of God's transcendance and immanence. While Calvinism is an error, it still is within biblical evangelicalism. This cannot easily be said of the Arminian heresy.

Lloyd

 

If 1st Tim 2 v 4 says that "God desires all men to be saved" then unconditional election cannot be true; however, conditional election would fit in with this verse. God wants all to be saved but knows who will take Him up on the offer of mercy, they are then elected.

Kind regards and Christian love to all,

Bob

 

Hi Robert,

It is clear in Scripture though that God as a will of command and a will of desire. Just because God desires somthing does not mean that He wills it to come to pass, Or else according to the passage you cited then all men would indeed be saved and there would be no judgement. yet the wittenss of Scripture shows that this is not the case, therefore 1Tm 2:4 does not disprove unconditional election.

 

Thank you 4His_glory, that is correct. If one believes that Revelations is the future then 1 Tim. 2:4 cannot be used for disproving conditional election.

John Piper has a great essay on the two wills of God. You can find it at his sight DesiringGod.org

 

I meant unconditional.

 

I am at a loss to understand how God can desire something and not"will" it to come to pass.

Still, we all have our own interpretations and it is important to love one another despite this.

Kind regards to all.

Bob

 

How are you at a loss, if God desires all to be saved then all will be, yet we know that all are not saved, so logically what God desires does not come to pass.

 

Robert, if you say that everything He desires He wills to come to pass then that means 1Tm 2:4 teaches universalism. If God desires all to be saved, then all will be saved if you follow this line of reasoning.

Obviously what God desires and what He wills are two differnt things.