/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>It is ok to sin because I now have the unlimited credit card of Jesus

This is what you are saying

Stop being a coward and get some accountability.

Please stop being retarded OP

It's not about working to "earn" your salvation, it's about loving God. If you love Him, you try your best to repent and eventually stop sinning, to become perfect like He wants you to.

>>527946

>>527943

This. Stop being stupid

If you believe in him you must act as he commands. But there could be extreme cases of conversion in the deathbed when there's no time for good acts. Then salvation by faith applies. At least it's what I believe.

>>527943

strawman

>>527946

not an argument

>>527947

Reported

>>527949

Reported

>>527953

Then go kys

>>527955

Reported

>>527954

Except when it isn't. This is why Baptists accept that when someone is Saved and sins seriously, he only suffers temporary punishment or just get a lesser heaven as Anderson says.

In fact even Mod John believes this!

>>527943

I'm reformed to I believe that christ died for "All" your sins on the cross. And so to say sinning, the very thing christ died for, can make you lose your relationship with christ then what did he really die for?

>>527946

I have his imputed righteousness. If I was accountable for my sins then we will all be going hell.

>>527947

Thanks

>>527950

That would be a reformed answer. We believe that after justification has occurred you are then sanctified by christ and so "God," not man, makes us willing to do good deeds. We cannot lose our salvation by committing sins since that is what christ died for but since he has interceded for us none of our sins are credited to us but to he who died on the cross.

>>527960

>nu-uh

please read your bible

>>527954

>the mods will ban people attacking Protestants

Hahahahaha, you're so innocent

>>527961

That is not even the Reformed answer. It is in fact inconsistent for one as the Reformed are essentially a bunch of Fatalists who believe God intentionally made Adam sin.

And all you are doing is confirming that Jesus is just an unlimited credit card for sin

>>527960

>he only suffers temporary punishment or just get a lesser heaven as Anderson says.

I don't believe this. God finishes what he begins and those who fall away were never true believers.

>And I am sure of this, that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ.

Philippians 1:6 ESV

>>527961

>And so to say sinning, the very thing christ died for, can make you lose your relationship with christ then what did he really die for?

that's a really interesting point.

>>527965

Thus, Fatalism

>>527964

>God intentionally made Adam sin.

Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am being tempted by God,” for God cannot be tempted with evil, and he himself tempts no one.

James 1:13

>And all you are doing is confirming that Jesus is just an unlimited credit card for sin

But that only establishes even more why calvinism is great. We do our good works out of love and not fear like catholics.

>>527968

Do you have a problem with God's word?

>>527970

>Fear is the beginning of wisdom

>humans are just automata

Fatalism

>>527971

Then your god is false for he is an illogical god

Calvinism is just Paganism and Gnosticism as they simply repeat the same points they make. And their only response when the similarities are pointed out?

"It's biblical" which provides no answer to this.

>>527972

>>527973

>Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?

1 Corinthians 1:20

Also, how is it illogical? The logic of Calvinism is in fact why I accepted it in the first place.

>>527977

>no attempt given to prove my point wrong

Calvin denies any form of foreknowledge in consideration of predestination. This also applies to predestination of the Damned. Like the Stoics deny the gods as causing evil, Calvinists do too but just with one god. Of course, both fail to provide any coherent account of how humans are accounted for their deeds

>>527976

No, free will is pagan. In fact a early greek philosopher, whom I have forgotten the name of but can quickly find im, said that zeus can control all things but the one thing that he cannot control is my free will.

Free will is the belief that god is not capable of controlling man and that we are free from god's control.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qE8HbRYJc5Y

>>527980

>free will is Pagan

And so is Calvinism. Just look at the Stoics and how they explain free will, it's the same way Calvinists will centuries later

And even worse, the Pagan religions of the time are also determinist in nature given astral determimism.

>>527940

>I have a question for Catholics…

>question is about Pelagianism

First of all, we believe that man is saved by grace alone. This is indisputably doctrinal. It is a firm dogma of the Church that man is saved only by the unmerited gift of Grace from God. To presume that we are in a state of grace, or that we can somehow work up salvation is heretical nonsense.

Grace, however, only really avails itself when man opens up to it. It's not enough to just say "Yeah God I believe in you!" then go and do things completely counter to it. You must be completely open to the gift of Grace and completely surrender to it. Once done, you will then start to see the effects of grace in your life manifesting in your works as evidence of your cooperation. This is what is meant by "faith without works is dead", because if you did have that faith, then you would be receptive to grace and be able to show forth it (i.e. this would be observable to others, not some pharisaical "look at me, I give to charity and pray the rosary 9 times a day! how holy am I!" etc.)

This is where actual sin comes in to it because man, having free will, can terminate this expression of grace by sinning (mortally), although though contrition, confession and penance one can come back into a state of Grace to try again.

If there are any errors in this, I hope my fellow cathbros can correct me.

>>527965

>I don't believe this. God finishes what he begins and those who fall away were never true believers.

Or they were just sinners who have the chance of coming back to the Faith. Because otherwise you are essentially admitting that baptism avails us nothing and you sail awkwardly close to heretical ideas of pre-election.

This is why OSAS is simplistic, absolutist fatalism.

>>527979

A lack of knowledg on one part does not mean that the belife is false. In fact I am so ecertain in my belife that I find it laughable ot even believe in anything else while still reading the bible. You ignore passages like romans 9:16 that says So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy. You ignore passages like Acts 4:27-28 that say: 7In fact, this is the very city where Herod and Pontius Pilate conspired with the Gentiles and the people of Israel against Your holy servant Jesus, whom You anointed. They carried out what Your hand and purpose had decided beforehand would happen. And your hearts block out passages like: No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day from john 6:44

>>527982

>And so is Calvinism

Give example.

