/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

Calvin should've been burnt at stake.

Unlimited atonement does not state that everyone will be saved (that's universal reconciliation), just that every can be saved but it's dependent on accepting Jesus. So some will get saved, others won't, but it's up to them.

Limited atonement concerns predestination - whether or not you'll get saved is completely out of your hands. To most people this would appear unjust, since punishment awaits people through no fault of their own.

>>685397

I disagree with the idea of hypothetical universalism because it fails to account for the clear scriptural passages about God effectively atoning for the sins of the people He does for. The gospel do not paint a picture of man coming to God, but God coming to man. Off ever given a choice, man will always choose evil over good and so God must take it upon Himself to actively cause the salvation of man. Christ said that He will not even be content with 99% of His sheep but must have all 100 and it is those sheeps He died for. For Christ to hypothetical die for the whole world yet only few be saved means that He did not fulfil His will and lost those who He was trying to save.

Limited atonement doesn't necessarily imply predestination since there are people who still believe in free will yet also believe in the depravity of man. They say we have a will but it is a flawed will. A will that is incapable of saving itself and so God much change our hearts in order that we can be saved:

>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

I know 'to people's it seems unjust, but do you really want to use man's standards of morality to dictate what is morally good or evil? You've heard the argument before "atheists have no objective moral standards" but when a theist hears that His objective moral standard IE God, is sovereign, they then start applying their subjective moral values into God. In fact, this is the most loving thing God can do. You believe that we must first believe so God can save us. He needs is to co-operate with Him in order to be saved. But we say that while we were sinners, enemies of God and hated everything that He is, that is when Christ does for us. It was a unconditional election based no on what man does but based on the one who loved us first.

>but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.

Romans 5:8

>>685395

It seems a bit like you got the Excontextus Syndrome, which tends to be very prevalent in many protestants.

>Luke 15:4

The verse you quoted, is a part of a complete chapter.

Now let's look at Luke 15 from the beginning.

<Now the publicans and sinners drew near unto him to hear him. And the Pharisees and the scribes murmured, saying: This man receiveth sinners and eateth with them. (Luke 15:1-2)

It seems that Jesus was eating, in public, with sinners.

Now the Pharisees, as Pharisees tend to do, criticized Him for eating and associating with sinners.

<And he spoke to them this parable, saying: (Luke 15:3)

Here we see that He's going to address the Pharisees, who were criticizing Him for associating and eating with sinners, with a parable.

<What man of you that hath an hundred sheep, and if he shall lose one of them, doth he not leave the ninety-nine in the desert and go after that which was lost, until he find it? (Luke 15:4)

The lost ones here are clearly the sinners for whom He was criticized for associating and eating with by the Pharisees.

<And when he hath found it, lay it upon his shoulders, rejoicing? And coming home, call together his friends and neighbours, saying to them: Rejoice with me, because I have found my sheep that was lost? (Luke 15:5-6)

A sheep that was lost, he found back.

Assuming that the sheep were the elect, wouldn't the shepherd have said "The sheep shall come back on its own, for he has been made to follow the road to its shed"?

The why did the shepherd look for it, and even rejoice when he found it back?

Wouldn't the sheep, being made to be with the shepherd, find its way back on its own?

After this follow some other parables essentially explaining the same in another allegorical form, however I want to concentrate on the last part of the prodigal son.

<But he said to him: Son, thou art always with me; and all I have is thine. But it was fit that we should make merry and be glad: for this thy brother was dead and is come to life again; he was lost, and is found. (Luke 15:31-32)

The sinner here, was dead, but through his penance has come to life again.

Can the elect who were being made to go to heaven die, meaning they somewhere were destined to go to hell?

Knowing that limited atonement means Christ died for the sins of of the whole world but only works for the elect, how could someone of the elect be at some point destined to hell?

As for your counterargument;

>If the sheep is everyone in the world then that would mean that everyone is going to heaven because christ wouldn't even let one of his sheeps get away as previously stated from Luke 15:4.

The elect, being destined for heaven, would be able to find the way to heaven on their own.

Christ will go after His lost sheep, which are all unrepentant non-believing sinners.

The thing is, a sheep can be stubborn and keep running away or headbutting its shepherd, especially when the lord of this world whispers certain things like "there are better pastures a bit further".

