/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

This will be good. How are Calvinist beliefs clear scriptural truth?

>>678704

The bible states it. Just read Romans 9, acts 4, genesis 50, Isaiah, psalms etc…

>>678705

The Bible says Calvinism is false.

>>678706

Where?

I'll cut to the chase.

I am speaking the truth in Christ—I am not lying; my conscience bears me witness in the Holy Spirit— 2 that I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. 3 For I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers,[a] my kinsmen according to the flesh. 4 They are Israelites, and to them belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises. 5 To them belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ, who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen.

6 But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, 7 and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but “Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.” 8 This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring. 9 For this is what the promise said: “About this time next year I will return, and Sarah shall have a son.” 10 And not only so, but also when Rebekah had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, 11 though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls— 12 she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” 13 As it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”

14 What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God's part? By no means! 15 For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” 16 So then it depends not on human will or exertion,[b] but on God, who has mercy. 17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” 18 So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.

19 You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” 20 But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” 21 Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? 22 What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23 in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory— 24 even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles? 25 As indeed he says in Hosea,

“Those who were not my people I will call ‘my people,’

and her who was not beloved I will call ‘beloved.’”

26 “And in the very place where it was said to them, ‘You are not my people,’

there they will be called ‘sons of the living God.’”

27 And Isaiah cries out concerning Israel: “Though the number of the sons of Israel[c] be as the sand of the sea, only a remnant of them will be saved, 28 for the Lord will carry out his sentence upon the earth fully and without delay.” 29 And as Isaiah predicted,

“If the Lord of hosts had not left us offspring,

we would have been like Sodom

and become like Gomorrah.”

Israel's Unbelief

30 What shall we say, then? That Gentiles who did not pursue righteousness have attained it, that is, a righteousness that is by faith; 31 but that Israel who pursued a law that would lead to righteousness[d] did not succeed in reaching that law. 32 Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as if it were based on works. They have stumbled over the stumbling stone, 33 as it is written,

“Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense;

and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame.”

How do the EO and papists deal with this?

>>678706

I'm still waiting

>>678708

I'm not reading anything here that supports Calvinist theology or rejects Catholic theology. Can you actually explain what your problems are clearly because right now you've being far too vague to engage with. I assume you're talking about predestination but none of the verses you just quoted support predestination.

>>678709

Nothing in the Bible supports Calvinism.

>>678710

>>678712

Romans 9 states that God actively creates some souls for hell and others for heaven. It also talks about total depravity and man's inability to come to man. It also calls all things that humans do works, thus making the sacraments a work too.

>>678710

Also, it's not fair to call me vague since we only just started and I was never asked why I believe what I do. I was just stating what I believe. If you asked then I would have told you.

>>678714

No it doesn't. Predestination is an absolutely retarded theology because it means there is no point evangelizing. It means there is no point praying. Calvin also adhered to "Once saved, always saved", which has been thoroughly debunked is patently unscriptural and a satanic doctrine.

http://people.cs.ksu.edu/~bbp9857/calvinism.html

>>678710

Also, here's a more clear verse about predestination:

>for truly in this city there were gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place.

Acts 4:27-28

>>678717

That doesn't support the idea that some people are predestined to be saved. He's saying that God used his knowledge of what Herod and Pilate would do for his own ends. God knowing what someone will do doesn't remove their free will.

>>678719

Oof, it's not even talking about Him passively making something come to pass that he knew would happen. What do you think "to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place." means? And if God predestined that then most likely He also predestined the damnation of those people. For salvation specifically, read romans 9:19-23:

>You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory

>>678722

>God causes people to sin

Absolutely heretical interpretation fam

>>678716

Have you read romans 9? You're only hurting yourself buddy

>>678726

Nope, first of all your response wasn't even a real response. You just called me a heretic without giving me a reason to interpret it any differently. Secondly, there is a difference between God's will and His decree. He can decree things to come to pass that are against His will. What is His will you ask? It's the desire that all come to salvation. And what is His decree you ask? It's that His elect come to Him that He has predestined since the start of time.

>>678727

>You're only hurting yourself buddy

Actually according to calvinism it's God hurting me since he's making me point out your heretical and satanic interpretation of scripture. Sorry, not my fault! Blame God!

>>678732

http://people.cs.ksu.edu/~bbp9857/calvinism.html

Calvinism is debunked there.

http://www.auburn.edu/~allenkc/openhse/calvinism.html

https://israeliteindeed.wordpress.com/calvinism/understanding-romans-9-without-the-calvinist-spin/

>>678733

Nope, God's plan involves the evil of man to bring about His will:

>As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good, to bring it about that many people should be kept alive, as they are today.

Genesis 50:20

Also, since you have an issue with God's sovereign decree, how do you deal with these verses?

>Then a spirit came forward, stood before the LORD, and said, ‘I will entice him.’ ‘By what means?’ asked the LORD. And he replied, ‘I will go out and be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets.’ ‘You will surely entice him and prevail,’ said the LORD. ‘Go and do it.’ So you see, the LORD has put a lying spirit in the mouths of these prophets of yours, and the LORD has pronounced disaster against you

2 Chronicles 18:20-22

>>678702

So you're not willing to give up TULIP, but you are willing to give up sola scriptura and sola fide? Does that make sense to you?

>>678735

I've heard every argument against Calvinism and they're all a joke. This better be something new

>>678738

I did say there are a "couple" doctrinal issues. I'm using /Christian/ to get these questions answered one by one.

>>678735

had a quick read through, seems like the typical /christian/ poster made that. Not even worth my time to go through each point one by one. But I'll still refute them if you aim them at me one by one.

Boy, what a thread.

>>678714

Wouldn't romans 9:20 and foward be the exact opposite of what you claim?

It says man is not to try to understand God's reasoning as to why we fail.

>>678751

What? No, it's supports my claim that God is active in fashioning some people specifically for the intent of sending them to hell while others to heaven for His glory. The questioning see in Romans 9:19 is a common response that Paul has heard in his ministry and a common one you are from day to day and Paul's response isn't one where he tries to reconcile God's sovereignty with man's free will. Rather he doubles down and says you cannot talk back to God.

Was hoping somebody would help me out here but nothing. 😔

>>678702

>I've heard a catholics attempts to somehow adjust the 5 points. I think it was called thomas aquinas' 5 points. I disagreed with them greatly.

I'm a noob and not Catholic (actually have Calvinist leanings myself but not well read enough to be able to confidently commit myself either way yet) but I've never come across this and, given Aquinas came hundreds of years before Calvin are you sure you're not thinking of Aquinas' 5 Ways, which are logical proofs for the existence of God, and nothing to do with Calvinism or TULIP? Sage for off topic

>>678702

The hell does it matter whether you become Catholic or not then? You're either already saved or not saved. It's this bogus, illogical system that God programmed certain people into loving Him, while he programmed others to hate Him.

You expect us to paste whole walls of text to you? Do you own research.

Go read st. Francis de Sales' Catholic Controversy, part 1, chapter 7. He converted almost 100 000 calvinists just by shoving leaflets under people's doors. If you're lazy I'll screenshot the pages for you.

>>678755

>it's supports my claim that God is active in fashioning some people specifically for the intent of sending them to hell while others to heaven for His glory.

It doesn't support your claim that God does these things from birth, only that some people are reprobate. So this >>678714 post here is assuming too much and contradicting other scripture, such as 1 Timothy 2:4 and John 5:40. Yes some people are saved and others are reprobate, but for many, the possibility still depends on them and they haven't reached either point yet.

>>678762

It's barely been an hour since you posted this thread.

>>678716

>Calvin also adhered to "Once saved, always saved", which has been thoroughly debunked is patently unscriptural and a satanic doctrine.

Calvin was wrong but OSAS is true. You haven't debunked the eternal security of the believer just because you have disproved some of Calvin's points— I'm neither Calvinist nor Arminian, and you're equally as wrong as them. And it's a wicked thing you're trying to do.

Also, if you're going to talk about being unscriptural why don't you start actually citing scripture instead of websites. So far your posts have been pretty devoid of any reference to scripture, so that's pretty hypocritical.

>>678755

Think about this for a second

>You have pushed me to do evil ; you have so decreed, ordained, and willed ; I could not act otherwise, I could not will otherwise,—what fault of mine is there ? God of my heart! chastise my will, if it is able not to will evil and wills to will it ; but if it cannot help willing evil, and thou art the cause of its impossibility, what fault of mine can there be ? If this is not contrary

to reason, I protest that there is no reason in the world.

>The law of God is impossible, according to Calvin and the others : t what follows, except that Our Lord is a tyrant who commands impossible things ? If it is impossible, why is it commanded?

>Works, good as ever they may be, rather deserve hell than Paradise : shall then the justice of God, which will give to every one according to his works, give to every one hell?

Sure makes sense.

>>678794

>but OSAS is true

OSAS is just about the most unbiblical doctrine you can find. Jesus says many many times that people can lose salvation

Also, how do you deal with James 1?

>[13] Let no man, when he is tempted, say that he is tempted by God. For God is not a tempter of evils, and he tempteth no man. [14] But every man is tempted by HIS OWN concupiscence, being drawn away and allured. [15] Then when concupiscence hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin. But sin, when it is completed, begetteth death.

Or Ezekiel 18?

>[23] Is it my will that a sinner should die, saith the Lord God, and not that he should be converted from his ways, and live? [24] But if the just man turn himself away from his justice, and do iniquity according to all the abominations which the wicked man useth to work, shall he live? all his justices which he hath done, shall not be remembered: in the prevarication, by which he hath prevaricated, and in his sin, which he hath committed, in them he shall die.

>For when the just turneth himself away from his justice, and committeth iniquity, he shall die therein: in the injustice that he hath wrought he shall die. [27] And when the wicked turneth himself away from his wickedness, which he hath wrought, and doeth judgment, and justice: he shall save his soul alive. [28] Because he considereth and turneth away himself from all his iniquities which he hath wrought, he shall surely live, and not die. [29] And the children of Israel say: The way of the Lord is not right. Are not my ways right, O house of Israel, and are not rather your ways perverse? [30] Therefore will I judge every man according to his ways, O house of Israel, saith the Lord God. Be converted, and do penance for all your iniquities: and iniquity shall not be your ruin.

These pretty clearly imply we have an active role in our salvation. In Romans 9, claiming that God intentionally creates evil people is a misunderstanding. He raised up the Pharaoh, because in His foreknowledge He knew he will use his free will to sin, so that he may be an example to everyone.

>>678708

Came late for the party but how can you be sure that private "revelation" of yours isn't the Devil?

>>678806

Thank you for posting this.

>>678807

>OSAS is just about the most unbiblical doctrine you can find.

No it isn't.

>Jesus says many many times that people can lose salvation

No, he didn't.

>>678806

Could you explain this one to me?

t. theological neophyte

>>678779

Nah, I was referring to this: http://jimmyakin.com/a-tiptoe-through-tulip

>>678787

God's plan involves people to act in specific way. Also, I've heard about that francis guy. Please paste it for a lazy calvinist.

>>678814

>Jesus says many many times that people can lose salvation

1 Corinthians 9:27

But I chastise my body and bring it into subjection: lest perhaps, when I have preached to others, I myself should become a castaway.

2 Peter 2:20-22

For if, flying from the pollutions of the world, through the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they be again entangled in them and overcome: their latter state is become unto them worse than the former. For it had been better for them not to have known the way of justice than, after they have known it, to turn back from that holy commandment which was delivered to them. For, that of the true proverb has happened to them: The dog is returned to his vomit; and: The sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire.

How can you guys call yourself prots if you don't even follow sola scriptura?

Truth be told if you read the bible you'd be Catholic either way.

>>678789

>It doesn't support your claim that God does these things from birth

I'll post it again for you:

<19 You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” 20 But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” 21 Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? 22 What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23 in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory

Romans 9:19-23

Look at the words "prepared" and "beforehand."

>1 Timothy 2:4

See what I wrote here>>678732

>John 5:40

You're ignoring John 6:44

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

>>678817

2 Corinthians 13:5-6

Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates? But I trust that ye shall know that we are not reprobates.

Now 2 Peter chapter 2 is talking about the wolves among the sheep, false prophets, who were never saved but who were crept in unawares. Same people that Jude is talking about. They were never saved, like Judas Iscariot, who was never saved, see John 17:12.

>>678814

>“Woe to the world for temptations to sin! For it is necessary that temptations come, but woe to the one by whom the temptation comes! And if your hand or your foot causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life crippled or lame than with two hands or two feet to be thrown into the eternal fire. And if your eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life with one eye than with two eyes to be thrown into the hell of fire.

Seems pretty unequivocal to me. Why would Jesus be talking about the need to avoid sin in terms of literally mutilating yourself to avoid it if it's no biggie and you can get into heaven anyway? Mortal sin cuts you off from Gods grace.

>>678816

Walking this back to Aquinas himself would be like arguing that Aristotle was literally a Christian philosopher while he was alive. Also, there are better apologists than Akin. Try this article which refutes him from an orthodox Catholic perspective.

http://www.catechism.cc/articles/catholic-soteriology-versus.htm

>>678797

lol, this is exactly the question raised in Romans 9:14 and Romans 9:19. The answers lie in the following verses. Also, regarding the law being impossible, I don't think it's so much that the law is impossible but rather than we are so depraved that we can't do something as simple as to love our neighbour. And it's important to understand the purpose of the law, it wasn't so that we should do it since even the prophets of the OT failed in that regard and Peter even says that the law was a strain on the believer. T he purpose of the law was to show us our sin. See Romans 3:20

<For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin.

>>678819

>See what I wrote here>>678732

Dude that's nonsense. And it's funny because weren't you just a minute ago saying God's will prevails over all things? So now it doesn't when we're looking at 1 Timothy 2:4?

>You're ignoring John 6:44

And you're ignoring John 12:32-33

<And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.

<This he said, signifying what death he should die.

>>678822

What kind of retarded interpretation is that? It's completely out of context.

In Corinthians Paul is asking them if they believe what Paul teaches is the Truth. If they feel the truth is in them.

And Peter is clearly talking about people who are Christian and then become apostates.

Read them fully instead of isolated verses.

>>678819

Lad predestination =/= predestinarisnism

Read Saint Augustine pls

>>678830

>Read them fully instead of isolated verses.

Whoa there. That's not the protestant way. We've got to read Bible verses completely out of context and interpret them in the most bizarre ways possible, that's how we protestants determine biblical doctrine!

>>678811

>James 1

Read what I wrote here:>>678732

>He raised up the Pharaoh, because in His foreknowledge

Laughable. If you even read exodus 4 you'll see that even before Moses went to go speak with the pharaoh, God told Moses He would harden His heart.

>>678813

Because it's scriptural. It's like coming to me and asking me if Jesus wept in John 11:35 and then after I say yes you say "how can you be sure that private "revelation" of yours isn't the Devil? "

>>678830

>Read them fully instead of isolated verses.

I have, and that is Not an argument.

Every time you want to bring up the point of something being out of context, you must provide that context in order to make coherent sense of it. Otherwise, you just sound like someone who doesn't like the truth so he screeches "out of context."

>>678829

>weren't you just a minute ago saying God's will prevails over all things?

Where? Timothy is God's desire whereas Romans 9 is God's decree.

>And you're ignoring John 12:32-33

Talking about the resurrection of the dead. Many other interpretation would lead you to becoming a Universalist.

>>678815

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counterfactual_conditional

(I know it's wikipedia but) it's summed up here pretty nice

>>678830

I'm aware. What I'm saying is that God is active in His predestining of the fate of all things.

>>678702

Well, you have posted an image, meaning that you contradicted Calvinism already. Yes, its a funpost

>>678836

I've explained. Not my fault you don't want to hear.

Not wasting my time with you.

>>678833

But Saint John says Jesus wept. I don't get your point. What are you trying to imply? That your "revelation" is at the same level of the inspired writers? Lol

>>678839

Not sure if I get what you mean. Let's start with the basics.

>God is all powerful thferefore he knows everything that happened and will happen in the future.

>humans have free will (that's why the Fall happened)

So God knew what you would freely decide to do since all eternity and don't forget that God is outside time. For Him there's only Present. No past nor future.