>One big difference between Roman Catholicism and Protestantism is the value of faith alone as opposed to works, faith and God's grace working together in a synergistic way to bring about your salvation, which would be the Catholic view.

It's really isn't that simple man. If you want simplified version, just read the Catechism have to say about justification and grace (and faith and good works/merits). And if you grasp basics of our "theological jargon" you can read decrete about justification by Council of Trent.

>This then brings me to my question. What was Christ's purpose when dying on the cross. As a protestant I believe that he died for my sins, all of them and for once and for all and so there is nothing I can possibly do to add on to that perfect sacrifice.

As Catholics we belive that he died for our sins and the sins of whole world, all of them and for once and for all and so there is nothing we can possibly do to add to that perfect sacrafice. And by adding to it we does not mean adding anything per se, for if we would we would go contrary to scripture, for Blessed Apostle says in his letter to Colossians:

I Paul am made a minister who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up those things that are wanting of the sufferings of Christ, in my flesh, for his body, which is the church: Whereof I am made a minister according to the dispensation of God, which is given me towards you, that I may fulfill the word of God: The mystery which hath been hidden from ages and generations, but now is manifested to his saints,

What we mean by "not being able to add to the perfect sacrfice" is this - that we we never ever are able to justfy ourself, nor to give ourself grace, nor to atone for our sins, nor to pay twofold debt of punishment etc etc.

We we however can do, as Paul did, is this - the application of the grace of the Cross upon us. The overabundant fount of grace that Jesus won for us is of no benefit if there is no way for us to drink from that fount, to receive or gain access to that grace.

"It is finished" Christ have cried. But we are not.

We are ought to took our Cross, as Christ comanded. By it we merit in good and grace, not through natural power of this act nor our nature, but by grace of God that allowed it so that we can have eternal reward and contiune to be and multiply justice in us.

“Therefore I endure everything for the sake of the elect, that they also may obtain salvation in Christ Jesus with its eternal glory”

>So then I ask you if you believe that we must do good works to stay saved and committing mortal sins, which Christ died for, can make us lose that salvation then what did Christ accomplish on the cross then if there are things that we can do to lose salvation and there are sins that we must repent for. Didn't Christ die for all sins?

To brake it down slowly.

We are buried and rised in Christ by Baptism. That's where we obtain his Grace. "Baptism now saves you" as Peter said.

Now Grace is, as Paul and Peter say, participation Divine Life. It is Life Eternal. If you have grace, you have Life.

But, as John tells us, there is sin that kills. Of course, that death does is not bodly, for then Human race would end in less than month really. It's spiritual death.

Mortal sin, as name says, are sins that kill. They do not destroy grace. Grace is independednt from you. But you are dependent upon grace. This is why in Galatians Paul says: You fall from Grace. Falling from Grace is death. Mortal sin.

Morover, in the same letter he says that if we contiune to uphold ceremonies of Old law, Christ shall profit us nothing. From this we can learn that mortal sin does not allow us to partipate in grace.

So what then now? Shall we be baptised again? God frobid! We belive in one baptism, for forgivnes of sin.

Then what shall we do? Lament for there is nothing we can do? God forbid! For Christ in his infinte mercy gave us second plank after shipwreck that motal sin is, as Fathers of Church called this divine mistery. For lo and behold, Christ gave apostle this power: "Whoever sins you shall forgive, will be fogiven" and "Whatever you bind on earth, shall be binded in heaven". Paul calls it rightly ministry of reconciliation. Church call it also Confession, from mode of this act, or Penance, for Christ said: No, I say to you: but unless you shall do penance, you shall all likewise perish.

tl;dr Grace and Sacrifice is one - application of said grace is different

>>527984

Except of course when Scripture already presupposes accountability on one's part by referring to judgement and having to even have commands given. If what you say is true, Scripture is incoherent as we are told Satan is the father of lies but instead, god lies to us by interacting with us as if humans are autonomous creatures.

The Stoics Fate and Calvinist predestination are analogous. And Greek philosophers hardly got any concept of the "will" as the Early Christian fathers and Augustine would have.

>>527986

Calvinist predestination is the example.

>>527986

This shows you have zero knowledge of Stoicism or even Greek philosophy in general. The Stoics use the analogy of the shape to explain how their concept of will works. The object is pushed and then how it moves is determined by the object's shape.

I will provide a citation from the SEP in my next post

>>527983

It's ok with one more clausure - Good works not only are manifestation of justification.

"The justice received is preserved and also increased before God through good works" and "the good works of one that is justified are in such manner the gifts of God, as that they are also the good merits of him that is justified and that the said justified, by the good works which he performs through the grace of God and the merit of Jesus Christ, whose living member he is, does truly merit increase of grace, eternal life, and the attainment of that eternal life,-if so be, however, that he depart in grace,-and also an increase of glory" as Trent says.

>>527983

>Grace, however, only really avails itself when man opens up to it

I was with you until here. I think this man centeredness here is where Rome really falls. To say on one hand God is fully sovereign while on the other hand say that we can resist God's will is not only unbiblical but pagan.

>not some pharisaical "look at me, I give to charity and pray the rosary 9 times a day! how holy am I!" etc.)