>>685405

>I know 'to people's it seems unjust, but do you really want to use man's standards of morality to dictate what is morally good or evil? You've heard the argument before "atheists have no objective moral standards" but when a theist hears that His objective moral standard IE God, is sovereign, they then start applying their subjective moral values into God.

Morality from a religious context is objective.

We know what good and evil is since the Fall, and because we have the Word of God in which is written His commandments and what He likes and what not, we can make a very, very good image of what is moral and what not according to Him.

There is never someone who gets punished because of God's need to a display of power not explained why.

Nowhere a case where someone gets punished for sins he did not commit.

Every punishment gets explained, no punishment ending with merely 'thus said the Lord".

Nowhere in the bible God talks about the elect, one can merely misinterpret certain passages as such.

Neither is there any talk about someone getting punished because he was destined to suffer for no good reason except for God's decree.

John 6:44 plus John 12:32 = Calvin was wrong.

>>685395

>all sheep are retarded and basically mindless puppets

>all goats are retarded and mindless puppets

>God made both groups

>God hates one group and loves the other

So God is like a little kid smashing his toys together, imagining some figures are good and some are evil, but actually it's all make believe.

And this is supposed to make the world meaningful, morality objective, justice served, and man want to find God because God is loving and good?

amazing

>>685411

For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD.

For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.

>>685415

>calvinism is a high thought

ya you gotta be high/drunk to understand it

>Now one thing we must understand about sheeps is that sheeps cannot choose their owners. Sheeps simply exist and follow commands of their shepherds. A sheep does not have the freedom or even the mental capacity to choose or deny his master or even to obey or disobey his shepherd. Now what does this say about the sheep of christs?

Then how does the sheep have the agency to run away in the first place?

>We see in John 10:15 christ lays down his life for his sheep. Now if you come with the wrong presupposition then that can badly affect your reading of the text. A lot of people who "assume" that christ died for everyone in the world by misinterpreting key pieces of scripture. But read what the bible says. "he lays down his life for his sheep."

The fact that he lays down his life for his sheep does not mean that he doesn't lay down his life for anyone else. That would be a logical fallacy. Those who disagree with limited atonement would say that Christ paid for all sins by his death, only that the merited reward will only be ultimately efficacious for his elect

And what about this verse?

<The next day, John saw Jesus coming to him, and he saith: Behold the Lamb of God, behold him who taketh away the sin of the world.

>>685406

>Assuming that the sheep were the elect, wouldn't the shepherd have said "The sheep shall come back on its own, for he has been made to follow the road to its shed"?

From my understanding, being elect has nothing to do with a person’s nature. In other words, the essence of an elect person subsists in the will of God. That’s why Calvinists believe in “unconditional election.” God seeking out man sounds like a metaphor for regeneration.

I wouldn’t put too much face value at the rejoicing part. God says many things that can’t be taken at face value, lest a contradiction arises. Case in point: God asked where Adam was, but he has omniscience, right?

>>685406

Is this really the best you have? Is this what papist/orthodox call exegesis?Astonishing. If you wrote out this long response, I at least expect enough respect to have an actual educated response. You have not only have you shown a utter ignorance of our belief but also what the bible states. I'll ignore your sub par exegesis and deal with some of the 'points', you raised.

>Assuming that the sheep were the elect, wouldn't the shepherd have said "The sheep shall come back on its own, for he has been made to follow the road to its shed"?

Ok, first of all, we believe that no one can come to salvation themselves. You, I or anyone in this world cannot come to God. Reread what I wrote. It's is not the sheep who come to God but God who comes to the sheep. We can't just come to God but God who opens our hearts and brings us back to Him.

>The sinner here, was dead, but through his penance has come to life again.

It is analogous of the difference between the reprobate and the elect. The prodigal son wasn't literally eating with pigs but rather was a metaphor of the reprobate he was associating himself with. But the son was one of the elect and not an innate pig and so he could return to his father and come back home. The father of the pigs was the devil and their home was the eternal flames. Penance is not even biblical so please don't insert your papist man made traditions into the bible.

>The elect, being destined for heaven, would be able to find the way to heaven on their own.

No, 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.

I suggest you read about what we actually believe before even conceiving of arguing against it.