It's not hard to understand. Now what Calvin says is that some people are going to hell and some to heaven since they are destined to that. Nothing that they do will change that. Which means everything Jesus and his apostles said doesn't matter since those who were saved are going to heaven and the ones who were chosen to go to hell will end up there no matter what they do.

So why did Jesus came to earth in the first place if there's nothing we can do to escape our destiny? Why shouldn't I sin if I am saved already or doomed?

>>678845

>unironically only person to give an actual answer to my thread

When you can't beat them, burn them

>>678837

>Many other interpretation would lead you to becoming a Universalist.

No only according to your false doctrine, because like John 5:40 says, they WILL not come to him, that they might have life. Therefore, John 12:32-33 makes sense. And only if you are a Calvinist do you have to ignore John 12:32-33 or else it implies universalism.

Also John 12:33 literally says this is talking about his death that he should die, so you can't get out of it. All this shows is that Calvinism implies universalism, so this can be used to show that it must be false. Not that the Bible is false, but that Calvinism is.

>>678839

God's knowledge of counterfactuals (middle knowledge) precedes the creation, and it is possible for our choices to be freely made while still not contradicting predestination. So individuals are still accountable for their actions.

>>678848

>But Saint John says Jesus wept. I don't get your point. What are you trying to imply? That your "revelation" is at the same level of the inspired writers? Lol

My point is that the reason why I believe in this doctrine is because it's scriptural. That's it, I've asked people everywhere for years and have never had a good answer. EVER! To read it any other way would be anti biblical at this point.

>Not sure if I get what you mean. Let's start with the basics

I disagree with the following statements. It isn't simple God being passive and allowing the things He has forknew happen. He is actively decreeing them

>for truly in this city there were gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place.

Acts 4:27-28

>>678850

>No only according to your false doctrine, because like John 5:40 says, they WILL not come to him, that they might have life.

Oof, first of all if you have John 5:40 in mind you will know that these people were trying to come to God by their own power. They were not drawn by God and so could not be saved as John 6:44 states. The drawing being talked about in John 12:32-33 is talking about the resurrection that will happen on the day of judgement where God's people will go to heaven. If you think it's literally talking about all people then you'll have to accept that every person in the world will go heaven.

>God's knowledge of counterfactuals

Why do you keep on making this point. I've thoroughly told you that God's decree are not Him passively letting things come to pass that His foreknowledge had already seen. They're active. See >>678855

>>678855

>He is actively decreeing them

Source? Calvin a dude that even other reformers disagreed with him.

>muh acts

I already explained you the difference about predestination and predestinarisnism. If you want to still believe in your heresy I wash my hands.

If you think my arguments are not sound a simple search on Google and you will find arguments from catholics and protestants that smash Calvin to the ground.

>>678861

>Source?

Since acts wasn't enough then look at chronicles:

>>Then a spirit came forward, stood before the LORD, and said, ‘I will entice him.’ ‘By what means?’ asked the LORD. And he replied, ‘I will go out and be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets.’ ‘You will surely entice him and prevail,’ said the LORD. ‘Go and do it.’ So you see, the LORD has put a lying spirit in the mouths of these prophets of yours, and the LORD has pronounced disaster against you

2 Chronicles 18:20-22

And exodus

>And the Lord said to Moses, “When you go back to Egypt, see that you do before Pharaoh all the miracles that I have put in your power. But I will harden his heart, so that he will not let the people go.

Exodus 4:21

And the best, romans :

>You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory

Romans 9:19-23

Do you want more examples of God actively acting in the world?

>>678861

Ps: forgot to mention common sense

If Calvin was right why would christ and Saint Paul would tell us to do or not to certain things otherwise we wouldn't be saved?

If we were all predestined to go up there or down what good is faith in christ and works? It's even more retarded than the Lutheran faith not works.

I ask again why are you a Christian if your nothing else but a machine 100% controlled by God? And why would he want His children to be like toys?

>>678860

>If you think it's literally talking about all people then you'll have to accept that every person in the world will go heaven.

No because some people will not come to him, they resist it. Only if you were a Calvinist would you have to accept universalism from this verse. This is what I keep on telling you. But since I believe John 5:40 that some men resisted his grace, therefore John 12:32-33 does not imply universalism.

>I've thoroughly told you that God's decree are not Him passively letting things come to pass that His foreknowledge had already seen. They're active.

Just because God does some things actively does not mean that's how all things are. That is a false assumption. God doesn't make people sin. For example:

Jeremiah 19:5

They have built also the high places of Baal, to burn their sons with fire for burnt offerings unto Baal, which I commanded not, nor spake it, neither came it into my mind:

>>678861

Also, about the difference about predestination and predestinarisnism in acts. That's just ludicrous. Just read it for yourself, it says "to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place." Is God's hand passive?

>>678870

>Do you want more examples of God actively acting in the world?

>Being the God of History = humans having no freewill

Top kek

>>678870

Genesis 50:20 answers this. Also, we are the tools and vessels used for God to bring about His will.

>>678870

>And why would he want His children to be like toys?

Not a Calvinist but the answer usually given as to the intentions of God is to refer to Isaiah 55:8-11 “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,” declares the LORD. “As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts. As the rain and the snow come down from heaven, and do not return to it without watering the earth and making it bud and flourish, so that it yields seed for the sower and bread for the eater, so is my word that goes out from my mouth: It will not return to me empty, but will accomplish what I desire and achieve the purpose for which I sent it."

>>678871

>No because some people will not come to him, they resist it.

Wrong, it also says that He will raise them up on the last day. If you are not raised to eternal life on the last day then you were never drawn by God to begin with. Also, in John 5:40 they weren't even gifted by the grace of God. It was a bunch of people who thought they could get to heaven by themselves like a bunch of pelagians or semipelagians.

>Just because God does some things actively does not mean that's how all things are.

When God did control the acts of some, did He go against His law? Anyway, ALL things work out to the council of His will:

>In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will,

Ephesians 1:11

>>678875

>genesis 50:20

Lol man. It is sayin that Joseph brother have premeditated something against him. Not God. Are you those kind of people that crlt-f on the Bible and look for the word they want in this case predestination or premeditation?

And what kind of plan? Who would enjoy it and live in happiness with him if we would be mere tools?

I must ask why are you a Christian in the first place if you are already saved or doomed? Why don't you live your life as you please? Why listening to Paul that tell us not to fornicate or to the commandments that tell me not to kill? Why should I try to be a good person if my future is sealed already?

>>678878

Thanks for the help. Felt like the world is against me in this server.

>>678882

He is not helping you. He is just saying no one can know God's ways. And he is right about that.

>>678881

I love the way you pick parts of my argument you feel.as though would be easiest to attack. But anyway

>It is sayin that Joseph brother have premeditated something against him. Not God

The same word used for Joseph's brothers is also used for God. What Joseph's brothers intended for evil, God intended, same word here, for God.

>I must ask why are you a Christian in the first place

Because God has predestined me to be so, that's why. A part of His sovereign decree involved my conversion. I mean, God had an infinite and 1 ways of having His will completed. He could have created the world in 1 day instead of 6. He could have not put the tree in the garden and He could have just sent everyone to heaven in the first place. But he decreed things differently. Ultimately, the answer lies in what this non Calvinist anon said: >>678878

>>678889

He did help, that's the only real answer when trying to reconcile God's sovereignty with man's free will.

>>678879

>Also, in John 5:40 they weren't even gifted by the grace of God. It was a bunch of people who thought they could get to heaven by themselves like a bunch of pelagians or semipelagians.

John 5:46

For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me.

>Wrong, it also says that He will raise them up on the last day.

No, you're not understanding John 6:44, look it carefully.

>No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

So then nobody can COME TO HIM except the Father draw him. And those that come to him are raised up at the last day. John 6:44 never said that all that are drawn will come to him, it said that in order to come to him they must first be drawn, as a prerequisite. It never once said that all drawn would actually do so, that's the assumption of irresistable grace, and in John 12:32-33 that would imply universalism because verse 33 says it was speaking of the death that he would die. But John 5:40 says they some WILL not come to him, therefore John 12:32-33 makes sense because it's resistable and John 6:44 says being drawn is a prerequisite, not a causation.

>Anyway, ALL things work out to the council of His will:

That still doesn't mean some people don't freely choose to disbelieve even to the point of becoming reprobate and will be held accountable for that willful disbelief. If they freely chose it, that's how it is.

>>678707

>>678893

>Because God has predestined me to be so, that's why.

Ok anon lmao. I don't even know why you started this thread then if you wanted to hear the Catholic opinion on the matter. I sorry that I didn't defend your heresy.

But hey maybe God predestined you to make this thread.

>>678806

>precedes

God exists outside of space-time, mortal.

>>678897

>John 5:46

Only proves further that they did not truly believe.

>John 6:44 never said that all that are drawn will come to him,

Ok, let's take a look shall we.

>No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

John 6:44

So, we have 2 clauses here. The first clause states that no one can come Christ. The greek here (dynamai) means not able to. Think about it like this, remember in school when you.asked your teacher "can I go to the toilet" then she replied, "I don't know, can you?" Well, what is being said here is that you cannot, you are not able to come to Christ unless the Father draws him. Then we move onto the second clause which states that "and I *WILL* raise him up on the last day." If that person isn't raised up to eternal life on the last day then Christ never raised him up.

>That still doesn't mean some people don't freely choose to disbelieve even to the point of becoming reprobate and will be held accountable for that willful disbelief.

Then if God's decree can be frustrated by the unwillingfulness of man then He can only do things to the council of His will as far as man let's Him.

>>678899

I was trying to see if I can keep a hold of my Calvinist beliefs.

>>678907

And I've just showed you they are completely retarded but you're blind by your pride.

Prots and their private interpretations once again. When will it ever end.

Have a good night anon.

>>678898

Steven Anderson believes that gays should themselves because they can't do anything to help but be gay and that it's an unpardonable sin. Seems pretty fatalistic to me.

>>678909

Where did you show me? Might have missed it. These threads tend to go on for a while and I end up missing things.

>>678914

Either your mouse wheel is broken or its just not this thread you've missed.

>>678916

Oh, you're responses were nothing knew and come more from ignorance and contempt for God's sovereignty than for actual scriptural reasons.

>>678907

Contemptuous thread made under bad faith/false pretenses.

Please delete it.

>>678918

I and other anons used scripture against you but you reject our arguments because it doesn't agree with your opinion.

Maybe you are predestined to be dumb.

Not wasting my time with you.

>>678920

Contemptuous comment made under bad faith/false pretenses.

Please delete.

>>678905

>Then if God's decree can be frustrated by the unwillingfulness of man

No, more like God's decree regarding predestination is congruent with his middle knowledge about what people will choose. That doesn't mean he can't harden someone's heart after they've disbelieved; it means nobody is forced into disbelief initially, but rather they do it via their resistance of the grace they were given.

>Well, what is being said here is that you cannot, you are not able to come to Christ unless the Father draws him.

Yeah, but it also doesn't mean you are forced to. It means God's predestination is congruent with what people freely choose. And this is possible due to His middle knowledge.

>>678924

You stated in the OP that you are interested in EO/RCC but want to understand their reasons for rejecting TULIP. When it's explained to you, you disregard it then give us this ridiculous "w/e i just wanted to test my beliefs lel". At least be honest with us upfront and say "I'm a Calvinist - convince me I'm wrong".

Since you have learned nothing and done nothing with the information ITT, just delete it. You're not interested.

God bless you.

>>678702

Travel back in time and help the Jansenists win & not be declared heretics.

Alternatively, start a Neo-Jansenist movement and hope it goes better than the first time. Francis might just be tolerant enough to make a compromise, but you might have to find some priest or cardinal to support your position.

As for Orthodox, I feel like I remember there being a Patriarch of Constantinople that supported Calvinism but who was later denounced by the Eastern churches. So maybe there is some hope there too?

>>678926

>God's decree regarding predestination is congruent with his middle knowledge

Is it you again? I've already told you God isn't passive.

>harden someone's heart after they've disbelieved

Remember when I posted exodus 4? That was before Moses even spoke to the pharoah. Also, when the pharaoh finally let the Egyptians go. God hardened the pharoahs heart one more time so that He could then sweep them by the waves after the Israelites walked across the red sea.

>>678926

The issue with choice is that man will always choose evil when given a decision to choose between good and evil. See Romans 3:10-12

>As it is written: “There is no one righteous, not even one. There is no one who understands; no one who seeks God. All have turned away; they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one

>>678934

Sorry you feel that way. If we can talk about something else I would like to know about the Eucharist. How do you reconcile that with the fact that Christ was the one and for all sacrifice? Honestly, if I could get that and Calvinism sorted I'd become a Catholic or eastern orthodox.

>>678935

Wasn't there a council which literally condemned Calvinism? A few eastern orthodox were actually becoming Calvinist and there had to be a council to combat it.

>>678936

>Is it you again? I've already told you God isn't passive.

When it comes to sin, God has no part in it.

>Remember when I posted exodus 4? That was before Moses even spoke to the pharoah.

But was it before his birth? No, and it first says pharoah hardened his own heart, and later God hardened it.

>The issue with choice is that man will always choose evil when given a decision to choose between good and evil. See Romans 3:10-12

Hence John 6:44

>>678947

>When it comes to sin, God has no part in it

Sure, but look at this:

>Then a spirit came forward, stood before the LORD, and said, ‘I will entice him.’ ‘By what means?’ asked the LORD. And he replied, ‘I will go out and be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets.’ ‘You will surely entice him and prevail,’ said the LORD. ‘Go and do it.’ So you see, the LORD has put a lying spirit in the mouths of these prophets of yours, and the LORD has pronounced disaster against you

2 Chronicles 18:20-22and

>But was it before his birth?

If you're looking for something before birth then how about this:

>though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” As it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”I

Romans 9:11-13

>Hence John 6:44

The people in John 6:44 will be saved. So, if you truly believe it the also must believe in the eternal security of the saints. If someone isn't raised up to eternal life then they were never drawn to begin with. And if it's simply a drawing then everyone would deny the drawing due to our natures as described in Romans 3:10-12

>>678848

>But Saint John says Jesus wept. I don't get your point. What are you trying to imply? That your "revelation" is at the same level of the inspired writers?

So, coherent & consistent exegesis of the bible is considered to be "private revelation"?

Also, this is one of the worst distortions of Calvinism I ever had to read.

The idea is that no man would ever willingly chose to actually believe in Christ. Man is totally depraved and can only turn towards God by being changed inwardly through a miracle of God.

Why did Jesus come to earth? To serve justice. A perfectly good and just God cannot pardon sinners and have fellowship with them and still be considered just. Imagine if a judge just let murderers & rapists go and then invite them to dinner. You would call him a worse criminal than the man he let go. By Christ dying for us, the price has been paid, justice has been served. A propitiatory sacrifice to atone for our sins.

It's quite simple really: Either Christ for all sins of all men (universalism), Christ died for some sins of all men (all are condemned) or Christ died for all sins of some men.

>>678958

>coherent & consistent exegesis

Just. Never read the parable of the prodigal son my man? Man can always regret. God is a loving Father and he desires everyone to be saved because is mercy is infinite.

And we do have a choice. Either believe that Christ died for us and follow His path, or disbelieving or not follow the Path and go to hell. One soul for God is more important than the entire universe. There is no souls that he loves more and souls he doesn't care about. And why would He create souls that he didn't love as his own children? Are we back to the good old meme that God makes people sin? Lmao

>>678958

>Man is totally depraved

That's your opinion, only supported by the retarded reformers because trying to improve with God's help requires effort and its easier to scratch my balls while believing I'm going to heaven either way.

>>678952

>If you're looking for something before birth then how about this:

That's a quote of Malachi 1:2-3

>Was not Esau Jacob's brother? saith the LORD: yet I loved Jacob, And I hated Esau, and laid his mountains and his heritage waste for the dragons of the wilderness.

This saying quoted in Romans 9:13 is said long after Esau was born, it's from Malachi.

>>678968

>Prodigal son

Even a believer can fall into sin, but God always welcomes him back into his arms.