That's one of the misconceptions about 1st century judaism. In fact pharisaical jews did believe in the grace of god and throughout the centuries the debate was never on the necessity of god's grace but rather on the sufficiency of God's grace. And to condemn the pharisees for their synergistic works would be to also condemn Rome.

>This is where actual sin comes in to it because man, having free will, can terminate this expression of grace by sinning

Again it goes back to man's will, what man does and ultimately man's choice. But remember god does all according to his will:

>"All the inhabitants of the earth are accounted as nothing, But He does according to His will in the host of heaven And among the inhabitants of earth; And no one can ward off His hand Or say to Him, 'What have You done?'

Daniel 4:35

And wen you talk about contrition, confession and penance you have to remeber that it is not on the part of man.

>For it is by grace you have been saved through faith, and this not from yourselves; it is the gift of God,

Ephesians 2:8

>you sail awkwardly close to heretical ideas of pre-election.

I believe that there is the elect. I believe that there are those who are chosen before hand and those are the one who will believe unto justification.

>>527998

>the Stoics, like the Epicureans, make God a corporeal entity, though not (as with the Epicureans) one made of everyday matter. But while the Epicureans think the gods are too busy being blessed and happy to be bothered with the governance of the universe (Epicurus, Letter to Menoeceus 123–4), the Stoic God is immanent throughout the whole of creation and directs its development down to the smallest detail. God is identical with one of the two ungenerated and indestructible first principles (archai) of the universe. One principle is matter which they regard as utterly unqualified and inert. It is that which is acted upon. God is identified with an eternal reason (logos, Diog. Laert. 44B ) or intelligent designing fire (Aetius, 46A) which structures matter in accordance with Its plan. This plan is enacted time and time again, beginning from a state in which all is fire, through the generation of the elements, to the creation of the world we are familiar with, and eventually back to fire in a cycle of endless recurrence. The designing fire of the conflagration is likened to a sperm which contains the principles or stories of all the things which will subsequently develop (Aristocles in Eusebius, 46G). Under this guise, God is also called ‘fate.’ It is important to realise that the Stoic God does not craft its world in accordance with its plan from the outside, as the demiurge in Plato'sTimaeus is described as doing. Rather, the history of the universe is determined by God's activity internal to it, shaping it with its differentiated characteristics. 

The only difference between Stoicism and Calvinism on this point is the materialist tendency the former has

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/stoicism/

>>527991

As an aside, you really need to learn how to spell English words correctly

>>527979

I'm not a calvinist, but I do recognize that the authors of the NT teach that justification and sanctification are separate things.

>>527991

>It's really isn't that simple man. If you want simplified version, just read the Catechism have to say about justification and grace (and faith and good works/merits). And if you grasp basics of our "theological jargon" you can read decrete about justification by Council of Trent.

A sincere thank you. Will be checking it out.

I would also like to direct you to what I wrote here: >>528005

>>528010

And there are various tenses to justification as McGrath says

>>527980

>Free will is pagan

> “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, killing the prophets and stoning those who are sent to you! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not!

>You would not

Not "I would not let you" and not "You could not" but "You would not". St. Irenaeus citing this passage writes

>This expression [of our Lord], 「How often would I have gathered your children together, and you would not,」 Matthew 23:37 set forth the ancient law of human liberty, because God made man a free [agent] from the beginning, possessing his own power, even as he does his own soul, to obey the behests (ad utendum sententia) of God voluntarily, and not by compulsion of God. For there is no coercion with God, but a good will [towards us] is present with Him continually. And therefore does He give good counsel to all. And in man, as well as in angels, He has placed the power of choice (for angels are rational beings), so that those who had yielded obedience might justly possess what is good, given indeed by God, but preserved by themselves. On the other hand, they who have not obeyed shall, with justice, be not found in possession of the good, and shall receive condign punishment: for God did kindly bestow on them what was good; but they themselves did not diligently keep it, nor deem it something precious, but poured contempt upon His super-eminent goodness

>And so to say sinning, the very thing christ died for, can make you lose your relationship with christ then what did he really die for?

Your sins, and not yours but the sins of the whole world. But that doesn't mean sin won't condemn you

<Therefore you have no excuse, O man, whoever you are, when you judge another; for in passing judgment upon him you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, are doing the very same things. 2 We know that the judgment of God rightly falls upon those who do such things. 3 Do you suppose, O man, that when you judge those who do such things and yet do them yourself, you will escape the judgment of God? 4 Or do you presume upon the riches of his kindness and forbearance and patience? Do you not know that God’s kindness is meant to lead you to repentance? Romans 2

>>527994

You haven't even interacted with the passages I wrote. Yes, we sin but that is of our own accord but it is christ who turns your heart of stone to a heart of flesh and so it is he who enables us to do good works.

>>528015

The Stoics say you sin too, despite fate!

Pagan

>>528016

So, are we just gonna ingore clear biblical teachings?

>>528028

That is unbiblical. First century Judaism had no concept of hardcore predestination save for the sectarian Essenes. So this means, Calvinistic predestination is out of context of what Scripture teaches.

>>528014

> “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, killing the prophets and stoning those who are sent to you! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not!

T of tulip.

>As it is written: “There is no one righteous, not even one; There is no one who understands; no one who seeks God

Romans 3:9-10

We are not willing unless god himself removes our heart of stone and turn it into a heart of flesh otherwise we will deny god until there's no tomorrow.

>And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh

Ezekiel 36:25

>>528030

Making that statement makes no sense when such clearly presupposes the ability of self reflection and repentence. Calvinist pagan thought denies this.