>>685409

>Morality from a religious context is objective.

Can you defend your morality from a scriptural context?

>We know what good and evil is since the Fall,

Nope, I see the fall of man episode in genesis more as a story about how sin came into our real of existence. We do not now fully know right or wrong because that is subjective, but what happened was that sin entered our world and became something we experience. We still need a objective moral standard because there are competing moral standards around the world.

>There is never someone who gets punished because of God's need to a display of power not explained why.

I'll refer you to Romans 9:22-23

<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

We are right here very clearly that God punishes people to display His power.

>Nowhere a case where someone gets punished for sins he did not commit.

Of course, but God is also an active God and we see repeatedly in the bible God hardens hearts and sends a lying spirit into people.

<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

>Nowhere in the bible God talks about the elect, one can merely misinterpret certain passages as such.

Besides Romans 9, which is very over used, there are also a lot of verses in Ephesians:

<Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love he predestined us[b] for adoption to himself as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will,

Ephesians 1:3-5

>Neither is there any talk about someone getting punished because he was destined to suffer for no good reason except for God's decree.

Look at Romans 9:15-16

<For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy.

>>685410

John 6 is talking about being drawn to salvation and John 12 is about the resurrection that will happen to all. Like, read the next verse.

>>685411

This wasn't a real argument from scripture but your own personal grudge against God's sovereign decree. I'd say just take it up with God.

>>685418

>Then how does the sheep have the agency to run away in the first place?

The sheep were lost and Christ found them. We are all born in sin:

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

And Christ brings us back to Him by His blood.

>The fact that he lays down his life for his sheep does not mean that he doesn't lay down his life for anyone else. That would be a logical fallacy.

I answered this in my OP when I quoted John 10:24-28. There are people who are not of His sheep. Can they say that Christ died for them? If Christ said to you right now "you are not of my sheep" could you say "but you still died for me right?" Nope, His point is clear and it's that He only died for His elect.

>Those who disagree with limited atonement would say that Christ paid for all sins by his death, only that the merited reward will only be ultimately efficacious for his elect

Yeah, they're called hypothetical universalists.

>And what about this verse?

Meaning all without distinction. Even you don't interpret it in a clear cut way since you believe that only those who believe will have their sins taken away. A Universalist could use this to prove their belief. Clearly, it's talking about all without distinction. From the jew, greek, and other gentiles.

>>685435

>This wasn't a real argument from scripture but your own personal grudge against God's sovereign decree. I'd say just take it up with God.

>Calvin's bizarre philosophies, that took 1500 years to innovate, are God's soveriegn decree

ya, no.

Is thread from the same guy who made a calvinist thread a few weeks ago to defend his stance against the highly trained apostolic operatives of /christian/?

Also this >>685396

>>685429

>Is this really the best you have? Is this what papist/orthodox call exegesis?Astonishing. If you wrote out this long response, I at least expect enough respect to have an actual educated response.

<Ad hominems

Nice arguments, coming from a Calvinist too :^)

>Ok, first of all, we believe that no one can come to salvation themselves. You, I or anyone in this world cannot come to God. Reread what I wrote. It's is not the sheep who come to God but God who comes to the sheep. We can't just come to God but God who opens our hearts and brings us back to Him.

I never said anything about the sheep coming to God, I said something about the sheep going to the shed a.k.a. finding its way to heaven because he's elect.

>It is analogous of the difference between the reprobate and the elect. The prodigal son wasn't literally eating with pigs but rather was a metaphor of the reprobate he was associating himself with.

How dense are you?

He was not eating with pigs he was feeding them but was so hungry himself that he wished to be eating the same as them.

This was not some far-fetched metaphor for something this was a an expression of how hungry he was and how bad he had it now.

>The father of the pigs was the devil and their home was the eternal flames.

What are you even talking about?

He took a job as a pig feeder from some farmer to make money for food.

>Penance is not even biblical so please don't insert your papist man made traditions into the bible.

>Penance is not even biblical

<So I say to you, there shall be joy before the angels of God upon one sinner doing penance. (Luke 15:10)

<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)

Seems like you were predestined to be stupid or something.

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

The elect, being predestined for heaven, should automatically be drawn by the Father thus find the way to heaven on their own.

>>685432

>Can you defend your morality from a scriptural context?