>he desires everyone to be saved

So then he is not able to save everyone? I assume you are not a Universalist, so clearly God wishes to do something that he is not capable of. Sounds to me like your God is not all that powerful, if any man can just turn away and say no to him. You have a man-centered gospel where at the end of the day, man has to cooperate with God, or else the almighty Creator of the universe is powerless. This is called synergism and shows a very high view of man, and a low view of God.

>God makes people sin

No, man naturally has a sinful nature since the fall.

>>678969

Yes, clearly nobody except the reformers ever believed that man is naturally sinful, has something like an original sin that he is born with.

>trying to improve with God's help requires effort

Yes, that is what it all comes back to. You are so amazing, improving yourself while God just helps a little bit on the side. But ultimately it's you that works out your salvation. If you didn't work hard to get to heaven, then poor old God just wouldn't be able to save anybody.

>its easier to scratch my balls while believing I'm going to heaven either way.

You don't seem to understand what repentance is. It means turning away from sin and towards God. A saved man is fundamentally a different creature that now hates the sin he once loved, and wants nothing more than to be pleasing in God's sight.

Not because he has to do that to be right with God, but purely due to his love for Him. The saved man knows that nothing he will ever do could possibly add to Christ's finished sacrifice or that he could ever be good enough to go to heaven on his own merit. But he still tries to grow in holiness, not for his own sake but due to obedience to God.

>>678971

Yes, but Malachi is quoting something that happened in genesis. And are you deliberately ignoring the part where Paul says "though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad"?

>>678995

>Yes, but Malachi is quoting something that happened in genesis.

The point is he wasn't hated from birth. The part where Paul said "the children being not yet born" is in regards to the prophecy that one would serve the other. That actually is found in Genesis. The part about whom he loved and hated though, is from Malachi.

>>678702

Ha, you have amused me

>>678998

>This much mental gymnastics.

The point Paul is making by putting together the fact that their before they were born or had done anything good or bad, since I'm out human thinking we determine the righteousness of one based off of their actions, their state was predetermined by God before they had even the chance to do anything.

>>679008

The OP or the whole thread?

>>678998

Also, the statement "the older shall server the younger is paralleled with Esau I hated, Jacob I loved in Paul's epistle.

>>679012

The point is God did not hate Esau until after he did what he did. And Esau was never hated in the womb. Romans 9 doesn't imply otherwise, because the part about whom he loved and hated is actually from Malachi, which chronologically comes later.

>Calvanist

>For never at any time did Christian people take their title from the Bishops among them, but from the Lord, on whom we rest our faith. Thus, though the blessed Apostles have become our teachers, and have ministered the Savior’s Gospel, yet not from them have we our title, but from Christ we are and are named Christians. But for those who derive the faith which they profess from others, good reason is it they should bear their name, whose property they have become." Athanasius of Alexandria

>>679026

No, at how Paul is utilising the verse. First of all, the OT reference Paul is using is referring to the nation of Jacob and Esau, but despite this Paul is using them as individual examples. This is why he also talks about their birth. Secondly, with the immediate context in mind, you'll see that Paul talks about rebekah being told she will conceive a child then Paul interrupts his sentence just to put in the fact that this was destined before they were born. And the addition of the fact that Paul comments that they didn't have the chance to do anything good or bad indicates that God's feelings towards them was predetermined and based on His decree. Yes, Malachi is reference to the nation but Paul uses it differently as individuals predestined for salvation. This is why he uses salvivic language we see in the previous chapter in the golden chain of redemption IE call, here in v11

>>679028

>papist

>>679028

I'm a Christian who believes in Calvinist doctrines

>>678714

Romans is mostly about the Jews and gentiles.

The two vessels that the potter makes is a reference to Jeremiah 18, which makes it very clear that human choices have an effect on whether it is a vessel for mercy or wrath. It's also talking of nations, not individual people. Which is made clear in the reference to Jacob and Esau. If you go back to Genesis, you can see God is talking of "two nations." Esau's descendants became the Edomites, who were not Jews. Therefore not chosen. Therefore "hated." Trouble befell them. Romans is talking about what is to become of the gentiles.

The problem with Calvinists is that pick and choose when they want to apply context. The bible was written to Jews. So to understand, you need to know what those who were initially reading it would have seen in it.

Think about it this way, God raised an entire nation of people (Israel) up for the purpose of identifying the Messiah when He arrived. All of their particular ceremonies that we no longer do were signs of the coming Messiah. And we no longer do these things because Christ has come and to continue doing them would be to deny He was the Messiah.

And you would know this if you were able to read the New Testament in its context. Christ, one by one, renders Jewish custom obsolete by pointing out that He is here. We no longer need to light the fire at the Feast of Tabernacles because Christ is the light of this world. We no longer celebrate passover because Christ is the passover lamb.

>>679035

Finally, this is more of what I was looking for.

>Romans is mostly about the Jews and gentiles.

It's about a lot of things, which we will find out.

>The two vessels that the potter makes is a reference to Jeremiah 18, which makes it very clear that human choices have an effect on whether it is a vessel for mercy or wrath.

The first part of your argument is true whereas the second part is false. Yes, the whole analogy of potters and clay come from the OT verses where God talks about creating nations and predestining some to destruction and other not to. But one should also take note of how Paul utilises these OT verses and how he expands their meanings If you go on to vs24 you will see that he uses a salvivic term which he also used in romans 8, that being called. You and I would both agree that in the golden chain of redemption, the terms being spoken of there is about salvation but Paul uses it again here. Now, if you restrict Pauls use of these terms to their OT verses then you must concede that an entire nation was saved, but is that the message of romans? This shall be must clearly established later on.

>It's also talking of nations, not individual people. Which is made clear in the reference to Jacob and Esau.

Actually, in his use of Jacob and Esau we see more clearly that he is refering to individuals. At the very start of his epistle he raises a question that he must have heard a lot while evangelising to the romans, and that is, if the gospel was meant for the jews and the jews haven't accepted it, does that then mean that God's word has failed? Paul then goes on to answer this objection in vs6-7:

<But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but “Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.

Here we see Paul distingusih between the nation of isreal and the elect few of isreal. But I shall go further. You then reference the fact that Paul talks about the two nations within rebeka, but as I said earlier we know that Paul is using the example of Jacob and Esau as individuals, not nations despite his quoting of OT verses where the nation is being spoken of. This is further seen by the fact that we see again a term used in the golden chain of redemption about salvation used here for Jacob and Esau in vs11

< though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls

The word call here is a salvivic term about how God calls people to justification. If you are saying that it is simply talking about nation, then Pauls whole distinction between the nation of isreal and the remnant falls down because as we see, the direct decedents of jacob fell away and only those who were of the promise were saved.

Cont

btw, sorry of any spelling mistakes or a lack of coherence. I have adhd and autism and so it's hard for me to take things step by step

>>679035

>The problem with Calvinists is that pick and choose when they want to apply context.

You can say that all you want but the reason why I am a Calvinist is because it's the only way to make sense of the bible. That being said, I also deny some other aspects of calvinism because I don't think it's scriptural and that's also why I am here.

>The bible was written to Jews. So to understand, you need to know what those who were initially reading it would have seen in it.

Actually, that only hurts your position more. I can give you examples of jews living prior to Christ who also had this hard predestination doctrine.

>>679035

>

Think about it this way, God raised an entire nation of people (Israel) up for the purpose of identifying the Messiah when He arrived. All of their particular ceremonies that we no longer do were signs of the coming Messiah. And we no longer do these things because Christ has come and to continue doing them would be to deny He was the Messiah. And you would know this if you were able to read the New Testament in its context. Christ, one by one, renders Jewish custom obsolete by pointing out that He is here. We no longer need to light the fire at the Feast of Tabernacles because Christ is the light of this world. We no longer celebrate passover because Christ is the passover lamb

This bit is all waffle. Don't know what point you're trying to make.

>>679028

Guess you're not a trinitarian either huh

>>678702

Because one institution of those you mention is 2000 years old, 2000 years of unbroken tradition, theologians, etc can you think of any other institution that lasted that long while not contradicting its doctrine even once?

>>679089

I see what you're getting at and I am in fact considering becoming a rc or eo. But I feel as though the scriptural evidence for Calvinism is so strong that I can't seem myself letting go of it. I feel like a lot of Catholics and orthodox have a strong connection to their tradition but not so much the scriptures. The bible is more like a baby that needs to be carried. You boast more in your supposed 2000 year old tradition, which is questionable in and of itself if it's even that old, than the scriptures themselves.

>>679089

>Unbroken Tradition

Even if we ignore the fact that most distinctly Catholic doctrines do not develop until the Middle Ages or even later, that is blatantly untrue.

To put it bluntly: There was not a person at the Council of Nicaea who believed in the Catholic teaching of Purgatory, the 4 Marian Dogmas or that the bishop of Rome had the ability to speak infallibly.

The claim that the Catholic church today is in the tradition of the early church is as much a lie as saying that the US government today is in the tradition of what the founding fathers intended.

On top of that, you have the anathematization of Pope Honorius, the pornocracy & popes acting worse than Pagans and the various Schisms that led to up to 3 different popes at a time.

If you can claim that the Catholic church has a chain of unbroken tradition, I might as well say that the Emperors of China had 3000 years of unbroken tradition. You could even argue that even though the name changed, that tradition still exists in the Chinese government today. No reason the papacy is any more "unbroken" than the mandate of heaven.

The only honest position that a Catholic can hold with regard to church history is that doctrines developed over time. Now, a Catholic will claim that, of course those are all in the spirit of earlier teachings and just a logical continuation. The problem is just, you then have absolutely no saying how those teachings could develop in the future. The leap drop celibacy, to allow female priests, to let remarried people receive communion, to accept homosexual in the church… Looking at the current pope, those do not seem like outlandish developments in the future. And generations to come will then claim those are just the logical continuation of previous teachings, all within the tradition of the church.

Let me maybe leave you with the following quote:

>Men receive the hope of this salvation when they are justified from sin in the present…. But this salvation of grace is by faith in Christ…. According to Romans 11 (6); ‘If by grace it is not now by works; otherwise grace is no more grace.’ He follows with the reason why God saves man by faith without any preceding merits, that no man may glory in himself but refer all the glory to God

Is this from one of those evil reformers? No, it's from Aquinas commentary on the Epistle to the Ephesians. Compare that with what the Council of Trent infallibly pronounced:

>If anyone shall say that the good works of the man justified are in such a way the gift of God that they are not also the good merits of him who is justified, or that the one justified by the good works…does not truly merit increase of grace, eternal life, and the attainment of eternal life (if he should die in grace), and also an increase in glory; let him be anathema

But hey, all just a part of the unbroken chain of tradition. Just like any developments to come will be.

>>679113

>There was not a person at the Council of Nicaea who believed in the Catholic teaching of Purgatory

Why do you lie on the internet?

Cyprian of Carthage writes in A.D. 253:

>It is one thing to stand for pardon, another thing to attain to glory; it is one thing, when cast into prison, not to go out thence until one has paid the uttermost farthing; another thing at once to receive the wages of faith and courage. It is one thing, tortured by long suffering for sins, to be cleansed and long purged by fire; another to have purged all sins by suffering. It is one thing, in fine, to be in suspense till the sentence of God at the day of judgment; another to be at once crowned by the Lord.

Tertullian

>the Crown 3:3, dated A.D. 211, "We offer sacrifices for the dead on their birthday anniversaries"

St. John Chrysostom in his Homilies on 1 Corinthians 41:5, A.D. 392:

>Let us not hesitate to help those who have died and to offer our prayers for them.

St. Augustine's A.D. 419. City of God:

>Temporal punishments are suffered by some in this life only, by some after death, by some both here and hereafter, but all of them before that last and strictest judgment. But not all who suffer temporal punishments after death will come to eternal punishments, which are to follow after that judgment"

>the 4 Marian Dogmas or that the bishop of Rome had the ability to speak infallibly

I hate, I hate it when protestants who have 0, 0 idea how Catholic doctrine works comment on these things.

Here's how it works:

De fide divina: By divine faith. That is it must be believed. These are such things as Canons of Council of Trent, Vatican I, etc. declare a dogma.

De fide Catolica: The church has always believed it. It is part of the faith (e.g. the creed).

De fide de finita: The church has always believed it but once in history a Pope has made a definition. (e.g. 1854 – Pope Pius IX proclaimed dogma of Immaculate Conception-this was always believed but was now defined on exactly what this was supposed to mean.

Fide Proxima: Close to the faith. It is not a dogma but the church has always believed it and it could be a dogma at any time. (e.g. Mary as Co-

Sententia Certa: It is not actually of the faith but we are very sure about it.

Sententia Communis: We may not be very sure about it but everyone says so, not in sense of democracy but in sense of historical accordance. Most of saints, theologians, Popes throughout centuries agreed on it.

Sententia Probabalis: It is probable. We don’t know exactly. (e.g. if a person in mortal sin dies and makes a perfect act of contrition the church teaches most probably he will be saved).

No, Marian dogmas did not exist back then. They were de fide de finita back then.

And all your other points are ridiculous, protestants coming 1500 years after the Apostles and claiming they have tradition and that they do not change doctrine is laughable.

>>679113

Oh, and this is the best part

>Men receive the hope of this salvation when they are justified from sin in the present…. But this salvation of grace is by faith in Christ…. According to Romans 11 (6); ‘If by grace it is not now by works; otherwise grace is no more grace.’ He follows with the reason why God saves man by faith without any preceding merits, that no man may glory in himself but refer all the glory to God

>Compare that with what the Council of Trent infallibly pronounced:

We have a protestant claiming that Trent, during which st. Aquinas' Summa was next to a Bible on the high altar, contradict each other. Re read those lines.

>>679113

>The leap drop celibacy, to allow female priests, to let remarried people receive communion, to accept homosexual in the church… Looking at the current pope, those do not seem like outlandish developments in the future. And generations to come will then claim those are just the logical continuation of previous teachings, all within the tradition of the church.

False. Doctrine evolves, but it cannot contradict the Deposit of Faith.

>>679113

>The only honest position that a Catholic can hold with regard to church history is that doctrines developed over time.

It's the foolishness of acorn theology. Pretending that new strange doctrines are somehow the faith which was once delivered to the saints or ignoring the contradiction altogether. All for the name of political gain. And right now they are laying the groundwork for merging up with islam and judaism, with dual covenant and saying they worship the same god. Of course they would try to deny it today but in 100 years, who knows what this precedent will grow into and how they will retroactively portray the events going on right now.

>And generations to come will then claim those are just the logical continuation of previous teachings, all within the tradition of the church.

Yup, just like reading from and honoring the quran. After all, they were doing it since X years ago, it's only a natural continuation (they will say). And look at this picture of historical popes back in the 21st century doing it, they will say. And as long as something is politically feasible, a papist won't care if something like that is added with a plausible excuse. Like maybe they dont HAVE to read the quran or do islamic stuff if they don't want to.

>>678832

You ignored Ezekiel but whatever.

Harden his heart =/= predestined him to do something. To harden his heart means God withdrew Grace, nothing more.

Eh let's deal with Romans 9

11-13

>What was the cause then why one was loved and the other hated? Why was it that one served, the other was served? It was because one was wicked, and the other good. And yet the children being not yet born, one was honored and the other condemned. For when they were not as yet born, God said, the elder shall serve the younger. With what intent then did God say this? Because He does not wait, as man does, to see from the issue of their acts the good and him who is not so, but even before these He knows which is the wicked and which not such. And this took place in the Israelites' case also, in a still more wonderful way. Why, he says, do I speak of Esau and of Jacob, of whom one was wicked and the other good? For in the Israelites' case, the sin belonged to all, since they all worshipped the calf. Yet notwithstanding some had mercy shown them, and others had not.

Hence, God did not create Esau to be evil, that is laughable. God's foreknowledge does not predestine us to do anything.