And Philio the Jew also can believe that God's Grace acts upon the individual at all times despite affirming agency. So the statements on Saved by Grace does not have to even entail Calvinism

Catholics believe Christ's sacrifice is perfect too and that he died for all our sins. That is why you can turn back to Christ with repentance any number of times. Christ died so that all who believe in Him and follow Him may have eternal life. We regard comitting mortal sin and refusing to repent of it as the same as turning your back on Christ. If you turn your back in Christ, He will revoke what He has offered you. He's not going to drag someone to heaven who clearly has contempt for all things divine in his actions.

>>528029

>That is unbiblical.

How about when God hardened the heart of pharaoh so he would not let the Jews in egypt go? How about when jesus prays for peter so his faith woudn't fail? Do you really think depsite the pray and intention of jesus peter could have ever fallen? Was this same prayer made for Judas? No! He was a devil since the beginning and was destined for hellfire:

>While I was with them, I kept them in your name, which you have given me. I have guarded them, and not one of them has been lost except the son of destruction, that the Scripture might be fulfilled.

John 17:12

In fact the question you raised is one that the romans had when talking with Paul. And paul quotes the romans saying:

>One of you will say to me, “Then why does God still find fault? For who can resist His will?”

Romans 9:19

And do you know what's paul response to your question?

>But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? Shall what is formed say to Him who formed it, “Why have you made me like this?”

Romans 9:20

A lot of reformed theologians don't think this answer is sufficient but I do. How can the clay turn to the potter and say why have you made me like this? It is in God's hand and so he has the right to make of us what he wills.

>Does not the potter have the right to make from the same lump of clay one vessel for special occasions and another for common use? What if God, intending to show His wrath and make His power known, bore with great patience the vessels of His wrath, prepared for destruction?

ROmans 9:21-22

>>527999

see>>528005

>>528032

>Making that statement makes no sense when such clearly presupposes the ability of self reflection and repentence.

See: >>528038

>>528037

see>>527961

>>528038

We know that God making the Pharoah's heart hardened is in fact reciprocal in nature as God using his disobedience to show his glory and for good. So this destroys the proposal of deterministic intepretations of it.

But suppose this is true. This means ALL attrocities are also planned by and caused by God to begin with.

And also given the fact that Philio can have a strong sense of Grace and simultaneously affirm human agency, this means ALL predestinarian verses need not even BE Calvinist in nature. It was secretarian jews in the 1st century that believed in hard predestination as Josephus tells us.

And Paul's own answer in Romans is rhetoritical in nature and meant to affirm that God will have his way and not some determinism. This statement simply recalls the tension present in Job for instance where the question of suffering and God's will is addressed.

And of course, your own logic for this verse pretty much affirms my point in the first place

Fatalist

Do we not agree that:

- We are saved by grace.

- This grace gives us faith.

- This faith gives us good works.

- Good works give us faith (we are God’s workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance as our way of life) and faith leads to grace (ask and ye shall receive)

- Faith alone, without good works, is not a saving faith, and works alone cannot save

? If we do not agree, what do we disagree on? If we do agree, then isn't the issue more with the notion of double consequence for sin (temporal punishment + eternal punishment), which is a different issue completely?

>>528040

Your argument is inconsistent as your view denies any accountability for anyone. This is why nobody even have the capacity to ask "why did god make me like this?" Because this is a clear presupposition on Paul's part of human self reflection on their actions and personality which is IMPOSSIBLE by your standards which is essentially fatalism, like the Stoics

>>528044

>If we do not agree, what do we disagree on?

That we can commit murder and adultery 1000 times a day and still be saved (according to Luther).

>>528054

You seriously, and I believe purposely, misunderstand.

>>528008

It was a long day, and it's midnight here, be understanding. Plus I blame my subconscious via my hatred for english language in its certain aspects

>>528005

>I was with you until here. I think this man centeredness here is where Rome really falls. To say on one hand God is fully sovereign while on the other hand say that we can resist God's will is not only unbiblical but pagan.

Sed contra Scripture says:

You stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, you always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do you also.

God is fully sovereign and in his full sovereignty he gave man (and angels) ability to choose, even if this choice is contrary to his will. Free will if you will to name it.

Prophet Sirach explians it best in chapter 15 of book of his name:

11 Say not: It is through God, that she (Wisdom) is not with me: for do not thou the things that he hateth.

12 Say not: He hath caused me to err: for he hath no need of wicked men.

13 The Lord hateth all abomination of error, and they that fear him shall not love it.

14 God made man from the beginning, and left him in the hand of his own counsel.

15 He added his commandments and precepts.

16 If thou wilt keep the commandments and perform acceptable fidelity for ever, they shall preserve thee.

17 He hath set water and fire before thee: stretch forth thy hand to which thou wilt.

18 Before man is life and death, good and evil, that which he shall choose shall be given him:

19 For the wisdom of God is great, and he is strong in power, seeing all men without ceasing.

20 The eyes of the Lord are towards them that fear him, and he knoweth all the work of man.

21 He hath commanded no man to do wickedly, and he hath given no man license to sin:

22 For he desireth not a multitude of faithless and unprofitable children.

>That's one of the misconceptions about 1st century judaism. In fact pharisaical jews did believe in the grace of god and throughout the centuries the debate was never on the necessity of god's grace but rather on the sufficiency of God's grace.

>And to condemn the pharisees for their synergistic works would be to also condemn Rome.