Yes, like I said God does not give punishment without any reason.

It's all over the bible, Sodom and Gomorrah is an example I can give from my head.

>Nope, I see the fall of man episode in genesis more as a story about how sin came into our real of existence.

>I see

Your emotions and 'exegesis' aren't arguments though.

<And the Lord God made for Adam and his wife garments of skins, and clothed them. And he said: Behold Adam is become as one of us, knowing good and evil: now therefore lest perhaps he put forth his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever. (Genesis 3:21-22)

>I'll refer you to Romans 9:22-23

>We are right here very clearly that God punishes people to display His power.

You forget an essential part of that verse;

>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

God does not punish merely as a vulgar display of power, but also as a display of mercy.

Job had everything taken from him as a test of faith, and later got everything back and then some.

God would never just take everything from Job and give nothing in return.

The whole definition of punishment is "the imposition of an undesirable or unpleasant outcome upon a group or individual, meted out by an authority as a response and deterrent to a particular action or behaviour that is deemed undesirable or unacceptable.

if someone did nothing wrong and God would impose His wrath upon him it per definition not a punishment anymore but a tyrannical power display which is intrinsically evil.

>in the bible God hardens hearts and sends a lying spirit into people

He never sends evil spirits to lie to people, He merely allows it because God is not a source of evil.

>Ephesians 1:3-5

Once again, we are not talking about predestination but double-predestination which states than people are predestined for either hell or heaven.

I'll give you Ephesians 2:1-6;

<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 (Ephesians 2:1-6)

I struggle to understand how someone predestined for heaven can at one point in life still be doomed to hell and only be saved because of God's mercy thus not because he was automatically going to heaven.

>Look at Romans 9:15-16

Nowhere in this verse does God say that he does not show mercy to people who deserve it according to His Commandments.

This statement is witness that we should not demand anything from God, and everything will be done according to His will.

Well what is His will exactly?

According to scriptures, it's the salvation of all men.

>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)

>>685435

>Muh God's sovereign decree issue

A complete non-argument.

Therefore I ask the same question as in the other thread that's still unanswered:

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?

>>685568

>Wrong version.

I looked into this and I'm amazed you're not entirely wrong on this.

It seems however that both the Vulgate and my native tongue don't differentiate between someone repenting and someone doing penance.

The Greek dictionary also lists penance as the substantive of repentance.

In my language it translates as someone who converts, and one might discuss if conversion needs penance depending of which denomination he's from.

So far as I can conclude your translation is more literal, but trying to separate penance from repenting is wrong on its own.

>>685624

I'd also like to add that in German the word for repentance (Buße) is also used as a word noting a penance.

>>685395

Nice literary analysis, you'd have gotten an A in Shakespeare 101.

Let's do some elementary logic:

God is infinitely good, which means He is not capable of evil acts, such as predestining a person to hell and completely denying him any chance to avoid hell.

What's the point of conscience and repentance and sin, why did Christ bother to give us commands if our fates are already determined? Did Christ come to die for people who were already saved? If so, such sacrifice was not needed. And His sacrifice who were predetermined for hell did nothing for those either.

It's absurd from every possible angle.

>but muh Romans 9

God didn't create Esau to be evil, He merely, via his omniscience, saw what Esau will turn out like.

>Could the Jews truly say Christ died for their sins?

Then who did Christ die for, other than a small group of people that followed Him when He was alive? If he didn't die for the Jews, did he die for the anglo-saxons or germans? Or the Inuits?

>Very truly I tell you, the one who believes has eternal life.

It seems that this sentence lacks the 'except the ones who can't be saved because it has been so predetermined' part.

I just wanted to say thank you for making me understand better the Limited Atonement of Calvinism. I often had trouble with it because of this verse:

John 1:29

29 The next day he *saw Jesus coming to him and *said, “Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!

>>685434

Wait, so Jesus is going to draw all to himself at some future point way after he resurrects so he can send some off to fry? How hard you gotta twist scripture's arm to get that?

>>685468

>>Calvin's bizarre philosophies, that took 1500 years to innovate

Here ya go bud, from the man Augustine himself: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf102.iv.XVIII.49.html

I wouldn't even use the word innovate but develop.

>>685469

>highly trained apostolic operatives of /christian/?