>Now every one of God’s creatures are good (see 1 Tim 4:4), and every person is a creature, as a person, not as a sinner. God is therefore the creator of the body and the soul of a person. Neither of these two realities is evil, and God does not hate them, since he hates nothing that he has created. Now the soul is superior to the body. But God, author and creator of both, hates only sin in human beings. A person’s sin is disorder and perversion, that is, separation from the supreme Creator and attachment to inferior creatures. Therefore God does not hate Esau the man but Esau the sinner. (St. Augustine Various Ques to Simplianus 1.2.18)

>9:17-18 To this purpose: Not that God made him on purpose that he should sin, and so be damned; but foreseeing his obstinacy in sin, and the abuse of his own free will, he raised him up to be a mighty king, to make a more remarkable example of him: and that his power might be better known, and his justice in punishing him, published throughout the earth. He hardens: Not by being the cause or author of his sin, but by withholding his grace, and so leaving him in his sin, in punishment of his past demerits.

>20

>Here it is not to do away with free-will that he says this, but to show, up to what point we ought to obey God. For in respect of calling God to account, we ought to be as little disposed to it as the clay is. For we ought to abstain not from gainsaying or questioning only, but even from speaking or thinking of it at all, and to become like that lifeless matter, which follows the potter's hands, and lets itself be drawn about anywhere he may please.

>do not suppose that this is said by Paul as an account of the creation, nor as implying a necessity over the will, but to illustrate the sovereignty and difference of dispensations; for if we do not take it in this way, various incongruities will follow, for if here he were speaking about the will, and those who are good and those not so, He will be Himself the Maker of these, and man will be free from all responsibility. And at this rate, Paul will also be shown to be at variance with himself, as he always bestows chief honor upon free choice. There is nothing else then which he here wishes to do, save to persuade the hearer to yield entirely to God, and at no time to call Him to account for anything whatever.

>And yet not even is it on the potter that the honor and the dishonor of the things made of the lump depends, but upon the use made by those that handle them, so here also it depends on the free choice.

>>678827

Yes, there is no injustice in God. Which means your view of predestination is utterly wrong. God creating something evil which will go to hell and has no means of avoiding it is the definition of injustice. And God is not unjust.

>we are so depraved that we can't do something as simple as to love our neighbour.

God does not command us to do something we're not capable of doing, period. Is it hard? Yes. Does God predispose people to fail at following His commands? No. Talking about anything else is beside the point.

>>679118

But none of these had any concept of for example indulgences. They believed in some form of cleansing after death, some in prayers to the death (although I know that some like Ambrose use the term "refregerium" which means refreshment, not release), but none of them know what the Catholic church would come to understand under purgatory in the 15th century.

>Catholic doctrine works comment on these things.

Yeah, whatever. I don't care what categories the Catholics have to invent to deny scripture.

Same crap as when you start making an artificial distinction between dulia, hyper-dulia & latria: Fact is, that if Moses had come down from the mountain and the Jews had made a statue to Abraham, claiming that it's dulia & not latria, that they are asking him to pray to God for them and not praying to Abraham; Moses still would have condemned them.

Anachronistically reading history and then claiming that people always believed teachings that became dogma less than a hundred years ago (Assumption of Mary) or less than 200 years ago (Immaculate Conception) were always believed, is just kind of sad.

>No, Marian dogmas did not exist back then. They were de fide de finita back then.

Even in the Middle Ages you have Bernard of Clairvaux dispute the Immaculate Conception.

Thomas Aquinas refused to concede the Immaculate Conception, on the ground that, unless the Blessed Virgin had at one time or other been one of the sinful, she could not justly be said to have been redeemed by Christ.

Bonaventura believed that Mary was completely free from sin, but that she was not given this grace at the instant of her conception.

How can you claim in all seriousness, that the church has always believed these things?

>cont.

>>679118

> protestants coming 1500 years after the Apostles and claiming they have tradition and that they do not change doctrine is laughable.

They change the traditions that Catholic have already invented. Catholics have no way to seriously exegete the bible and end up with their teachings, they were mostly adopted to appeal to Pagan sensibilities (female goddess worship, festivals for the death…)

Even then, you can read the Apostolic Fathers, the earliest non-biblical texts and much of what you find, seems to me to be a lot more in line with Reformed doctrines than the crazy stuff the Catholic church is trying to defend.

From 1 Clement:

>All these, therefore, were highly honoured, and made great, not for their own sake, or for their own works, or for the righteousness which they wrought, but through the operation of His will. And we, too, being called by His will in Christ Jesus, are not justified by ourselves, nor by our own wisdom, or understanding, or godliness, or works which we have wrought in holiness of heart; but by that faith through which, from the beginning, Almighty God has justified all men; to whom be glory for ever and ever.

Or how about the Epistle to Diognetus:

>And when our iniquity had been fully accomplished, and it had been made perfectly manifest that punishment and death were expected as its recompense, and the season came which God had ordained, when henceforth He should manifest His goodness and power (O the exceeding great kindness and love of God), He hated us not, neither rejected us, nor bore us malice, but was long-suffering and patient, and in pity for us took upon Himself our sins, and Himself parted with His own Son as a ransom for us, the holy for the lawless, the guileless for the evil, _the just for the unjust,_ the incorruptible for the corruptible, the immortal for the mortal. For what else but His righteousness would have

covered our sins? In whom was it possible for us lawless and ungodly men to have been justified, save only in the Son of God? O the sweet exchange, O the inscrutable creation, O the unexpected benefits; that the iniquity of many should be concealed in One Righteous Man, and the righteousness of One should justify many that are iniquitous! Having then in the former time demonstrated the inability of our nature to obtain life, and having now revealed a Saviour able to save even creatures which have no ability.

Does any of that sound like the Catholic, synergistic view of salvation to you? That man has to work with God to be saved?

But it's not like that matters anyway, because these were after all just fallible men, and the only measure of doctrine is scripture. And I am not sure how you can read the book of Romans and end up with a Catholic view of salvation in any shape or form.

Romans 3:22-28

>the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction:

>for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,

>and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus,

>whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins.

>It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

>Then what becomes of our boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? By a law of works? No, but by the law of faith.

>For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law.

>>679121

>THAT NO MAN MAY GLORY in himself but refer all the glory to God

>THAT THEY ARE NOT ALSO GOOD MERITS OF HIM who is justified, or that the one justified by the good works…does not truly merit increase of grace, eternal life, and the attainment of eternal life (if he should die in grace), and also an increase in glory; let him be anathema

Seems contradictory to me. No idea, how you can square that circle. One clearly says that all glory is due to God and the other says that are "also good merits of him", i.e. that he has something to boast about his good works.

>>679122

Didn't Pius X condemn modernism as a heresy? From where I am standing, Vatican II seems to me to swing the door wide open for Modernism and the past few popes seem to steer the church into exactly that direction.

Ask yourself: Who determines what is the "deposit of faith", what is tradition and what tradition says? It's the church. If the church says tomorrow that xyz is not tradition or has to be understood in the spirit of its time, you have no recourse. The new understanding of that tradition would be what you have to accept. Understanding of tradition evolves.

>>679130

>God does not command us to do something we're not capable of doing, period.

The greatest commandment is to "love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind." Have you done that? Have ever loved God how he ought to be loved, for even just a second, let alone your entire life? You are continually breaking the greatest commandment and there is no hope whatsoever for you to ever keep the law.

>>679183

>But none of these had any concept of for example indulgences.

Don't shift goal posts.

>In Psalm Ixv. 12: We have passed through bfire and water, and thou hast brought us out into a refreshment. This place is brought in proof of Purgatory by Origen (Hom. 25 m Numeros), and by S. Ambrose (in Ps. xxxvi., and in sermon 3 on Ps. cxviii.), where he expounds the water of Baptism, and the fire of Purgatory.

>In Isaias (iv. 4) : If the Lord shall wash away the filth of the daughters of Sion, and shall wash away the vlood of Jerusalem out of the midst thereof by the spirit of judgment and the spirit of hurning. This purgation made in the spirit of judgment and of burning is understood of Purgatory by S. Augustine, in the 20th Book of the City of God, ch. 25.

>In Micheas, in the 7th chapter (8, 9): Rejoice not, thou my enemy, over me, hecause I am fallen : I shall arise, when I sit in darkness, the Lord is my light. I will hear the wrath of the Lord, hecause I have sinned against him, until he judge my cause and execute judgment for me : he will bring me forth into the light, I shall behold his justice. - This passage was already applied to the proof of Purgatory amongst Catholics from the time of S. Jerome, as the same S. Jerome witnesses by the last chapter of Isaias where he says that - when I shall sit in darkness . . .I will hear the wrath of the Lord . . . until He judge my cause—cannot be understood of any pain so properly as of that of Purgatory.

>In Malachy (iii. 3) : And he shall sit refining and cleansing the silver : and he shall purify the sons of Levi, and shall refine them as gold and as silver, &c. This place is expounded of a purifying punishment by Origen (Hom. 6 on Exodus), S. Ambrose (on Ps. xxxvi.), St. Augustine {de civ. Dei xx. 25), and S. Jerome (on this place).

>1st Corinthians (iii. 13, 14, 15): The day of the Lord shall declare {every mans work), because it shall he revealed by fire^ and the fire shall try every mans work, of what sort it is. If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon he shall receive a reward. If any man's work burn, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire.

> S. Cyprian (Bk. iv. ep.2) seems to make allusion to this passage. S. Ambrose, on this place, S. Jerome on the 4th of Amos, S. Augustine on Psalm xxxvi., S. Gregory {Dial. iv. 39), Rupert (in Gen. iii. 32), and the rest, are all express on the point; and of the Greeks, Origen in the 6th Homily on Exodus, Ecumeuius on this passage (where he brings forward S. Basil), and Theodoret quoted by S. Thomas in the 1st Opusculum contra errores Grcec.

I think this is suffiecient in proving that your claim that purgatory is a medieval concept is quite funny. Now let's move to Marian dogmas.

>>679183

Yes, the Immaculate conception was a subject of debate. So? Church Fathers aren't always 100% right. St. Ambrose claimed that if you baptise someone just saying 'I baptize you in the name of Christ' that it's a valid baptism. It's clearly not. It has always been believed by the majority of theologians that the immaculate conception is true.

The Assumption was considered an Apostolic tradition, here's what the Copts say about it, they even have the full story of how it happened because it was orally transmitted from the times of Apostles:

https://lacopts.org/orthodoxy/our-faith/the-holy-virgin-mary/saint-mary-in-the-orthodox-concept/

>On this day, 16 Misra (August 22), was the assumption of the body of our pure Lady Saint Mary, the Mother of God. August 22 also marks the end of the fast of Saint Mary, and is a big feast day. Two other people in the Bible were also assumed. These are Enoch and Elijah. Regarding Enoch, we read “Enoch walked with God; and he was not, for God took him” (Genesis 5:24). Regarding Elijah, we read, “And Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven” (2 Kings 2:11).

>While Saint Mary was keeping vigil, praying in the Holy Sepulcher, and waiting for the happy minute of her liberation from the bonds of the flesh, the Holy Spirit informed her of her forthcoming departure from this vain world. When the time drew near, the disciples and the virgins of the Mount of Olives (Zeitoun) came and the Lady was lying on her bed….

You can read the rest on the link.

I will not waste words on perpetual virginity, I'll just leave you with what st. Iraneus said

>And thus also it was that the knot of Eve's disobedience was loosed by the obedience of Mary. For what the virgin Eve had bound fast through unbelief, this did the VIRGIN Mary set free through faith.

If you claim Christ had biological brothers and sisters I am going to laugh at you.

>That man has to work with God to be saved?

Work alone has never been Catholic doctrine. Work proves the faith, faith alone is dead, as the Apostle says.

>You are continually breaking the greatest commandment and there is no hope whatsoever for you to ever keep the law.

Woah there, reverend. The hell do you know what I do or not do? This is not the subject of the discussion. The OP claims we're too depraved to keep God's commandments, I said God would have given them if we were unable to follow them, or if we were predestined not to follow them.

>>679128

Back to deal with ezekiel like you wanted:

Ok, the reason why I didn't deal with it at first was because it was pretty much the same argument you used in other passages like in john 12 and I felt no need to deal with it because it would be just repetitive. Also, understand that repentence is something that even we calvinist believe in. You must repent of your sins to be saved. You are coming with the presupposition that humans have free will then adding that concept into the bible verses that you read, but in actuality, these verses don't in anyway say that free will exists. I challenge you, give me one verse where the bible even states that we have free will without presupposing it and I'll give you a ton of verses proving that we do not. How we would interpret that verse is that even the ability to repent is a gift from God. Man on his own cannot repent or come to God because he is so depraved that all our efforts of trying to come to God are like filthy rags:

<We have all become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous deeds are like a polluted garment. We all fade like a leaf, and our iniquities, like the wind, take us away.

Isaiah 64:6

>To harden his heart means God withdrew Grace, nothing more.

Nice try, when God hardened the Pharaohs heart, He didn't say "I will let the pharaoh harden his own heart" He said "I will harden his heart." You're trying so hard to make God a passive God just to protect your theology.THIS IS AN ACTIVE ACT ON GOD'S PART. Stop trying to make it anything else. Also, I have a ton of other verses that make it even more clear that God actively interferes with the will of man, like…

<Then a spirit came forward, stood before the LORD, and said, ‘I will entice him.’ ‘By what means?’ asked the LORD. And he replied, ‘I will go out and be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets.’ ‘You will surely entice him and prevail,’ said the LORD. ‘Go and do it.’ So you see, the LORD has put a lying spirit in the mouths of these prophets of yours, and the LORD has pronounced disaster against you

2 Chronicles 18:20-22

Cont

>>679128

>Eh let's deal with Romans 9

>That commentary

Ok, that is either some catholic commentary of romans 9 or from the eastern orthodox study bible. Either way it ignores verse 11 where it says:

<though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls

You study bible/commmentary states that it was a passive God who look down the hallways of times and after seeing what man will do with their free will, He decided how He would feel about His creature. But this interpretation completely ignores the part where Paul says "in order that God's purpose of election might continue." Again, it's laughable to interpret it any other way. You go on to quote such people as augustine who says "Now every one of God’s creatures are good (see 1 Tim 4:4), and every person is a creature, as a person, not as a sinner." Well, I wonder if he has read Pslam 51:5.

<Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.

>9:17-18

Here he makes the same point you have made about God being a passive God. Again, he is reading into the text what he believes. The verse very clearly states that "GOD HARDENED HIS HEART." Any other interpretation just displays your contempt for God's sovereignty.

>20

This part the commentator doesn't even try to deal with the verse. I'll let the bible speak for itself:

<You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory

Romans 9:19-23

The following part make it clear that he has and agenda. Contempt for God's sovereignty.

>>678923

Went back and look at all the responses. No one quoted scripture as much as I did.

>>679328

Have you got something to add or are you just gonna cherry pick parts of my argument you think is easy to deal with to try and attack? I mean, at least show me where I'm wrong with the context you speak of.

>>679329

>Implying that you'd believe any context pointed out that does not support your Calvinistic interpretation

As far as I've read the quoted parts of Romans 9 nothing whatsoever points to God creating human souls with the intention to suffer.

>>679334

>admitting defeat

Anyway, tell me what this means:

>You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” 20 But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” 21 Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? 22 What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23 in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory

Romans 9:19-23

Catholicism has superior, more nuanced doctrines of predestination than Calvinism.

https://archive.org/stream/Garrigou-LagrangeEnglish/Predestination%20-%20Garrigou-Lagrange%2C%20Reginald%2C%20O.P_#page/n0

>>679847

Summarise it for me. I haven't got time to read the entire thing. And before you call me lazy. I already have a huge list of other books to read.

>>679847

Just reading the preface and this book is already more of the same garbage in this thread:

>On the other hand, God never commands what is impossible

Where do you get that from? From the bible? Or your human notion of what you consider to be "fair"? I believe Romans 9 has already been quoted enough in this thread.

Honestly, you should read John Flavel's "Mystery of Providence" instead: http://www.onthewing.org/user/Flavel%20-%20Mystery%20of%20Providence%20-%20Modern.pdf

>>678939

>ancient Christians begoming galvinist

monergism has been around for a lot longer than Calvin. Monergism is not an acceptable stance to hold according to orthodoxy. Man's relationship with God has always been correctly believed to be synergistic.

>>679934

I was referring to the synod of Jerusalem in the 17th century.