Sed contra, is the wage of arguments of Blessed Apostle in his letters, especially those to Romans, Galatians and Hebrews. For pharisees have the same view on grace as Pelagius really, which Mother Rome comdemed many, many times.

>Again it goes back to man's will, what man does and ultimately man's choice. But remember god does all according to his will:

And his will is that all are saved, but he wills also that they choose salvation by free will, see above.

>Daniel 4:35

It's not argument against us, but for us. For who are you to try to ward off His hand and say to Him, 'What have You done by giving men choice?'

Have you readeth not? "As I live, saith the Lord God, I desire not the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way, and live. Turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways: and why will you die, O house of Israel?" Here, the Great Sovereign asks humans, beg even, so that they repent freely.

>And wen you talk about contrition, confession and penance you have to remeber that it is not on the part of man.

Of course not, it's sacrament. Sacrament is visible sign of grace. And grace is of God and this not from yourselves; it is the gift of God.

But you still have to receive said sacrament, for God gave you water and fire to choose from and this choice is yours. Stretch your hand, o man, and choose.

>I believe that there is the elect. I believe that there are those who are chosen before hand and those are the one who will believe unto justification.

We believe that there are elect. And elect are firstly foreknew. And those foreknew will be justified and glorified. But they are not only ones who will be justified.

And what my dear brother tried to warn you about is antibilical doctine that God choses someone unto damnation.

>>527940

The fact that you ask this question means you don't understand that saving faith is a transformation, being born again, having Christ in you, which entails doing good works, there is no separation. Faith is not mental assent to doctrines, faith is a humble-love that is embodied by your actions and thoughts.

That's why when people asked Christ what they must do to be saved he said actions, keep the commandments, be perfectly loving and so forth.

That's why he said those who love him will keep his teachings and do good deeds. Those of his who don't do good deeds will be cut off and thrown into the fire, despite their faith.

>>527940

The unforgiveable sin: blasphemy against the holy spirit. If you do not repent your sins then God cannot forgive them and they will be bound to you. Jesus died for all your sins yes but if you reject Jesus then you cannot have your sins forgiven. This is a hard truth to swallow. You must fully accept every aspect of God in order to achieve union with him.

I suggest you read the new testament.

>>528043

>>528045

<Jesus answered. 44 “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will raise them up at the last day.

>Fatalist

>REEE

<On hearing it, many of his disciples said, “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?”

>>528043

>We know that God making the Pharoah's heart hardened is, in fact, reciprocal in nature as God using his disobedience to show his glory and for good.

Exactly, but this does not destroy the proposal of deterministic interpretations of it. as you say.

We see that for God to bring about his plan many things are determined beforehand. There were way too many variables and so for God to have his will done he had to intervene in his creation to bring about and show his glory. A good example of this would be, acts 4:26-28 and it reads:

>The kings of the earth take their stand and the rulers gather together against the Lord and against His Anointed One.’ In fact, this is the very city where Herod and Pontius Pilate conspired with the Gentiles and the people of Israel against Your holy servant Jesus, whom You anointed. They carried out what Your hand and purpose had decided beforehand would happen.

It was all done to the council of his will. and we must also remember that God declares the end from the beginning:

>declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient times things not yet done, saying, ‘My counsel shall stand, and I will accomplish all my purpose,’

Isaiah 46:10

And we if we are to believe in Tota Scriptura then we must also affirm that all was determined beforehand

>Do we not agree that:

>We are saved by grace.

Yes.

>This grace gives us faith.

Yes.

>This faith gives us good works.

Yes.

>Good works give us faith

No, like I stated earlier in this thread once you put in "man's" action and "man's" intention you lose the God-centeredness that is so thoroughly laid out in scripture. To say on one hand that we are saved by faith alone apart from works lest anyone may boast but on the other hand our good works can increase or lack thereof can decrease our right standing with God would just take power away from God and gives some over to man.

>we are God’s workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance as our way of life) and faith leads to grace

To quote this verse would mean for you to ignore the previous verses:

>For it is by grace you have been saved through faith, and this not from yourselves; it is the gift of God, 9not by works, so that no one can boast

Ephesians 2:8-9

Cont…

>>528044

forgot to link you: >>528232

>>528044

>>528054

And so when the scriptures say that we are God’s workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works it is talking about why we were saved, which was in order to do good works. You are now going against a heresy known as antinomianism, who were a heretical sect of christianity who believed that as long as they had faith they could do whatever they wanted and as long as they claimed to have faith then they could be saved. But the reformed church was vehemently against this. Yes, we do believe that we are saved by faith alone but following justification would be sanctification. Understand that if God began such a beautiful work to you as justification then rest assured that he will also lead that good work to completion:

>And I am sure of this, that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ.

Philippians 1:6

God doesn't just save and then leave you there.

>Faith alone, without good works, is not a saving faith, and works alone cannot save

Faith alone saves but if it does not have good works following then there is a problem. This isn't to say that works save but are rather evidence of a lively faith. Much like how a car which leaves skid marks from the rubber scrapping against the concrete isn't what makes the car go fast but rather evidence of it.

>If we do not agree, what do we disagree on?

That man plays any role in his salvation. If so then he would be able to boast and the reformed doctrine of Sola Fide leaves no rooms to boast since we are saved by faith alone through grace alone and this is not of our own doing but of the one who saved us.

>For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God.

Romans 4:2

>>527940

Without God's grace we wouldn't be able to be saved, even if we were without sin. Thanks to Christ's sacrifice we are able to, but by mortal sin you are free to refuse the grace by which you are saved.