You can't be serious can you?

>>685494

>I never said anything about the sheep coming to God,

And that's where you erred and showed your ignorance of our belief.

>I said something about the sheep going to the shed a.k.a. finding its way to heaven because he's elect.

I'm seriously pondering ignoring all of your posts of you keep making such vacuous statements as these. The sheep can NEVER on their own come to the shed. No member of the elect could ever come to God through their own efforts or even by mistake. It is God who loosens their hearts to even be able to accept Christ and it is also God who raises them up to salvation. You cannot find your own way to heaven.

>He was not eating with pigs he was feeding them but was so hungry himself that he wished to be eating the same as them.

That's exactly what I meant. He was with those lowly creatures but his father was waiting for him. But not all have the same father. Some people's father are the devil while others are God.

>Luke 15:10

You just outed yourself as a papist there. You're clearly using the douay rheims, which is a translation from the faulty Latin vulgate as noticed by Catholics such as erasmus before Martin Luther came into the scene. The actual translation is simply repent, not do penance. Seems like you were predestined to be an idiot :^)

>The elect, being predestined for heaven, should automatically be drawn by the Father thus find the way to heaven on their own.

Ok, I'm going to explain this one more time to you. The drawing isn't simply a drawing like a dog owner telling his pet dog to come to him. It is an active drawing where God takes away your heart of stone and gives you a heart of flesh so that you can accept Him. If it was simply a passive drawing man will always not accept the offer because of our singular state.

>>685495

>It's all over the bible, Sodom and Gomorrah is an example I can give from my head.

I never denied that. But you cannot ignore God's active role in all of this. Yes God cannot punish people for no reason and we must first sin, but there are instances where God hardens the hearts of people, sends a lying spirit and decreed that people to sinful acts that can help in His plan for the redemption of His people.

>Your emotions and 'exegesis' aren't arguments though.

I like the way you micro analyse my "I see" statement. But my point was that you cannot say they had perfect knowledge of good and evil. Humans on their own are subjective creatures and we will always fall into our own personal opinions of what is and isn't moral. And I read genesis 3:21-22 in like of proverbs 14:12:

<There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way to death.

If we had perfect knowledge of good and evil, the way that seemed right to us would also seen right to God.

>You forget an essential part of that verse;

Thanks for proving my point. The point is that God desires to show man the full extent of His mercy and wrath. He does this by fashioning some vessels for the soul purpose of destruction while others for the would purpose of eternal glory.

>God does not punish merely as a vulgar display of power, but also as a display of mercy.

Watch your language there. God's display of His glory is not vulgar. God desires to show the full extent of His power. This is best shown in the episode that occurred in exodus where you have on one end God showing His wrath to the pharoah by hardening His heart whereas on the other end God s merciful to the Jews who are at the edge of the red sea and God opens up the sea to let the Jews through. Both sides were being controlled by the holy one and that one event then lead to the passover, which was in remembrance of that. In fact, it was so important that when a jewish child asked why they observe this practise, this would then let the parents tell the kids about the power of God in Egypt. Now, imagine if God never hardened the pharaohs heart? What if he just let the Jews go. THere would be no exodus, no display of God's wrath and no display of God's mercy. No Passover and no way for the Jews to know how much God loves them. Do you now see how important God's sovereign decree is?

Your whole point about job has nothing to do with what I'm saying. I think you misunderstand the Calvinist position.

>He never sends evil spirits to lie to people,

You're right, He sends a lying spirit that causes them to sin

<Now therefore behold, the LORD has put a lying spirit in the mouth of these your prophets. The LORD has declared disaster concerning you.”

2 Chronicles 18:22

>Once again, we are not talking about predestination but double-predestination which states than people are predestined for either hell or heaven.

I gave you Romans 9, but I'll give you more if you want.

>I struggle to understand how someone predestined for heaven can at one point in life still be doomed to hell and only be saved because of God's mercy thus not because he was automatically going to heaven.

Yeah, I really think you need to learn what our position is. We believe that by default all people are going to hell, but by God's mercy, which He does not give to all Romans 9:15, He takes us from a state of being an enemy of God, to one of His sons. Also, just read Ephesians 2:1-6 with a honest mind. Do you really think the person described as going after the desire of the flesh, children of wrath and dead in sin could come to God? Even Ephesians you quoted doesn't say that. It says God had mercy on them and by Grace saved them.