>>679934

>>679935

Regarding Cyril Lucaris, Greek Patriarch of Alexandria:

>Cyril's aim was to reform the Orthodox Church along Calvinistic lines, and to this end he sent many young Greek theologians to the universities of Switzerland, the northern Netherlands and England. In 1629 he published his famous Confessio (Calvinistic doctrine), but as far as possible accommodated to the language and creeds of the Orthodox Church. It appeared the same year in two Latin editions, four French, one German and one English, and in the Eastern Church it started a controversy which brought critics at several synods, in 1638 at Constantinople, in 1642 at the Synod of Jassy, and culminated in 1672 with the convocation by Dositheos, Patriarch of Jerusalem, of the Synod of Jerusalem, by which the Calvinistic doctrines were condemned.

>>679956

Guess I can cross eastern orthodoxy off my list.

>>680009

Erdogan will not be pleased

>>680016

Who?

>>679349

Nothing is pointing to purposely creating souls for hell, rather people who are destined to gravely sin.

In response, tell me what what this means:

>For the grace of God our Saviour hath appeared to all men (Titus 2:11)

>The Lord delayeth not his promise, as some imagine, but dealeth patiently for your sake, not willing that any should perish, but that all should return to penance (II Peter 3:9)

>For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour, Who will have all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. (I Timothy 2:3-4)

Clearly God wants all men to be saved.

Not really a logical thing to want if he created them with the intention for them to be unsaved right?

>Who said to him: Why askest thou me concerning good? One is good, God. But if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. (Matthew 19:17)

Seems to me that all we have to do to enter the into heaven we have to keep the commandments (and believe of course, but that's another verse).

Sure, you can go full Dutchman and say that the elect automatically keep the commandments as a sign of their predestination for heaven, but this sounds more like an advice than an affirmation of people keeping the commandments.

>>680182

>Nothing is pointing to purposely creating souls for hell, rather people who are destined to gravely sin.

Ok, I'll walk you through it step by step and tell me where you get stuck.

Starting off from romans 9:19, here we see Paul repeat a common response to the sovereign decree of God he most likely heard throughout his evangelism to the romans. This is also a common response that has not only been repeated today by Christians who oppose the Calvinistic doctrine of unconditional election but has even been raised in this thread by a few anons. Anyway, in vs 20 we see a response from Paul. In his reponse he does not try to give a philosophical answer that attempts to reconcile the dilemma between God's sovereign decree and mans free will. Rather, what he does is double down and points the finger back to you and says "Who are you oh man to answer back to God?" He even refers to God as the molder and and us as what is molded. This concept is then further developed in vs21, and this verse is really the lethal blow to any concept of a passive God who simply lets things He has foreknew come to pass. Paul literally says does not the potter IE God, have the right to make some vessels for honorable use IE His elect for salvation, and others for dishonourable use IE the reprobate for eternal damnation such as esau and the pharaoh. In vs 22-23 we see the purpose behind all of this. It is so that God may be glorified. It is so that all things may work out to the council of His will and the full extent of His power be known. From His wrath to His mercy. From His love of Jacob to His hate for Esau. It's that simple.

I will respond to your questions in my next post.

>>680182

>Titus 2:11

I just read the entirety of titus 2 and the all people being spoken of here is refering to all kinds. If you read it from verse 1 you'll see that it talks about older men and how they should act then older women and what their character should be like then it moves on to younger men giving them advice about how to conduct themselves. Then we reach the climax in vs 11 talking about how the grace of God that saves has been revealed to all these kinds of people.

>1 Peter 3:9

I've already spoken about this but there is a difference between the will of God and the decree of God. There are times God can decree things that are against His will. The prime example of this is in romans 9 where it even states that God is glorified by the salvation of some and the damnation of others.

>1 Timothy 2:3-4

>Clearly God wants all men to be saved.

>Not really a logical thing to want if he created them with the intention for them to be unsaved right?

Look at what I wrote here: >>678732

>Seems to me that all we have to do to enter the into heaven we have to keep the commandments (and believe of course, but that's another verse).

You kinda answered this in your following sentence which is a repeat of Ephesians 2:10:

<For we are His worksmanship , created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them

See, even our good works, which is a response to our salvation not a source of our salvation, is predestined by God. But you interpretation of Matthew 19:17 seems be to somewhat pelagian. You see, we are given in the bible a set of rules and guidelines we are to follow in order to receive eternal life despite the fact that we are clearly told that we cannot keep them. For example the greatest commandment is to "love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind." Have you done that? Also, read romans 3:10-12

<As it is written: “There is no one righteous, not even one. There is no one who understands; no one who seeks God. All have turned away; they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one

>see thread and think "oh, this might be a good, constructive talk between a Calvinist and the Apostolics"

>Calvinist throws out plenty of scripture and seemingly good exegesis

>Apostolics use a little bit of scripture and low-tier arguments

Come on guys, step it up.

>>678732

>He can decree things to come to pass that are against His will

This doesnt make sense. It would mean that God is being forced to do something by and exterior factor, wich is impossible. This distinction between God's Will and Decree can't possibly exist. Why would God, whose Will is above all, decree against His Will? Whose will is it being done in this decree, if it is not the Will of God? Hence we must conclude that the sins of men can not be caused by God. "When tempted, no one should say, "God is tempting me." For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone" (James 1:13)

As St. Thomas Aquinas said, "God does reprobate some. For it was said above that predestination is a part of providence. To providence, however, it belongs to permit certain defects in those things which are subject to providence, as was said above (I:22:2). Thus, as men are ordained to eternal life through the providence of God, it likewise is part of that providence to permit some to fall away from that end; this is called reprobation. Thus, as predestination is a part of providence, in regard to those ordained to eternal salvation, so reprobation is a part of providence in regard to those who turn aside from that end. Hence reprobation implies not only foreknowledge, but also something more, as does providence, as was said above (I:22:1). Therefore, as predestination includes the will to confer grace and glory; so also reprobation includes the will to permit a person to fall into sin, and to impose the punishment of damnation on account of that sin.

"Reprobation differs in its causality from predestination. This latter is the cause both of what is expected in the future life by the predestined—namely, glory—and of what is received in this life—namely, grace. Reprobation, however, is not the cause of what is in the present—namely, sin; but it is the cause of abandonment by God. It is the cause, however, of what is assigned in the future—namely, eternal punishment. But guilt proceeds from the free-will of the person who is reprobated and deserted by grace. In this way, the word of the prophet is true—namely, "Destruction is thy own, O Israel."

"Reprobation by God does not take anything away from the power of the person reprobated. Hence, when it is said that the reprobated cannot obtain grace, this must not be understood as implying absolute impossibility: but only conditional impossibility: as was said above (I:19:3), that the predestined must necessarily be saved; yet a conditional necessity, which does not do away with the liberty of choice. Whence, although anyone reprobated by God cannot acquire grace, nevertheless that he falls into this or that particular sin comes from the use of his free-will. Hence it is rightly imputed to him as guilt."

>>680212

>seemingly good exegesis

This is how the calvinists get you anon.

>>680200

>I've already spoken about this but there is a difference between the will of God and the decree of God. There are times God can decree things that are against His will.

You're making stuff up now.

>>680212

See >>678789

>>678829

>>678850

>>678871

>>678897

>>678947

>>680286

I have responded to each and everyone of those verses.

>You're making stuff up now.

Should have read my explanation.

>>680229

>This doesnt make sense.

I like to see it like the formulation of the trinity or similar to the the palamas energies essences distinction. Although these things aren't specifically found in scripture they're are now we explain them using extra biblical terms and reasoning. Similar to how the Christians appropriated gnostic terms to explain the Trinity. Such terms as Ousia and the person being distinction, which are not found in scripture but I'm Gnostic beliefs, we're then used to explain biblical things. It's the same idea and as of of yet, I think that this is the best way that we can explain these two verses:

<This is good and pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

1 Timothy 2:3-4

And

<What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction,

Romans 9:22

If God desires all to be saved them why make people for hell? Clearly there must be a distinction between His Will and His sovereign decree.

You then asked:

>It would mean that God is being forced to do something by and exterior factor, wich is impossible.

But they are both His. His will is His and His decree is His. The ultimate goal for God is to display the full extent of His power, from His mercy to His wrath. From His love of Jacob to His hate for Esau. But had all that He willed come to pass and all be saved then he would not be able to receive His full glory as Romans 9:23 states:

<What if He did this to make the riches of His glory known to the vessels of His mercy, whom He prepared in advance for glory

Also, I could care less about what Aquinas says about this if it isn't biblical. I highly respect the man, but he got it wrong here.

>>680292

I was answering the guy that claimed he had "seemingly good exegesis."

>Should have read my explanation.

"He can decree things to come to pass that are against His will." That was your whole explanation. You never provided any reason beyond you saying so. In this entire thread, you've just kept saying so with no reason given.

You also act like the fact God decrees some things automatically proves all things are decreed, without providing any reason beyond you saying so. That's how you dismissed knowledge of counterfactuals, by just assuming everything must be decreed so therefore it can't exist. You ignored me when I posted Jeremiah 19:5 which proves that not all things are decreed, instead you just kept on saying the same things without giving any background reason as if my post didn't exist. God doesn't make people sin. Not everything is God's decree. I'm not sure how often this needs to be repeated.

>>680298

Read what I wrote here: >>680295

>>680295

>If God desires all to be saved them why make people for hell?

Because they resisted. See >>678926

>His will is His and His decree is His.

You haven't proven that one contradicts the other.

Some things are willed but not decreed, it's really that simple.

I'm not the guy that quoted Aquinas.

>>680298

Seems like I did ignore it, my bad. I'll answer now. Jeremiah isn't even talking about God's sovereign decree, it's talking about God's commandments that people continuously were breaking. It is also talking about apostasy when the people left their true God YHVH to go worship false gods. And do you know what's funny about this? Read 1 kings 19:18:

<Nevertheless, I have reserved seven thousand in Israel— all whose knees have not bowed to Baal and whose mouths have not kissed him.”

So, here we see that even those who deny the false gods like baal were being kept by God and predestined to not fall into error while the rest were not reserved.

Also, this is a verse that is used by open theist to say that God has no knowledge of what is to come and that the future is open. Be careful what verses you through out.

>>680304

>Because they resisted.

First of all, if humans were ever given a choice then they would always refuse due to their sinful nature:

<As it is written: “There is no one righteous, not even one. There is no one who understands; no one who seeks God. All have turned away; they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one

Romans 3:10-12and

>Some things are willed but not decreed,

Wrong, we know that ALL things workout to the council of His will:

<In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will,

Ephesians 1:11

The damned where not predestined and neither was it a part of the council of God's will to save them.

>>680305

>Jeremiah isn't even talking about God's sovereign decree

The point is you can't say God sovereignly decreed for people to sin. They are accountable for it and that they resisted God's incongruous grace.

>Also, this is a verse that is used by open theist

Oh, I'm sorry. I guess I shouldn't have used that then.

>So, here we see that even those who deny the false gods like baal were being kept by God and predestined to not fall into error while the rest were not reserved.

See 2 Peter 2:9. The reason they're not reserved is because they are unrighteous. They resisted grace and therefore being reserved for judgement. But the godly conversely are protected due to effective grace.

>>680306

>if humans were ever given a choice

God already knows who will and who will not resist grace. This doesn't mean they didn't actually do it themselves.

>Wrong, we know that ALL things workout to the council of His will:

You just contradicted yourself then because you asserted that God decrees things opposite of His will.

>The damned where not predestined and neither was it a part of the council of God's will to save them.

There is a will for everything, but not all things are actively forced. Some things are, but not all.

This view of Ephesians 1:11 would imply that God works sin according to the counsel of his will. This is not possible, the reality is that some things are willed but not decreed. God was not willing that any should perish.

In reality, everything God works is according to the counsel of his will. It doesn't say "all things are worked," but that all things he does work are worked according to the counsel of his will. Which, again, is a statement that actually directly contradicts the idea that God decrees anything contrary to his own will. It says here all things he works are according to it.

>>680200

>Titus 2:11

>Then we reach the climax in vs 11 talking about how the grace of God that saves has been revealed to all these kinds of people.

Oh so when God said "all men" he just meant the elect?

>I've already spoken about this but there is a difference between the will of God and the decree of God.

>There are times God can decree things that are against His will.

So God is a 15yo girl?

Is there even a scriptural basis for this besides your 'logical' conclusion to defend double-predestination?

There is no reason whatsoever for God, omniscient, omnipresent and all-powerful, do decree things against His will.

>1 Peter 3:9

>The prime example of this is in romans 9 where it even states that God is glorified by the salvation of some and the damnation of others.

Of course he is glorified by damned souls rightly because of the justice that's executed in His name.

There is absolutely nothing glorifying in a god who purposely makes souls for hell.

>1 Timothy 2:3-4

>It's the desire that all come to salvation. And what is His decree you ask? It's that His elect come to Him that He has predestined since the start of time.

That's just what you make of it, the bible just says "Who will have all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth." and not "Who will have certain men/the elect to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth."

Your interpretation would even go against the whole principle of salvation through faith alone, how did this even get any traction with prot…oh yeah the Dutch nevermind.

Is there even a patristic basis for these heresies?

>B-but muh church fathers aren't the bible!

Christendom was founded on the Church Fathers' guidance and interpretation, any other interpretation and you aren't even practicing christianity anymore.

>>678867

>>678867

>>678867

>>678867

>>680311

Sorry for the late reply, I was having a shower and will now be back to answering your objections.

>The point is you can't say God sovereignly decreed for people to sin.

Well, that's not the point of jeremiah. We can say that God jurdicially decrees people to sin. There are tons of verses in the bible where God actively hardens the heart of people and send forth a lying spirit. Just look at all the verses quoted here: >>678867 as well as acts 4:27-28

<for truly in this city there were gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place.

Acts 4:27-28

>They are accountable for it and that they resisted God's incongruous grace.

Yes, but you have to remember that no one is truly free or has autonomous free will except God Himself.

>Oh, I'm sorry. I guess I shouldn't have used that then.

It's fine.

>See 2 Peter 2:9. The reason they're not reserved is because they are unrighteous.

Wrong, God's grace is irresistible. See romans 9:18

<So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.

This is His effective grace. I like how you talked about effective grace because it makes a distinction between the grace that is given to all men and the grace that's given to the elect. I'll use that one ;-)

>God already knows who will and who will not resist grace. This doesn't mean they didn't actually do it themselves.

Yes, but as i mentioned earlier, the drawing has to be by effective grace otherwise no one would ever accept God's free choice.

>You just contradicted yourself then because you asserted that God decrees things opposite of His will.

The "Council" of His will is His sovereign decree.

>There is a will for everything, but not all things are actively forced. Some things are, but not all.

Don't know what you mean but God's sovereign decree involves the evil of man. You state that my view would imply works sin according to the council of His will, but that is exactly the statements we see in the bible. Read Genesis 50:20

<As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good, to bring it about that many people should be kept alive, as they are today.

Even the evil we do, although predestined by God, works to bring about good for the glory of God.

>>680295

>>680332

>Oh so when God said "all men" he just meant the elect?

Yes, from the context it's even clearer. you have to understand that the jews had a very nationalistic view of Gods redemptive plan. It was all them. The jews were the chosen people, children of abraham and heirs to the promise. But the bible is here to tell us that this is false it's for all "types" of people. And the elect come from all those different ethnicity, cultures and even age and gender groups.

>So God is a 15yo girl?

A 15 year old God does not have the self control to restrict her actions to what is good but rather only what she wants. God is fulfilling His will for the greater good which I have already displayed.

>Is there even a scriptural basis for this besides your 'logical' conclusion to defend double-predestination?

see my post here >>680295

>There is absolutely nothing glorifying in a god who purposely makes souls for hell.

To your human carnal mind that is set on things of the flesh and not of the spirit, no. But to God, it is glorifying to Him, as romans 9 CLEARLY states.