>>528247

>Without God's grace we wouldn't be able to be saved

True.

>but by mortal sin you are free to refuse the grace by which you are saved.

Let's see what the scriptures say:

>That says So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy.

romans 9:16

>>528225

Except of course your "tota scriptura" is something that makes no sense whatsoever. Even the Tyndale Commentary series which is Evangelical refrains from determinist intepretations of Romans and even on John 6 sees Jesus as describing two perspectives when the statement that nothing will pluck the faithful from His hand where there is the Divine and human. A determinist reading is avoided as with the Oxford and Cambridge commentaries and Oxford Bible dictionary.

Furthermore as David Downs(who is Calvinist) notes, in the Old Testament the Israelites are expected to take care of the poor or suffer negative consequence from God. These coupled with Paul's own background and Jesus' shows the determinist Pagan view untenetable for it contradicts context and what we know of era the texts are put into writing.

Moreover, all you did as I had repeatedly stated is prove my point, that you are simply a fatalist. Simply saying "that's what Scripture says" doesnt work as you are simply blaspheming God by telling him he made all sin.

And time and time again, you had been destroyed. Like on your false claim that free will is Pagan

>>528240

Except of course instead of being antimonian, you just become a Gnostic heretic. Remember, to Irenaeus and Clement of Alexandria, your view is essentially what Valentinius says

>>528206

>God cause all evil

Fatalist cowards at work.

>>528265

Your arguments are just dismissive. You're making a very bad case.

>>528266

And you are being a Fatalist Pagan.

>>528267

1 Thessalonians 5:21

>>528270

I dont care if you say sola fide. Just dont be a Fatalist for God's sake!

>>528250

>romans 9:16

Yes, you can't donate some sum to charity and God is forced to give you His grace. His grace comes from His mercy, it's totally unearned. How does this deny you can lose that grace by mortal sin? In fact, if you could not lose that grace, how could any branch in the vine be cut off and collected for burning? It's an impossibility.

>>528279

That doesn't contradict calvinism. Hellfire was meant for the devil and his angels but due to our iniquities we also enter there.

>Does not the potter have the right to make from the same lump of clay one vessel for special occasions and another for common use? What if God, intending to show His wrath and make His power known, bore with great patience the vessels of His wrath, prepared for destruction?

ROmans 9:21-22

>>528279

Also, tyndall was a mediocre theologian who wrote an unauthorized translation of the Bible into English. In fact, he was first tried for heresy in 1522, three years before his translation of the New Testament was printed.

>>528287

Actually it does. Predestination to damnation happens before Creation. This means even before Satan, God intended this Hell for humans too and actively wills to this like the Pagan Stoics believe

>>528288

Maybe do a little googling on what the Tyndale Bible Commentary is. Those are not what Tyndale said. Those are what Evangelical theologians who are aware of NT scholarship are saying.

>>528289

The Stoic idea of determinism was more caused based, where they believed that every action was caused by a previous action. This is in fact not in line with biblical teaches because as we know from Acts 4:27-28 god, in fact, intervenes to fulfil his will. Not things happen that cause other things.

>The kings of the earth take their stand and the rulers gather together against the Lord and against His Anointed One.’ In fact, this is the very city where Herod and Pontius Pilate conspired with the Gentiles and the people of Israel against Your holy servant Jesus, whom You anointed. They carried out what Your hand and purpose had decided beforehand would happen.

We also have another indicator that Christian idea of predestination isn't caused based as we seen from Exodus 9:12

>And the LORD hardened Pharaoh's heart, and he did not listen to them, just as the LORD had spoken to Moses.

And so we see that in fact, your ideas of free will are pagan. Even Socinians believed believe that "not even Zeus could get the better of their free will." Free will has pagan origins and the stoic examples you posted only refute a strawman notion of what you actually think we believe.

>>528291

>caused based

The Stoics aren't Atheists. Sounds like this has been ignored,

>the Stoics, like the Epicureans, make God a corporeal entity, though not (as with the Epicureans) one made of everyday matter. But while the Epicureans think the gods are too busy being blessed and happy to be bothered with the governance of the universe (Epicurus, Letter to Menoeceus 123–4), the Stoic God is immanent throughout the whole of creation and directs its development down to the smallest detail. God is identical with one of the two ungenerated and indestructible first principles (archai) of the universe. One principle is matter which they regard as utterly unqualified and inert. It is that which is acted upon. God is identified with an eternal reason (logos, Diog. Laert. 44B ) or intelligent designing fire (Aetius, 46A) which structures matter in accordance with Its plan. This plan is enacted time and time again, beginning from a state in which all is fire, through the generation of the elements, to the creation of the world we are familiar with, and eventually back to fire in a cycle of endless recurrence. The designing fire of the conflagration is likened to a sperm which contains the principles or stories of all the things which will subsequently develop (Aristocles in Eusebius, 46G). Under this guise, God is also called ‘fate.’ It is important to realise that the Stoic God does not craft its world in accordance with its plan from the outside, as the demiurge in Plato'sTimaeus is described as doing. Rather, the history of the universe is determined by God's activity internal to it, shaping it with its differentiated characteristics. 

The only difference between Stoicism and Calvinism on this point is the materialist tendency the former has

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/stoicism/

Stoics believe God directs and determines the history of the universe. Calvinists believe this too in a sense God determines human action. Which is why the "causal" excuse here fails. God doesnt create based on foreknowledge according to Calvinism or else predestination would be based on foreknowledge which Calvinists deny. Thus all events are caused by God according to you as these are intentionally made to pass and only in this way for his end.