>Nowhere in this verse does God say that he does not show mercy to people who deserve it according to His Commandments.

Have you read romans 9 before?

>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?

Earlier you quoted 1 Timothy 2:3-4 and by your understanding of God's omnipotence why doesn't God save all people? And if you say it's because we do not choose God, then is God unable to save people unless they first act? Is God's power limited by the will of man? Can God only act as far as man let's Him?

>>685568

>Matthew 6:24

It's a message about only fully accepting Christ. Think about the scene with the rich young ruler. He followed the commandments since he was a child but was too attached to his money and so couldn't truly follow Christ. That is the message of the parable, it is to show us that we must be fully devoted to one and not two conflicting authorities. But it's not saying we can't have two masters at all since you have 2 parents, but it's saying you can't have two conflicting authorities since they will always be at odds with one another.

>2 Peter 3:9

Yes, His will is that all come to Him but He has sovereignly decreed that only His elect will be saved.

>1 John 2:2

Yes, John was a Jew and Jews thought that due to their relation to Abraham they were heirs to the promise, but as Paul states in Romans 9, it is not the people of the flesh but of the promise. And so the world being spoken of here is all without distinction as in Jews and gentiles alike.

>2 Peter 2:1

I agree.

>1 Timothy 4:10

The word used here for specially is "malistas." Malista can mean “especially” but can also mean “namely”. http://thirdmill.org/answers/answer.asp/file/45603

>That is also true and it doesn't contradict the above. No scripture you've said actually contradicts the fact the Lord died for all sins.

Answered this in my OP. There are people who God outright says are not a part of His sheep and God is practically telling them that they are not of the ones He died for.

>The part about God hating Esau is a quote of Malachi 1:3, which happened after the events of Esau's life. It was not "hated before he was conceived."

First of all, Malachi is referencing back to genesis and when Paul uses this verse in Romans 9, he applies this hating to before the children's birth.

>Hosea 9:15

Yes, God hates. I'm no one of those people who believes God loves everyone.

>What?

We do not fully know right and wrong because we are subjective creatures and so need a objective moral standard.

>You say "we need it" as though we don't have it.

>We are right here very clearly that God punishes people

No.

>Yeah, after they revolted already.

It says prepared. It was predestined and actively by God.

>Malachi 1:3 is after the events of Genesis.

Read what I said above.

>>685632

>Nice literary analysis, you'd have gotten an A in Shakespeare 101.

I know you like using this "that's just your private interpretation" argument, but I have you a good and consistent way of reading scripture. Think about the first council of nicea, did they not use a consistent method of interpretation to understand it? One of the things arius was know for was that no matter what verse you gave him, he would be able to twist it to not mean that. Thats because he lacked consistency and could make the bible say what he wanted. I'm here trying to use a consistent methodology to understand scripture.

>God is infinitely good, which means He is not capable of evil acts, such as predestining a person to hell

God is good but Him predestining someone to hell isn't evil. We are all going to hell by default. He leaves some in their sins while others He predestines to eternal glory.

>What's the point of conscience and repentance and sin, why did Christ bother to give us commands if our fates are already determined?

It's quite interesting you said this because for me, it kinda means that all good I do is because I wanna get closer to God. I'm not trying to earn God's favour of increase my righteousness but rather I just want to get closer to God. The reason why I still follow God's commandments is because I love Him. The reason why I have a conscious and try to repent is because God has convicted me of my sins. Our fate have already been declared but that does not mean we should sin.

>Did Christ come to die for people who were already saved?

No, He came to save His elect.

>God didn't create Esau to be evil, He merely, via his omniscience, saw what Esau will turn out like.

Read Romans 9:11

<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

It was for His purpose of election, not Him looking down the hallways of time and hating Esau because of something he was going to do.

>Then who did Christ die for, other than a small group of people that followed Him when He was alive?

His elect.

>If he didn't die for the Jews, did he die for the anglo-saxons or germans?

It wasn't for a particular race or nation. It was for people from all walks of life.

>It seems that this sentence lacks the 'except the ones who can't be saved because it has been so predetermined' part.