>Your interpretation would even go against the whole principle of salvation through faith alone,

lol, you clearly don't know what we believe and how it all ties into each other. God desires all men too be saved, yes, but He also judicially hardens the hearts of some, exodus 4; sends a lying spirit, 1 kings; and even predestined the men to crucify Christ, acts 4. All of this with romans 9:19-23 prove that God has intended some to sin and be damned so that His will may be displayed. You say it's wrong but this is basic hermeneutics otherwise you have a contradiction.

>Is there even a patristic basis for these heresies?

The church father are not the bible but we can turn to them at times to learn about the development of certain doctrines and beliefs. But, assuming your a catholic, you also have to deal with the fact that for some reason, the roman church has the right to define patristics. For example, their interpretation of Matthew 16 is a actually in the minority. Historically, the rock was considered to be the confession of Peter's faith and that is what the church is built upon. But as for calvinism, the earliest person to talk about a hard predestination would be augustine. You might say he still believed in the actions of men to come to salvation, but as you and I know certain doctrines develop over time and are better understood. Although I wouldn't be so quick to call him a Calvinist, I think this verse from Ignatius of Antioch is somewhat important:

> predestinated before the ages of time, that it should be always for an enduring and unchangeable glory, being united and elected through the true passion by the will of the Father, and Jesus Christ, our God

Ignatius epistle to church is ephesus.

>>680337

>There are tons of verses in the bible where God actively hardens the heart of people

This is in return for their own disobedience though. You can't say that they did nothing.

Romans 1:28

And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

Isaiah 66:4

I also will choose their delusions, and will bring their fears upon them; because when I called, none did answer; when I spake, they did not hear: but they did evil before mine eyes, and chose that in which I delighted not.

>Acts 4:27-28

Yeah, like Romans 9 says. You're still wrong however, because they did resist his grace first. That's the difference here. They did resist it.

Esau was hated AFTER the events happened, that's why it says this only in Malachi, not in Genesis.

>Yes, but you have to remember that no one is truly free or has autonomous free will except God Himself.

Being omnipotent and being able to choose between believe and not is not the same thing.

>It's fine.

So now you have to stop using any verse that anyone ever misused as well. That's your argument.

>Wrong, God's grace is irresistible. See romans 9:18

They did resist it. Romans 9:18 is not a proof.

>This is His effective grace.

No it is not, it's sovereign decree. You are wrong, wrong, wrong. Romans 9:18 does not prove what you were trying to say.

>The "Council" of His will is His sovereign decree.

Actually no it is not. You are wrong again here. You cannot continually redefine terms to mean what you want. This is intellectually dishonest. Those are not the same thing, you can't simply make them be the same by saying so in this sentence.

I've already shown how not all things are being actively decreed, such as willful disobedience and sin that leads to being rejected. You can't just willy-nilly change the definition of terms halfway through the discussion to make yourself be correct, that is intellectually dishonest!

And you would have people believe that the counsel of God's will goes against God's will, which goes against God's sovereign decree. If you're willing to go that far how about just accept you are ripping all of these out of context to fit your preconceived position, or some version of a preconceived position by Calvin and therefore you don't really care what the Bible says, only as far as it must first line up with some other theologian's doctrine, and no more.

>You state that my view would imply works sin according to the council of His will, but that is exactly the statements we see in the bible.

According to Jeremiah 19:5, a clear scripture this isn't so. God was not willing that any should perish, which is what it says in 2 Peter 3. I actually take that statement seriously.

>Even the evil we do, although predestined by God, works to bring about good for the glory of God.

This doesn't change the fact they resisted.

>>680353

>Yes, from the context it's even clearer.

<I know the bible literally says "all men" but he actually just meant the elect

Alright then.

>God is fulfilling His will for the greater good which I have already displayed.

And this is where the blasphemy is very apparent.

God is not omnipotent nor omniscient enough, as per calvinistic interpretation, to fulfill His will without dooming human souls to hell on purpose making them essentially sacrifices.

>To your human carnal mind that is set on things of the flesh and not of the spirit

No, I have a firm concept of good and evil since mankind ate from the Tree in Eden and this forbidden knowledge is telling me that creating souls for eternal torment is not good nor glorifying.

>All of this with romans 9:19-23 prove that God has intended some to sin and be damned

Now you are just factoring out repentance and salvation to support your argument by saying that everybody who sins is automatically damned.

>But as for calvinism, the earliest person to talk about a hard predestination would be augustine.

He had a hard stance on it, but nothing about double-predestination, which is on trail here.

>I think this verse from Ignatius of Antioch is somewhat important:

>predestinated before the ages of time, that it should be always for an enduring and unchangeable glory, being united and elected through the true passion by the will of the Father, and Jesus Christ, our God

Again nothing about double-predestination where God actively creates souls for the sole purpose of damnation.

Do know we are not discussing that God knows what someone will do and if someone will make it in the end, that's predestination and orthodox because it takes into account the free will of the individual.

We are discussing if God would make a soul just to watch it suffer for all eternity, completely programmed/influenced by god Himself to sin and therefore devoid of free will.

>>679044

>You can say that all you want but the reason why I am a Calvinist is because it's the only way to make sense of the bible.

People had no issue making sense of the Scriptures for over 1,000+ years until the Reformation.

>I can give you examples of jews living prior to Christ who also had this hard predestination doctrine.

Read St. Augustine's City of God. Predestination has never been exclusive to Calvinist theology.

>>680470

I don't understand your post at all.

St. Augustine understands and explicates on divine providence and being chosen by God very clearly:

" He chose disciples, whom He also called apostles, Luke 6:13 of lowly birth, unhonored, and illiterate, so that whatever great thing they might be or do, He might be and do it in them. He had one among them whose wickedness He could use well in order to accomplish His appointed passion, and furnish His Church an example of bearing with the wicked. "

"For then indeed there shall come only those who are elected, whereof the apostle says, "According as He has chosen us in Him before the foundation of the world." Ephesians 1:4 For the Master Builder who said, "Many are called, but few are chosen," Matthew 22:11-14 did not say this of those who, on being called, came in such a way as to be cast out from the feast, but would point out the house built up of the elect, which henceforth shall dread no ruin. Yet because the churches are also full of those who shall be separated by the winnowing as in the threshing-floor, the glory of this house is not so apparent now as it shall be when every one who is there shall be there always."

This thread was something wasn't it.

>>683260

Are you going to answer like you said >>680470

>>678702

Instead of holding on to your vain beliefs, why don't you try looking at things with some historical objectivity and begome (submit to whichever church you conclude is correct).

>>678702

>Calvinists predestination and once saved doctrine

One of the benefits of Protestantism is the ability to walk away from stupidity like this.

>>680373

>This is in return for their own disobedience though. You can't say that they did nothing.

Of course you can't say they did nothing wrong, but you can't also say God was being passive and letting them fall to their own devices because we see in exodus, after the pharaoh let the jews go, God hardened the pharaohs heart one more time.

>Romans 1:28

This one is an interesting one because you have highlighted the first part "And even as" you seem to miss that this does not imply a causal meaning, that is, God has given them over to a reprobate mind because they failed to retain. But there is a distinction between the theoretical knowledge of God and a knowledge of God. A theoretical knowledge is simply head knowledge that bares no fruits and a practical knoaledge is one that does bare fruit. The knowledge of God being spoken of here is a simple head knowledge as seen in vs 19:

<For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them

This is in reference to general revelation which people can deny, but if they are given a practical knowledge of God, the will retain it as seen in Philippians 1:6

<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.

>Isaiah 66:4

Absolutely God allows sinners to go deeper into their sin. Have never denied that, but what I am saying is, it involves God actively hardening them. Even their initial rejection of God's law was something that was predestined and so all things come about by God's sovereign decree.

>Yeah, like Romans 9 says.

What does romans 9 say?

>You're still wrong however, because they did resist his grace first

So they weren't vessels of wrath prepared for destruction?

>Esau was hated AFTER the events happened, that's why it says this only in Malachi, not in Genesis.

When Paul references Malachi he doesn't place the loving of Jacob and hating of Esau after they had sinned but before they were even born. Also, just because it's mentioned in malachi doesn't mean that it was after they had sinned because for one malachi is referencing genesis and one could always ask, at what point in time did God hate esau and love jacob? This is answered by Paul and it was before they were born or had done anything good or bad.

>Being omnipotent and being able to choose between believe and not is not the same thing.

Never said they were

>So now you have to stop using any verse that anyone ever misused as well. That's your argument.

I told you why that was a bad verse to use and then explained the proper interpretation.

>They did resist it. Romans 9:18 is not a proof.

John 6:44

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

>No it is not, it's sovereign decree. You are wrong, wrong, wrong. Romans 9:18 does not prove what you were trying to say.

Care to explain why?

Cont

>>680373

>Those are not the same thing, you can't simply make them be the same by saying so in this sentence.

What I'm trying to do here is to systemize biblical words the same way you would like to do with the word justification. The greek word for justification (dikaioó) is used in a wide range of ways. Sometimes it's used in the context of being justified for salvation, romans 3:24, sometimes it's used for one person recognising the righteousness of another, even God in Luke 7:29 and in other places it's just used to demonstrate the existence of something like in luke 7:35. According to the bible justification either means to make someone righteous, recognise as righteous or give evidence of somethings existence. It would be silly to restrict yourself to this one word. You would have to somehow systemise it and that's exactly what I did when Ephesians talks about the council of His will. It's about the decree of God and not out of intellectual dishonesty do I make these distinctions.

>>680373

>I've already shown how not all things are being actively decreed,

And I have shown you how you are wrong.

>According to Jeremiah 19:5, a clear scripture this isn't so.

References His desire. I mean jeremiah talks about these things not coming to Gods mind, are you gonna say that God didn't know these things were going to happen? Clearly not since God knows all things and this verse is talking about God's will.

>This doesn't change the fact they resisted.

Do you actually believe yourself?

>>680374

>Alright then.

The grace of God our saviour has appeared to all men, not denying that, but God hasn't saved all people.

>God is not omnipotent nor omniscient enough, as per calvinistic interpretation, to fulfill His will without dooming human souls to hell on purpose making them essentially sacrifices.

If you hate God's sovereignty then feel free to take it up with Him.

>No, I have a firm concept of good and evil since mankind ate from the Tree in Eden

You know good and evil but it is corrupt. Just now, you are imposing your own moral standards on to God and call it blasphemy because your corrupt flesh is at odds with the spirit.

>Now you are just factoring out repentance and salvation to support your argument by saying that everybody who sins is automatically damned.

What the… did i say if you commit one sin you are damned? Did you even understand what I said?

>He had a hard stance on it, but nothing about double-predestination, which is on trial here

read what this anon wrote: >>680526

>Again nothing about double-predestination where God actively creates souls for the sole purpose of damnation.

Ignatius says they are predestined to glory. If there are those who are not predestined to glory what else can one be predestined to? Also, do I need to walk you through romans 9 again?

>Do know we are not discussing that God knows what someone will do

Of course, you're the one who believes in a passive God. I believe in a active God

>We are discussing if God would make a soul just to watch it suffer for all eternity, completely programmed/influenced by god Himself to sin and therefore devoid of free will.

read >>680193

>People had no issue making sense of the Scriptures for over 1,000+ years until the Reformation.

That's what you think.

>>683611

>Denying salvation through grace

I shouldn't even be reading anymore but let's go on anyway.

>If you hate God's sovereignty then feel free to take it up with Him.

That's a strawman and you damn well know it.

So please answer me, how can an omnipotent, omniscient God not fulfill His utmost desire (that is, as you admitted, the salvation of all men)?

>You know good and evil but it is corrupt. Just now, you are imposing your own moral standards on to God and call it blasphemy because your corrupt flesh is at odds with the spirit.

>because your corrupt flesh is at odds with the spirit.

This sounds very gnostic.

That aside I know good and evil because of the Fall and I know it pretty well because of the scriptures and these never show any punishment or suffering outside of a good reason that is trespassing the Commandments.

>What the… did i say if you commit one sin you are damned? Did you even understand what I said?

Those who sin can ALWAYS be saved, thus there is no need to damn any sinner, especially when you're a omnipotent, omniscient God and it's your greatest desire to save all men.

>He had a hard stance on it, but nothing about double-predestination, which is on trial here

<read what this anon wrote: >>680526

Besides no references whatsoever I still do not understand where St. Augustine is talking about double-predestination.

If there was any hard-line support for double-predestination the other bishops would've definitely called him out on that and he would never have been an official saint either then.

>Ignatius says they are predestined to glory. If there are those who are not predestined to glory what else can one be predestined to? Also, do I need to walk you through romans 9 again?

>Ignatius says they are predestined to glory. If there are those who are not predestined to glory what else can one be predestined to?

Those who are not predestined to glory still have the free will to obtain it.

>Of course, you're the one who believes in a passive God. I believe in a active God

A God who actively creates souls just to see them suffer is not more active than a God who creates all souls while knowing which one will end up in hell through their free will.

>People had no issue making sense of the Scriptures for over 1,000+ years until the Reformation.

>That's what you think.

That's not what i said, but neither is that an argument.

The fact that you are constantly quoting Romans 9 and using this as the base for all biblical reasoning just shows me how false it all is.

Sure apostolics always quote James but that's an entire epistle and we can put the 'faith alone' verses in context and we can build around it all.

You only have Romans 9, and everything is interpreted around that.

>>683728

>I shouldn't even be reading anymore but let's go on anyway.

Are you really that dense? it's God's grace how we're even saved in the first place.

>That's a strawman and you damn well know it.

Nope, this is a biblical fact! If you don't like it, take it up with God. Even you don't believe God can fulfil His utmost desire since there are souls in hell He wanted to see in heaven but couldn't save them. What I'm saying is, is that God desires all to be saved but has only decreed His elect to be saved so that He may display the full extent of His power. I've explained this earlier but perhaps you forgot or didn't read it.

>This sounds very gnostic.

HA, you don't understand the gnostics. The gnostics thought that flesh was intrinsically bad. As opposed to a fallen nature, they believed in a simply evil nature. What I mean is, we believe that flesh was once pure but once man sinned it was corrupted. The gnostics on the other hand just thought all physical things were evil to begin with and the flesh was something we had to get rid of completely.

>That aside I know good and evil because of the Fall and I know it pretty well

NO YOU DON'T!!! Your ways are not God's ways:

<And the children of Israel say: The way of the Lord is not right. Are not my ways right, O house of Israel, and are not rather your ways perverse?

Ezekiel 18:29

Are you telling me you have the same moral insert as God? Even Isaiah, who was the most Holy man in all of Israel, was jaw dropped when he saw God. Once he saw what true holiness is, all he could do is insult himself and stand in awe before the perfect one:

<Woe to me!" I cried. "I am ruined! For I am a man of unclean lips, and I live among a people of unclean lips, and my eyes have seen the King, the LORD Almighty.

Isaiah 6:5

If even Isaiah didn't know why true holiness and morality was, do you think you know it any better?

>scriptures and these never show any punishment or suffering outside of a good reason that is trespassing the Commandments.

Yep, God wouldn't just wake up one day and send someone to hell for no good reason.

>Those who sin can ALWAYS be saved,

Yes, but read vs15 and 16 and you'll see that we cannot save ourselves and it is only those God "Chooses" to save, will be saved

>thus there is no need to damn any sinner, especially when you're a omnipotent, omniscient God and it's your greatest desire to save all men.

Wow, Ok, so you're a Universalist.

>Besides no references whatsoever I still do not understand where St. Augustine is talking about double-predestination.

Here is the references: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf102.iv.XVIII.49.html and there were people who were locked in prison for taking Augustine's stance on free will and grace. In fact the pelagians, or semi pelagians if im not mistaken, even used the same arguments against Augustine as you did.

>Those who are not predestined to glory still have the free will to obtain it.

Then is that even predestination? If they could obtain it then they would be predestined to it.

>A God who actively creates souls just to see them suffer is not more active than a God who creates all souls while knowing which one will end up in hell through their free will.

One is active, the other is passive.

>That's not what i said

Dude, I copy and pasted it from you.

>You only have Romans 9, and everything is interpreted around that

Double standards, lies and non arguments all in one short sentence. Impressive. But if you actually followed this entire thread you would known that I mainly quoted from the OT. Also, we utilise the entirety of Romans far more consistently than you do James. I don't think I a orthodox or catholic has read the one verse prior james 2 and the next 3 before. Whereas protestants, reformed ones that is, make good use of the entirety of romans, as well as Paul's epistles.