This is no different than Stoicism.

And note that I even explicitly narrowed down the area of similarity here. It would be disrespectful to a venerable system to place its good parts in tandem with Calvinism

>>528250

Explain this verse's relevance.

>>528291

>We also have another indicator that Christian idea of predestination isn't caused based as we seen from Exodus 9:12

In citing Exodus you actually refute your point. When does God actually harden the Pharaohs heart?

>Still Pharaoh’s heart was hardened, and he would not listen to them; as the Lord had said.

>Then the Lord said to Moses, “Pharaoh’s heart is hardened, he refuses to let the people go.

>But the magicians of Egypt did the same by their secret arts; so Pharaoh’s heart remained hardened, and he would not listen to them; as the Lord had said.

>But when Pharaoh saw that there was a respite, he hardened his heart, and would not listen to them; as the Lord had said.

>And the magicians said to Pharaoh, “This is the finger of God.” But Pharaoh’s heart was hardened, and he would not listen to them; as the Lord had said.

>But Pharaoh hardened his heart this time also, and did not let the people go.

>And Pharaoh sent, and behold, not one of the cattle of the Israelites was dead. But the heart of Pharaoh was hardened, and he did not let the people go.

>But the Lord hardened the heart of Pharaoh, and he did not listen to them; as the Lord had spoken to Moses.

Pharaoh hardened his heart 7 times before God finally hardens Pharaohs heart. It's clearly a reciprocal action. And anyways, the primary argument for predestination to salvation or falsely damnation comes from romans 8:29-30.

>For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the first-born among many brethren. 30 And those whom he predestined he also called; and those whom he called he also justified; and those whom he justified he also glorified.

Now, the first cause here is foreknowledge. God predestines those whom He foreknew. The question then is what comprises this foreknowledge? If the foreknowledge was based purely on a knowledge of the existence of the person, those whom He foreknew would be everyone, and then everyone would be glorified. On the contrary, we know at least one person is in eternal damnation, therefore the foreknowledge must be restricted to some attributes of the person. This must be the knowledge that they truly will conform to the image of His Son, as that is what is written

>But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God, the return you get is sanctification and its end, eternal life. Romans 6:22

Predestination is thus cause based. These causes haven't actually happened yet however.

>>528298

Well, that individual believed that it is by our will to be saved and by our will we can deny christ but this verse refutes that and instead tells us to rely solely on God's gracious act. I kinda see what you'er saying now and a better verse would be.

>And I am sure of this, that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ.

Philippians 1:6

We cannot fall once Christ has extended his grace unto you like the scriptures say:

>No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day from

john 6:44

>>528291

Calvinism is deterministic in nature. In fact ANYONE who affirms Compatabilism or denies free will will affirm Determinism. Just as Stoics and some Gnostics would do. And guess what? Calvinism relies on a causality that is already embedded in Creation and its trajectory intentionally planned and willed by God. This is why Tim Keller says that attrocities are indeed planned by God.

Moreover as I had stated, there is no concept of will as we later know it today in the Greek Philosophers. The freedom to even do otherwise is hardly if not never, discussed for they are only interested in potential of various possibilities that is "up to us" in any given situation. Most philosophers would also infleunce the church fathers who must therefore be Pagan to you

>>528302

Except I had posted from a scholastic Evangelical commentary that pretty much destroys any determinist conception of them. I even bring out the context of the NT period's beliefs to make my case to give context contra the mere assertion you provide

Aren't works a manifestation of salvation, and not the source of it?

It is my understanding that the separation of works and faith is a Protestant one. For Catholics, it doesn't make sense to have faith yet not do works. If Jesus tells us to do good works, and we have faith in Jesus, we do good works as a consequence. You cannot have faith in Jesus and not do good works, because not doing good works would not be having faith. To have faith in the Lord is to believe what he says, and if he says we must do good works, we cannot say we have faith in him unless we do. It is not the works themselves that save us, it is still our faith, but works are an inseparable part of having faith. We can never do enough good works to get into heaven by our own merit, we still rely on Jesus's death and sacrifice to cleanse of us our sins. But we must continue to do good works to the best of our ability, as part of having faith. When we fail to have faith in the Lord, that is, when we commit mortal sins, we must go back and as the Lord for forgiveness, which he gladly gives us. Christ most certainly died for all sins, but we must seek forgiveness for them.

Catholics, correct me if I'm wrong about this.

I'll be praying for your discernment OP!

>>529154

> is not the works themselves that save us, it is still our faith, but works are an inseparable part of having faith

Not consistent with the Catholic faith.

>CANON XXXII.-If any one saith, that the good works of one that is justified are in such manner the gifts of God, as that they are not also the good merits of him that is justified; or, that the said justified, by the good works which he performs through the grace of God and the merit of Jesus Christ, whose living member he is, does not truly merit increase of grace, eternal life, and the attainment of that eternal life,-if so be, however, that he depart in grace,-and also an increase of glory; let him be anathema.