God doesn't have to add that every time He talks about being saved. It would just become redundant. Anyways, read Ephesians 2:8-9:

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

>>685658

>John 1:29

Thanks, I'll also try to deal with this verse directly. Most people who quote this verse don't take it literally, they believe that He only took away the sins of those who believe. Also, the word world has a range of meanings in the bible. I understand it as all without distinction. Meaning from the Jews and gentiles alike.

>>685737

Nani? John 12 isn't talking about salvation but simply the resurrection of all people in judgement day. In John 6 they will be drawn to the Father.

>>685929

>God hardens the hearts of people, sends a lying spirit and decreed that people to sinful acts that can help in His plan for the redemption of His people.

God is not the source of evil nor sin and Him sending a lying spirit would be exactly that.

>Humans on their own are subjective creatures and we will always fall into our own personal opinions of what is and isn't moral.

You have no way of telling that your personal opinions aren't based on the same subjective principle as mine then.

>Watch your language there.

>God's display of His glory is not vulgar.

There is absolutely no glory in making something suffer for the mere purpose of it.

That's simple vulgarity and satanic.

>2 Chronicles 18:22

So he allows lying spirits to to influence people?

Seems like that spirit had the free will to stand up for his idea and God allowed it.

>We believe that by default all people are going to hell, but by God's mercy, which He does not give to all Romans 9:15, He takes us from a state of being an enemy of God, to one of His sons

That's not Calvinism, that's reverse-predestination in a weird way.

I don't even think you understand what you believe.

>Earlier you quoted 1 Timothy 2:3-4 and by your understanding of God's omnipotence why doesn't God save all people? And if you say it's because we do not choose God, then is God unable to save people unless they first act? Is God's power limited by the will of man? Can God only act as far as man let's Him?

>Answering a question with a question

Very nice, you almost sounded intelligent.

>>685395

I will start by saying their is no such thing as limited atonement. In a way you are right the Lord already knows all who will be saved when the time comes as he is perfect. However the Lord will allow any and all to atone for their sins because he allows free will for even on the cross the man who livid his life as a thief breaking the commandments was saved because he atoned for his sins. Therefore anyone who willingly goes to the lord with true sorrow in their hearts for the sins they committed can be atoned.

The issue with teaching limited atonement is that we as humans who are prone to failing and sin will try to guess who the atoned are and who aren't. Creating more sin and damning all to hell.

>>685953

>God is not the source of evil nor sin and Him sending a lying spirit would be exactly that.

I would contest that by saying just because God sent a lying spirit to the people in 2 chronicles does not make Him evil. Same way God ending someone's life does not mean He is a murderer. He is the giver of life and the taker of it.

>You have no way of telling that your personal opinions aren't based on the same subjective principle as mine then.

You actually touched on something important here. The thing that really settles it is authority. The authority of my moral standards are the scriptures. It defines what is right and wrong and whatever it says is good, I say is good, and whatever it says is bad, I say is bad. I feel like you take the opposite approach and enforce your own moral standards onto the scriptures.

>That's simple vulgarity and satanic.

Please do not blaspheme the Holy Spirit. It is to display the full spectrum of God's power and this is how God is glorified. By making people come to the knowledge of His power. Here again is where I think you impose your subjective moral standard onto the scriptures.

>Seems like that spirit had the free will to stand up for his idea and God allowed it.

The spirit could not have gone unless God allowed it. And by God allowing it it was as though God was the one who sent the lying spirit.

>That's not Calvinism, that's reverse-predestination in a weird way.

Nope, this is exactly what we believe. God leaves some in their sins while others He sovereignly chooses to come to eternal life. When God hardens people's hearts or sends a lying spirit, it is all to those God has already prepared for the fire. I hear people say they feel sorry for the pharoah, but if you really think about it, the pharoah was predestined to go to hell anyway, would it matter if God then used Him as a puppet for His glory?

>Answering a question with a question

Absolutely, remember what I said in my OP. We must have he right presuppositions when reading scripture otherwise it really does become a mess any you can make out of it everything you want. And I have taken the time in my OP to write out the biblical evidence for my presupposition. And so, when I read 1 Timothy 2:3-4 I see it as God's desire to save all people, but He has only sovereignly decreed that His elect be saved.