>>683285

You think it's stupidity? Why so? And please give me a biblical answer and not a answer based off of your own subjective view of how God should bring about the salvation of His people.

>>683272

You can look at Augustine here: >>680526 and if you want source then here: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf102.iv.XVIII.49.html

>>684015

Augustine is wrong about a few things.

Just gonna post this here.

https://youtu.be/17nXicb-jVM

>>684033

Most of the church fathers are wrong about "a few" things.

>>684035

Watch it later, but I'm 100% sure it will attack Calvinism from a humanistic point of view, ignoring the fact that God is transcendent and can attain glory in a way He deems most fit.

>>683816

>Are you really that dense? it's God's grace how we're even saved in the first place.

So I get only the elect got this grace, and furthermore only the elect believe in Christ?

>Nope, this is a biblical fact! If you don't like it, take it up with God.

Answering a question with a strawman is neither a biblical fact nor an argument.

>Even you don't believe God can fulfil His utmost desire since there are souls in hell He wanted to see in heaven but couldn't save them.

I believe He can, but because of free will He lets us decide.

The gate is narrow, not a VIP-coded door.

>What I'm saying is, is that God desires all to be saved but has only decreed His elect to be saved so that He may display the full extent of His power.

I would never worship Him if he was just a powermonger who likes to show off.

It's as if the USA wishes for global peace but still intervenes in certain conflicts to show off their power.

>HA, you don't understand the gnostics.

I said that it sounded very gnostic, hence why I put it aside.

>NO YOU DON'T!!! Your ways are not God's ways:

>And the children of Israel say: The way of the Lord is not right. Are not my ways right, O house of Israel, and are not rather your ways perverse?

Where did I say that the way of the Lord is not right?

Sure you assume and believe that the way of the Lord is creating souls for the sole purpose of doing evil and burning in hell and I say that's not right.

This however is circular reasoning so not looking at who is right or wrong, where did I exactly say that teh way of the Lord is not right?

>Are you telling me you have the same moral insert as God?

We have the knowledge of good and evil, and we have God's written Word where he explains to us what's good or evil.

>Even Isaiah, who was the most Holy man in all of Israel, was jaw dropped when he saw God. Once he saw what true holiness is, all he could do is insult himself and stand in awe before the perfect one

There's a difference between a moral standard and being so magnificent, holy and incomprehensible that all you can do is realize how corrupt you are as a sinner.

>If even Isaiah didn't know why true holiness and morality was, do you think you know it any better?

Here you're just equating morality and holiness to support your argument.

>Yep, God wouldn't just wake up one day and send someone to hell for no good reason.

But apparently He does, since He already created a soul and said "your purpose is hell" according to your theology.

They are not doomed because they are sinners, they are doomed because God either created them to burn at the end or God created them as sinners.

>Yes, but read vs15 and 16 and you'll see that we cannot save ourselves and it is only those God "Chooses" to save, will be saved

This is about God's mercy and absolutely not about double-predestination.

In double-predestination there's ultimately no mercy since God already created them to burn or not.

>Wow, Ok, so you're a Universalist.

Not really, but God could make every doomed-to-hell soul repent in the end instead of letting them burn for all eternity when the salvation of all men is what He truly desires, unless this is too difficult for an omnipotent, omniscient being.

>Then is that even predestination? If they could obtain it then they would be predestined to it.

Being predestined to glory means one has a great advantage in obtaining it with an absolute certainty, while those who don't still can obtain it through free will.

>Dude, I copy and pasted it from you.

You didn't but I guess you were predestined to make the same mistake twice?

>But if you actually followed this entire thread you would known that I mainly quoted from the OT

You constantly refer back to Romans 9 and from what I can read (and not only in this thread) everything is interpreted in light of a Calvinistic approach to Romans 9.

So anyway, would you still care to answer my question in to how an omnipotent and omniscient God cannot make it so that whatever needs to be done for His will to be done, no souls go to hell?

>B-but muh power display!

He desires all men to be saved, so mere displays of power could also be done through other means since He's omnipotent and omniscient.

>>684133

>So I get only the elect got this grace, and furthermore only the elect believe in Christ?

Yes.

>I believe He can, but because of free will He lets us decide.

Read this post here: >>685982

>I would never worship Him if he was just a powermonger who likes to show off.

I agree, unless God changes your heart you will never truly love God. You love God's mercy, love and grace, but the thing is these are things that even an atheist would appreciate about God. It's easy to love your own version of God but takes a truly regenerate man to love all of God. I'm sure you look down on those who teach that God loves all and hates no one. These liberals like to sugar coat the gospel and it isn't right. Our God is a merciful God but He is also a God of justice. A God of wrath and vengeance who visits the iniquity of the fathers on the children, to the third and the fourth generation.’

>I exactly say that teh way of the Lord is not right?

When you said you will never worship a God who desires to make His power known by predestining some to hell and others to heaven.

>We have the knowledge of good and evil, and we have God's written Word where he explains to us what's good or evil.

Human morality is subjective. We do not have perfect knowledge of good and evil like God has but we do have a conscious.

>There's a difference between a moral standard and being so magnificent, holy and incomprehensible that all you can do is realize how corrupt you are as a sinner.

Yes, but by Isaiahs standards he thought that he was ok or at least decent. It wasn't until he saw God in his glory did he realise that he(the most holy man in all of isreal) realised that he wasn't any better than the sinners around him. Yes we know good and evil, but our standards are low and we cannot rely on them ,especially when starting what is and isn't right for God to do.

>But apparently He does, since He already created a soul and said "your purpose is hell" according to your theology.

Nope, God is none transient and because He exists outside of time is ever present. His thoughts are from eternity and those people were predestined for hell from the start of eternity for God's glory.

>They are not doomed because they are sinners, they are doomed because God either created them to burn at the end or God created them as sinners.

The most liberating thing you can come to realise is that God is good and you are the sinner.

>In double-predestination there's ultimately no mercy since God already created them to burn or not.

It says He will have mercy on whom He will and He will harden whom He will. We are saved by Grace through faith. Mercy is giving someone what they don't deserve and by us receiving the gift of faith, God has been !merciful to us.

>Not really, but God could make every doomed-to-hell soul repent in the end instead of letting them burn for all eternity

But He has not sovereignly decreed to do so.

>Being predestined to glory means one has a great advantage in obtaining it with an absolute certainty, while those who don't still can obtain it through free will.

Doesn't make any sense.

>You didn't but I guess you were predestined to make the same mistake twice?

lol, ok.

>everything is interpreted in light of a Calvinistic approach to Romans 9.

Yes, the NT is the full revelation of the OT, but I could also defend my position from the OT alone.

>He desires all men to be saved, so mere displays of power could also be done through other means since He's omnipotent and omniscient.

God can gain glory the way He seems most fit.

>>686012

Because of the whole shitfest of back-and-forthing, I'll just come back at the one question that's still left unanswered.

>God can gain glory the way He seems most fit

While at the same time displeasing Himself?

because scripture tells us He wants all men to be saved.

>>686015

Yeah, I'd admit at times it seemed kinda futile.

>>God can gain glory the way He seems most fit While at the same time displeasing Himself?

Yeah, I'd have to think about this one myself as well. But what I'd say is that God does do things that displeasure Him all the time. He created Adam and eve despite the fact that He knew they would fall. He planted to tree of knowledge in the middle of eden to test Adam and eve despite the fact that He knew what was going to happen. God grieves for making man in genesis 6:6 and acts surprised when people sin. I think it all has to do with the bigger picture and that it was all leading up to Christ. Without all the sin and failure of man, there would be no need for God to display the full extent of His love and that was through the death of His Son. The greatest displayal of love is to die for someone and for God to do that was God showing us how much He loves us. In the end it was all about showing man His glory and the full extent of His power, even if it meant that He will have to witness sin and the depravity of man as well as the damned souls of some of His creation.

>>686024

>But what I'd say is that God does do things that displeasure Him all the time

That would mean He's not omnipotent nor omniscient.

All the things you summed up from Adam to Eve were done with the knowledge that they'd fall and that Christ will have to die to save mankind, but this does not mean that he wasn't omnipotent nor omniscient but that humans have free will.

>>686028

>That would mean He's not omnipotent nor omniscient.

Nope, first I think it's important to define what omnipotence is. It does not mean you can do anything but just that you have unlimited and infinite power. Even in the bible there are certain things God says He cannot do such as sin or lie. But it does not mean that God is not omniscient or omnipotent if He restricts Himself. If I were to say God was unable to save all souls then yes, He would not be omnipotent, but what I'm saying is that He has decreed it so only the elect be saved. He could have saved more and certainly had the power to, but did not decree it to be so. His choice.

>All the things you summed up from Adam to Eve were done with the knowledge that they'd fall and that Christ will have to die to save mankind, but this does not mean that he wasn't omnipotent nor omniscient but that humans have free will.

I think you're leaving things up to chance to much. Without the fall of man, which then led to a dominoe effect of a bunch of other events. There would be no death burial and resurrection and atonement. We would never truly no the full extent of God's love for us. Yes, God does tell us that He loves us even Moreno than our own mothers and fathers but this type of love would only exist in some abstract philosophical sense and we would only know it based off of His word.

Basically, what I'm saying is that God set things up this way for a reason and it all was leading up to something great and although God could have had it another way, He chose to do it this way instead because in His omniscient mind He knew how it would turn out.

>>686379

>Nope, first I think it's important to define what omnipotence is

nice definition of omnipotence, but you're leaving out the other part: omniscience.

If God has infinite power, is all-knowing (the omniscience part) and His will is to save all men according to 1 Timothy 2:4, there would be no reason for God to not display His power through sinners while making them repent and enter heaven afterwards.

>But it does not mean that God is not omniscient or omnipotent if He restricts Himself.

There's no reason for Him to restrict Himself.

You could even say that if God has the ability to save all souls by letting all sinners repent at the end, which is His will, and he does not do this, then it's not really His will and the scriptures lie.

>I think you're leaving things up to chance to much.

It's not that I leave it up to chance, God KNEW what would happen when He created Adam, and let the devil do its thing.

It can all be easily explained by free will.

Explaining it through double-predestination is the exact route most bitter atheists do and then conclude that God is a mean old b*stard with a power complex, or just not omnipotent and omniscient.

You just conclude that it's just the way it is and lucky for you you're part of the elect.

>>678706

>>678704

I always find it a bit funny, because when you start out with Christianity, you're always Armenian. Then the more you actually read the bible, you begin to see themes like predestination and grace. Calvinism is just a fairly modern and man-made name for the Gospel, a message that has been around far longer than Calvin.

>>686435

>If God has infinite power, is all-knowing (the omniscience part) and His will is to save all men according to 1 Timothy 2:4, there would be no reason for God to not display His power through sinners while making them repent and enter heaven afterwards.

You're forgetting something. God desires to display the *full* spectrum of His power. From His love and mercy to His wrath and justice. Simply making all people go to heaven would not allow Him to do so. And Him not saving all people does not deny His omnipotence since He could have but decided not to.

>There's no reason for Him to restrict Himself.

Maybe restrict Himself was the wrong word but God only acts in accordance with His devine decree.

>You could even say that if God has the ability to save all souls by letting all sinners repent at the end, which is His will, and he does not do this, then it's not really His will and the scriptures lie.

You're ignoring the depravity of man. NO ONE LOVES GOD! No one will ever come to God. All by default are on the path the hell but God changes out hearts of stone to a heart of flesh and brings us to Him. That's the only way humans are saved and it's by God's intervention. We can't just come to repentance ourselves it's impossible.

>It's not that I leave it up to chance, God KNEW what would happen when He created Adam, and let the devil do its thing.

Yes, absolutely!

>It can all be easily explained by free will.

Nope specific things had to occur for God to reveal His love and mercy. The fall of man was NECESSARY for God to display His love to us. And free will is not a biblical concept. I challenge you to find one part in the bible that talks about free will without presupposing it.

>Explaining it through double-predestination is the exact route most bitter atheists do and then conclude that God is a mean old b*stard with a power complex, or just not omnipotent and omniscient.

God is good and your are a wicked sinner. Just remember that. Most fears of God's predestination comes from a lack of trust and safety with God. Don't forget that God is a good God who does all things for good.

>You just conclude that it's just the way it is and lucky for you you're part of the elect.

It's not luck but you were predestined from eternity past.

>>686516

Literally me.

>>686675

>I challenge you to find one part in the bible that talks about free will without presupposing it.

15 See, I set before you today life and prosperity, death and destruction. 16 For I command you today to love the Lord your God, to walk in obedience to him, and to keep his commands, decrees and laws; then you will live and increase, and the Lord your God will bless you in the land you are entering to possess.

17 But if your heart turns away and you are not obedient, and if you are drawn away to bow down to other gods and worship them, 18 I declare to you this day that you will certainly be destroyed. You will not live long in the land you are crossing the Jordan to enter and possess.

> Deuteronomy 30:15-18

15 But if serving the Lord seems undesirable to you, then choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your ancestors served beyond the Euphrates, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you are living. But as for me and my household, we will serve the Lord.”

>Joshua 24:15

6 If you do not remain in me, you are like a branch that is thrown away and withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned. 7 If you remain in me and my words remain in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be done for you.

>John 15:6-7

>>686675

>You're forgetting something. God desires to display the *full* spectrum of His power.

And this is not possible because He's not omniscient enough to do that?

>Maybe restrict Himself was the wrong word but God only acts in accordance with His devine decree.

And His divine decree is even though He wills all men to be saved He still sends them to hell?

Sounds like scripture's either lying about His will or you're wrong.

>NO ONE LOVES GOD

Speak for yourself.

>And free will is not a biblical concept

Neither is predestination unless you interpret the bible in your way.

>I challenge you to find one part in the bible that talks about free will without presupposing it.

I challenge you to find a part in the bible where it's explicitly stated that some are created for hell and some are elect for heaven without presupposing it.

>Most fears of God's predestination comes from a lack of trust and safety with God

It's more like if double-predestination is true then we have nothing to thank Him for.

What, should I thank someone when I was already predestined to go to heaven?

Should I thank someone if I'm actually a mindless robot on his playing field?

>It's not luck but you were predestined from eternity past.

I said you were lucky to be predestined, not that it was luck.

>>686686

>Deuteronomy 30:15-18

>Joshua 24:15

>John 15:6-7

Ok, you did exactly what I expected you to do and posted verses where God gives man a choice or an order to try and prove that this somehow prove a that free will exists. This is why I said post a verse that states we have free will without presupposing it, and you did just that. With those verses in mind read John 6:44

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

John 6:65

>And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.

And

>We have all become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous deeds are like a polluted garment. We all fade like a leaf, and our iniquities, like the wind, take us away.

Isaiah 64:6

these are all prescriptive verses telling us what one must do, but in our depraved state we cannot accomplish these acts. And before you say "why would God give us impossible commands?" Can you accomplish this command greatest commandment?

<You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might.

It is God who does these things within us is how we accomplish them. We cannot.

>>686708

>And this is not possible because He's not omniscient enough to do that?

Doesn't make any sense.

>And His divine decree is even though He wills all men to be saved He still sends them to hell?

Yes, for the greater good and that is to display the full spectrum of God's power

>Sounds like scripture's either lying about His will or you're wrong.

I'm distinguishing His will from His decree. If He wanted to save all then somewhere else He said He did not want to, then it would be a contradiction. But want I'm saying is although God desires all to be saved, He has only decreed some to eternal life.

>Speak for yourself.

See Romans 3:10-12

<As it is written: “There is no one righteous, not even one. There is no one who understands; no one who seeks God. All have turned away; they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one.

>Neither is predestination unless you interpret the bible in your way.

See acts 4:27-28

<for truly in this city there were gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place.

>I challenge you to find a part in the bible where it's explicitly stated that some are created for hell and some are elect for heaven without presupposing it.

Ok, see Romans 9:19-23:

<You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory

And if you see further explanation then I direct you to my exegesis here: >>680193

>It's more like if double-predestination is true then we have nothing to thank Him for.