CoT Session 6

>We can never do enough good works to get into heaven by our own merit,

This is consistent with the Catholic faith

>Neither is this to be omitted,-that although, in the sacred writings, so much is attributed to good works, that Christ promises, that even he that shall give a drink of cold water to one of his least ones, shall not lose his reward; and the Apostle testifies that, That which is at present momentary and light of our tribulation, worketh for us above measure exceedingly an eternal weight of glory; nevertheless God forbid that a Christian should either trust or glory in himself, and not in the Lord, whose bounty towards all men is so great, that He will have the things which are His own gifts be their merits. And forasmuch as in many things we all offend, each one ought to have before his eyes, as well the severity and judgment, as the mercy and goodness (of God); neither ought any one to judge himself, even though he be not conscious to himself of anything; because the whole life of man is to be examined and judged, not by the judgment of man, but of God, who will bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and will make manifest the counsels of the hearts, and then shall every man have praise from God, who, as it is written, will render to every man according to his works.

CoT Session 6 Chapter 16

>>527954

>>527962

He said a question for Catholics. Why are you butting into this ?

>>529185

On the second point, this may be more helpful

>CANON I.-If any one saith, that man may be justified before God by his own works, whether done through the teaching of human nature, or that of the law, without the grace of God through Jesus Christ; let him be anathema.

CoT Session 6

>>529185

Ah okay. Sorry if I gave any misinformation, I'm still learning about this stuff myself (I'm looking to become Catholic but am not one yet).

OP should read these:

https://www.catholic.com/qa/what-is-the-catholic-understanding-of-the-biblical-plan-of-salvation

https://www.catholic.com/qa/why-does-the-church-teach-that-works-can-obtain-salvation

>>528311

>>528306

I'll read these books

polite bump to see if anyone has any come back to >>528303 >>528300 >>528296, having just finished reading thread after intending to since it popped up. predestination/freewill/calvinism/arminianism/monergsm/synergism is always the topic I find most interesting and I must commend anons and say I thoroughly appreciated the civility and lack of shipboasting or derailing in thread which made for a much more enjoyable engaging and enlightening read

I don't have anything to add atm but watched vid related a week or so ago, R.C ofc a reformed stalwart, fitting free will into the calvinistic predestination framework using Job as a illustrative. Will probably watch again soon which may prompt a post, but as I opened with, polite bump for posterity.

>>527940

Answer is in the Catholic mass. To prove that one can overcome death if one follows his message.

>>528064

>The fact that you ask this question means you don't understand that saving faith is a transformation, being born again, having Christ in you, which entails doing good works, there is no separation.

And how are you born again according to scripture?

>The wind blows where it wishes. You hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit.”

John 3:8

Also, by saying that having Christ in you entails doing good works shows that you have missed the message of the gospel:

>For it is by grace you have been saved through faith, and this not from yourselves; it is the gift of God, not by works, so that no one can boast

Ephesians 2:8-9

This verse shows that any work done by us cannot save us, but rather it is the grace of God that solely saves us. The actions we do are god's Sanctifying work "HE" does within us.

>And I am sure of this, that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ.

Philippians 1:6

>when people asked Christ what they must do to be saved he said actions, keep the commandments

This is when we must have tota scripture in mind. Yes, we must keep the commandments to be saved, but it isn't enough to just keep one part while not the other because as scripture says:

>For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become guilty of all of it.

James 2:10

The commandment was set to show us how sinful we as humans are and show us that we are incapable of doing it ourselves that instead, we need one for all sacrifice to rid us of all our sins.

>That's why he said those who love him will keep his teachings and do good deeds.

I believe that:

>For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God’s law; indeed, it cannot.

Romans 8:7

And those of us who do submit ourselves to God do it out of love that has enabled us to do by his divine act of regeneration.

>And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh

Ezekiel 36:25

>Those of his who don't do good deeds will be cut off and thrown into the fire, despite their faith.

<Jesus answered. 44 “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will raise them up at the last day.

Those who were cut off were never of God, to begin with.

>>528177

Oh, but I believe that. But now where is there space for works if it is christ alone who saves? Where do mans actions play a role if christ died for "ALL" our sins? And to say sinning, the very thing christ died for, can make you lose your relationship with christ then what did he really die for?

>For it is by grace you have been saved through faith, and this not from yourselves; it is the gift of God, 9not by works, so that no one can boast

Ephesians 2:8-9

>>528263

Evidence

>>534949

>Socinianism ( /səˈsɪniːənizm/) is a system ofChristian doctrine named for Fausto Sozzini(Latin: Faustus Socinus), which was developed among the Polish Brethren in the Minor Reformed Church of Poland during the 16th and 17th centuries[1] and embraced by the Unitarian Church of Transylvania during the same period.[2] It is most famous for itsnontrinitarian Christology but contains a number of other unorthodox beliefs as w

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socinianism

Socinians existed way later than all the Greek philosophers. And as I had stated clearly, it is the similarities on Compatabilism that Stoics and Calvinists are similar. In all of my posts you would easily see that nowhere did I simply say Calvinists are Stoics unless referring to this area.

And of course, Epitecus is a Stoic. This means that he is automatically a compatabilist.

Once more you only shown how ignorant you are

>>528303

>>534959

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103437.htm

>>535343

And also even worse this is Sproul's view of free will

>In The Freedom of the Will, Jonathan Edwards defines biblical freedom. Man is free, he says, to choose according to his disposition. Human beings always choose according to their strongest desire, and so we make free choices. We do what we want to do. Some may object that people often choose the undesirable, such as handing a wallet over to a mugger. But even if I do this, my strongest inclination has prompted my choice. All things being equal, I do not desire to give my wallet away. But if my choice is my wallet or my life, and I hand over my wallet, I prove that I want to live more than I want money.

This is of course the same thing as the parable of how a thing's shape determines its motion which Stoics love to use

http://www.ligonier.org/learn/devotionals/what-free-will/