We have everything to thank Him for. He did not first wait for us to come to Him or wait for us to do a specific act or penance in order to come to know Him, but rather while we were still sinners and enemies of God, He came down and died for us. Ephesians 2:1-6 describes this perfectly:

<And you, when you were dead in your offences and sins, Wherein in time past you walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of this air, of the spirit that now worketh on the children of unbelief: In which also we all conversed in time past, in the desires of our flesh, fulfilling the will of the flesh and of our thoughts, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest: But God (who is rich in mercy) for his exceeding charity wherewith he loved us Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together in Christ (by whose grace you are saved) And hath raised us up together and hath made us sit together in the heavenly places, through Christ Jesus.

>I said you were lucky to be predestined, not that it was luck.

Doesn't make any sense. Hey, I have a discord and if you'd like to talk to me here is my account name: @Biscuit Cake#4640

Much rather talk that way than have this, as you said, shitfest back and forth thing.

>>686747

>Ok, you did exactly what I expected you to do and posted verses where God gives man a choice or an order to try and prove that this somehow prove a that free will exists

>Gives us a choice

>free will does not exist

You have got to be kidding me. You cannot have choice without free will. I should also ask you this: did Adam have free will to eat the fruit? If not, did God create Adam in a depraved state, thus "introduce sin" into the world? Let us take a look at your verses, in context:

John 6:44 to me appears correctly un-calvanistic. You attempt to draw someone to your point of view through persuasion (e.g. through miraculous signs). For we know people can resist the grace of God: (Romans 13:2). For if this verse were to mean that all men are "drawn" aggressively, then what does Jesus mean when he says “And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all [men] unto me.” ( John 12:32 )? Certainly drawn cannot mean irresistibly pulled here, unless we are universalists (which we are both not). If you read the very next verse, you furthermore see how this "drawing" occurs:

> It is written in the Prophets: ‘They will all be taught by God.’[a] Everyone who has heard the Father and learned from him comes to me.

Such themes are written throughout John 6.

In regards to Isaiah 64, it is unlikely that Isaiah is referring to himself (unless you believe Isaiah was not saved), but referring to the fake righteousness of the Israelites. To feign religiosity in an attempt to please God without doing as he commands is a great sin, for you actually believe you can deceive God.

Consider Isaiah 1:

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah+1&version=NIV

Specifically, Isaiah 1:11-15 God declares he does not want the Israelite's sacrifices and offerings. Then he proclaims "Your hands are full of blood!" as the reason. The corrective action? The next two verses:

> Wash and make yourselves clean. Take your evil deeds out of my sight; stop doing wrong. Learn to do right; seek justice. Defend the oppressed. Take up the cause of the fatherless; plead the case of the widow.

Now, if these people were incapable of doing these things, why would God even bother to tell them? God wants them to turn to Him, and has told him what to do.

>>686760

>You have got to be kidding me. You cannot have choice without free will.

Nope, this is the true biblical teaching. When God gives us commands in the bible, these are prescriptive of what one must do in order to be saved. Yes we must choose but all our efforts are like filthy rags per Isaiah 64:6. You have to understand that God has a standard but in our depraved stated we can never even hope of reaching that standard. Read Matthew 22:37:

<And he said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.

Can you fulfil this commandment?

>I should also ask you this: did Adam have free will to eat the fruit? If not, did God create Adam in a depraved state, thus "introduce sin" into the world?

Although Adam and Eve were not tainted with original sin God still decreed that they should sin so He could bring about the rest of the events that followed from it. And God decreeing Adam and Eve to sin was actually a beneficial thing because it lead to a much greater blessing that outshines the sin of the past caused by man.

>John 6:44 to me appears correctly un-calvanistic. You attempt to draw someone to your point of view through persuasion (e.g. through miraculous signs). For we know people can resist the grace of God: (Romans 13:2). For if this verse were to mean that all men are "drawn" aggressively, then what does Jesus mean when he says “And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all [men] unto me.” ( John 12:32 )? Certainly drawn cannot mean irresistibly pulled here, unless we are universalists (which we are both not). If you read the very next verse, you furthermore see how this "drawing" occurs:

I would like to thank your for actually dealing with the verse I posted. You have given me something to respond to and I will give my reply the equal amount of attention you have given me.

First of all the terms used here for drawing are used in two different ways and this is seen by the context. The drawing referred to in john 6:66 is referring to drawing to salvation whereas the drawing in john 12 refers to the Resurrection of all souls on the day of judgement. We know that John 6:44 is referring to drawing to salvation due to the second clause "And I *will* raise him up on the last day." Now, with the addition of the word "Will" shows us that it isn't simply a drawing without purpose but a drawing to salvation itself and this drawing is certain. Now, in john 12 it's a different story. John 12:32 is referring to being raised up to life to be judged on judgement day as we see from the immediate context:

<Now judgment is upon this world; now the prince of this world will be cast out.

John 12:31

It would not be appropriate to just get attached to the word "drawn" and assume that they are talking about the same drawing since the text is clearly talking about a different context.

>Isaiah 64:6 is referring to the fake righteousness of the Israelites.

Absolutely, and this goes for all of us as well.

>Specifically, Isaiah 1:11-15 God declares he does not want the Israelite's sacrifices and offerings. Then he proclaims "Your hands are full of blood!" as the reason. The corrective action? The next two verses:

You're forgetting something, isaiah 1:17 tells us to stop doing wrong and seek justice but read pslams 53:2:

<God looks down from heaven on the children of man to see if there are any who understand, who seek after God.

No Calvinist would ever deny that you must refrain from sin, do good works and seek God, no one is disagreeing with you there. rather, what we are saying is that we are incapable. We are all completely depraved and incapable of even doing the simplest acts to please God. There is no one on earth who is capable of completing these acts and is why God must take out our heart of stone and give us a heart of flesh to even be able to complete these acts:

<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 36:26

But you might ask "if these people were incapable of doing these things, why would God even bother to tell them?" Well, that's because these are things that are prescribed to all but at the same time descriptive of the elect. Yes, God is laying out what one must do, but He is also aware that none can do it. It is a description of the elect and what God will do in them the same way Matthew 22:37 is near impossible for anyone to do.

>>686760

Also, sorry for the late reply, it was recently my 20 birthday and I was kinda taking a break from… EVERYTHING

>>678702

> I've heard a catholics attempts to somehow adjust the 5 points. I think it was called thomas aquinas' 5 points

Aquina's five ways are about proofs for god's existence and don't have anything to do with calvinism's 5 points.

Catholicism doesn't try to "adjust" the 5 points of calvinism…we just sorta reject them outright.

Arminians and lutherans (especially lutherans) will have an easier time understanding catholicism.

>>686750

>Doesn't make any sense.

You not understanding something doesn't mean it's not making sense.

He, as someone who's all-knowing, and all-powerful, can do anything.

Therefore, He can display the full extend of His powers yet not damn anybody to hell.

>Yes, for the greater good and that is to display the full spectrum of God's power

See the above answer.

>I'm distinguishing His will from His decree. If He wanted to save all then somewhere else He said He did not want to, then it would be a contradiction. But want I'm saying is although God desires all to be saved, He has only decreed some to eternal life.

This would be nothing short than tyrannic no matter how you put it…unless humans had free will.

If everybody is created for either hell or heaven as an absolute, then He would be lying about His will to save all souls because 1) He already decided they were damned in the first place, so they could not be saved at all and 2) He would've already created everybody for heaven, but then we'd have the problem of there actually being people in hell according to God Himself.

So, God is either a tyrannical lier, or not all-powerful and/or all-knowing, or humans got free will.

>Romans 3:10-12

>Out of context verses that still don't say that nobody loves God

Ok.

>See acts 4:27-28

That's not the predestination you're talking about, events can be predestined but we're talking about the double-predestination of souls here.

>Ok, see Romans 9:19-23

Once again you post your one schtick part of Romans 9, interpret it on your own and BAM suddenly it seems to state literally that God creates souls meant for hell.

Only, it doesn't say this, so you still have to show me somewhere were it's explicitly stated that souls are created for either heaven or hell.

Pro tip: you can't

>B-but muh exegesis!

This means nothing as long as that part of the bible is this allegorical.

>We have everything to thank Him for. He did not first wait for us to come to Him or wait for us to do a specific act or penance in order to come to know Him, but rather while we were still sinners and enemies of God, He came down and died for us.

If the Calvinistic view is right then we didn't even die in the first place or we were born dead, depending if our souls were created for heaven or hell respectively.

That said the death of Christ would've been very redundant it it weer for already saved souls or already doomed ones which cannot be saved in the first place.

>>694032

>You can have choice without free will

I think you just proved every rapist innocent with this one.

>>678705

>Romans 9

Watch vid related.

This is part 2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mMuiT_R0zFQ

>>694090

Seen the video already and it's a joke. I can write up a point by point rebuttal refuting each one of his points one by one of you want me to.

>>694046

Nah, I was referring to this: http://jimmyakin.com/a-tiptoe-through-tulip

Is this thread worth reading if you're one whose main theological interest is synergism /monergism/calvinism /arminianism /predestination sovereignty and free will etc or would it be a waste of time and advisable to concentrate my efforts engaging in the topic elsewhere

>>694052

>Only, it doesn't say this, so you still have to show me somewhere were it's explicitly stated that souls are created for either heaven or hell.

Proverbs 16:4

>>694465

OP here. This thread was was mainly me defending my position and isn't really good if you seek to understand synergism and the other belief. It was mainly a shitfest and would only help you if you seek to understand the biblical evidence for Calvinism. But one thing you might find interesting if you do read, Calvinists tend to give scriptural evidence whereas the other side give a emotional evidence. I post Romans 9 they say that's not fair. I post psalm 51 they say not so, I post acts 4 they ignore it. One side is scriptural whereas the other emotional.

>>694052

Was gonna make another long point by point refutation, but I think this is enough:

<One of you will say to me, “Then why does God still find fault? For who can resist His will?” 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 9:19-20

Also read this: >>680193

And it's not allegorical, now you're just being desperate. I'm no longer going to be replying to this thread because some people will just never accept it and it's pointless for me to even try to change the hearts of men.

God bless you and everyone else who participated in this thread.

>>694488

Once again does not say he created a sinner for hell.

It says that even the wicked have a purpose, and will atone for their sins in the end.

>>694815

You post YOUR interpretation of scripture, which is in conflict with the scriptural interpretation of a lot of other people and even logic itself.

We also posted scripture that clearly contradicts your double-predestination position, I'll give you some;

>Go then and learn what this meaneth, I will have mercy and not sacrifice. For I am not come to call the just, but sinners. -Matthew 9:13

Did Christ come for people already dead and destined to stay this way?

>For the grace of God our Saviour hath appeared to all men -Titus 2:11

Guess the bible is lying then.

>Good will come to those who are generous and lend freely, who conduct their affairs with justice. -Psalm 112:5

Except when you're not part of the elect, of course.

>>694820

>And it's not allegorical, now you're just being desperate

So it is not using figure of speech?

So God made literal vessels of wrath?

Where could I find this substance called 'wrath' you speak of?

>>678702

No, it is impossible to be Catholic and a Calvinist, either you renounce your beliefs or renounce God.

Calvinism is delusional anyway as it logically ends up with an Evil God Paradox who created sin.

>>694844

>WHY AM I SO ARGUMENTATIVE!!!!!

Ok, this is really my last reply then I'm not responding again! For real this time though.

>It says that even the wicked have a purpose, and will atone for their sins in the end.

No, it says The LORD has made everything for its purpose, even the wicked for the day of trouble.

>You post YOUR interpretation of scripture, which is in conflict with the scriptural interpretation of a lot of other people and even logic itself.

The old "that's just your private interpretation" meme. Maybe if you actually dealt with my points then I'd concede. But one of the greatest church fathers of all time, Augustine, had a similar interpretation. Here's the reference: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf102.iv.XVIII.49.html

>Matthew 9:13

Yeah, He has come to call His elect. The context is Christ is eating with known sinners and this then causes the Pharisees to then ask Christ why is He eating among sinners. Christ reply then answers this with the famous saying "It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick." What He means by He came to call the sinners means He has come to call those who are aware that they are sinners. And bear in mind that the term call is also a salvivic term that is used in the golden chain of redemption in romans 8. To call isn't simply to ask for someone to come to you but is a active thing on the part of God that will produce results. Not a passive act but a active one. This is seen in romans 9:11-12 where it says:

<though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls she was told, “The older will serve the younger.

So even this verse proves my point since it's talking about God calling His elect. This is further more proven when you look at the context of matthew 9. Just before you have the super natural calling of Matthew:

<9 As Jesus passed on from there, he saw a man called Matthew sitting at the tax booth, and he said to him, “Follow me.” And he rose and followed him.

Does this really sound like a normal conversion? DO you really think matthew 'chose'? DO you think He could have been like "Nah, I'm cool right here?"

>Titus 2:11

I already answered this and so will just copy and past my answer:

I just read the entirety of titus 2 and the all people being spoken of here is refering to all kinds. If you read it from verse 1 you'll see that it talks about older men and how they should act then older women and what their character should be like then it moves on to younger men giving them advice about how to conduct themselves. Then we reach the climax in vs 11 talking about how the grace of God that saves has been revealed to all these kinds of people.

>Psalm 112:5

This is where proper hermenoutics comes in. You can't just shot gun a bunch of verses and hope they mean what you think they do without explaining them. How do you reconcile this with Psalm 53:2-3:

<God looks down from heaven on the children of man to see if there are any who understand, who seek after God. They have all fallen away; together they have become corrupt; there is none who does good, not even one.

The non elect can't do these things and we must conclude that those who are generous and lend freely are doing so by the power of God per Philippians 2:12-13

>So it is not using figure of speech?

Ok, you don't know what allegorical interpetation is. The terms used here "potter" and "clay" refer to people. This isn't an allegorical interpretation since we see even in the OT people refer to themselves as clay and God as the potter.

<But now, O LORD, you are our Father; we are the clay, and you are our potter; we are all the work of your hand.

Isaiah 64:6

When Paul states that there are vessels of wrath prepared for destruction I.E eternal damnation and vessels of of mercy prepared beforehand for glory, I.E. Eternal life, he means God creates and predestines people for Hell of Heaven. Paul even uses individual examples like Jacob and Esau as we see in Romans 9:11-13 and even the pharaoh as we see in Romans 9:15-18

to not see this is the epitome of spiritual blindness.

>>694871

>But one of the greatest church fathers of all time, Augustine, had a similar interpretation.

You mean one saint wrote something down you interpret as being the same as yours.

Augustine also said that we need to work together with the free given grace so as to deserve heaven, how do you interpret what Augustine meant by this?

The double-predestination interpretation of Augustine only became popular after the Reformation, I wonder how that could be.

How about the fact that he isn't declared a heretic by the apostolic churches, and even proclaimed a saint?

Origen is regarded as a Church Father but due to some of his teachings is not declared a saint.

>Yeah, He has come to call His elect

>So even this verse proves my point since it's talking about God calling His elect

No, because of your Calvinistic interpretation of Romans 9 you look at everything in the context of a Calvinistic interpretation.

I say (and a lot of other people, not only apostolics) that Christ has called the sinners, and you say He called the elect.

>I just read the entirety of titus 2 and the all people being spoken of here is refering to all kinds

<Titus 2:11 doesn't really say all men but all kinds

In my native tongue it's even translated not as 'men' but 'people', and looking at the Greek and how it's used it actually means all people.

Saying 'all men' actually means 'all kinds' is far-fetched and you know it.

>The non elect can't do these things and we must conclude that those who are generous and lend freely are doing so by the power of God

So, atheist are completely incapable of doing good?

Unless atheists can be part of the elect and go to heaven this doesn't make sense.

>>678710

> I'm not reading anything here that … rejects Catholic theology

Then shouldn't you go to a Catholic-only board?

>>680284

what is agape?

>>683272

there is no historical objectivity, history is just made up to suite one side or another.

>>678823

Funny how no one rebutted this. Literally everytime prots lose the debate. I'm pretty sure you guys must be the reprobates spoken of because like Jews, you continue to lose the arguments but come back the next day forgetting it.