>>685957

I get the message of your post but I think you don't understand one basic thing about man, and that's the utter depravity of humans. We read in Isaiah 64:6:

<All of us have become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous acts are like filthy rags; we all shrivel up like a leaf, and like the wind our sins sweep us away.

That all our good deeds and efforts are like filth to God. We read in the pslam 51:5

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

And we see Paul talk about the state of the entire world in Romans 3:10-11:

<As it is written: "There is no one righteous, not even one; there is no one who understands; there is no one who seeks God.

And because of this state, we see that no one can come to God by ourselves, or by our own wisdom or understanding or piety or the works as Clement states in the 32nd chapter of his epistle to the church in Corinth:

<And we also, having been called through His will in Christ Jesus, are not justified by ourselves, or by our own wisdom or understanding or piety or the works we have done in holiness of heart, but through the faith, by which the Almighty God has justified all men from the beginning

But it is God who turns out heart of stone to a heart of flesh as we read in Ezekiel 36:26

<I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh.

And to top it all off, here is the words from our Lord Himself:

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

John 6:44

And so this is why God had to actively save His elect and not passively hope that they come to Him, because He knows that no one would have done so.

>>685974

>Same way God ending someone's life does not mean He is a murderer.

That's exactly what He is then, but in the context of killing someone for a good reason.

>The authority of my moral standards are the scriptures. It defines what is right and wrong and whatever it says is good, I say is good, and whatever it says is bad, I say is bad. I feel like you take the opposite approach and enforce your own moral standards onto the scriptures.

Oh yeah I forgot, 1500 years long nobody could rightly interpret the scriptures (except for some fringe parts of a few Church Fathers because they support your exegesis) and you are definitely not a fallible human being who does not project an unique interpretation of the scriptures once he reads them.

>Please do not blaspheme the Holy Spirit. It is to display the full spectrum of God's power and this is how God is glorified.

If I kill you or anybody on the street, does that glorify me if I can just show my power through it?

>Here again is where I think you impose your subjective moral standard onto the scriptures.

How many times do I have to repeat it?

We got both the knowledge of good and evil AND the scriptures literally telling us what God thinks is good and what not.

If through the scriptures we cannot discern good from evil, we cannot even sin.

>The spirit could not have gone unless God allowed it. And by God allowing it it was as though God was the one who sent the lying spirit.

That's like saying that America allowing open-carry is like sending the school shooter to kill his classmates.

>Nope, this is exactly what we believe

Oh, well I should not be so surprised that a protestant creates his own denomination.

>Answering a question with a question

>Absolutely

So you admit to not being able to explain how an omnipotent, omniscient God can make it so that His power is projected through sinners who at the last moment still convert so that they can get saved?

Because well, God wants all men to be saved so either He's lying in scripture (which I doubt) or He's not omnipotent nor omniscient enough to make people sin then repent and show His glory.

>>685937

>Yes, His will is that all come to Him but He has sovereignly decreed that only His elect will be saved.

That's a contradiction.

John 5:40

And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life.

>Malista can mean “especially” but can also mean “namely”.

No it doesn't.

>And so the world being spoken of here is all without distinction as in Jews and gentiles alike.

No. All simply means all.

>I agree.

They deny the Lord that bought them. That is what it says. Can't get around it.

>and God is practically telling them that they are not of the ones He died for.

You haven't mentioned anything out of scripture to back up this statement. Just a bunch of distractions to draw attention away from this lack of scripture here.

>when Paul uses this verse in Romans 9, he applies this hating to before the children's birth.

No. He is quoting Malachi 1:2-3. There is nothing about hatred before birth, only Malachi 1:3.

<Hosea 9:15

>Yes, God hates. I'm no one of those people who believes God loves everyone.

I guess your reading comprehension isn't that high. That's ok. What Hosea 9:15 states is that those whom God hates "I will love them no more." So you see? No hatred from birth. He hated them in Gilgal, for there was their wickedness.

John 3:16

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

>>685982

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

This is saying that them being drawn is a prerequisite. According to John 12:32-33 all men are now being drawn to him. But according to John 5:40 some will not come unto him that they might have life. So then it is impossible without being drawn, as we see; yet some have resisted the grace that was given to them via John 12:32-33, and this is accountable to them. There is no lack of accountability.

Far be it from God, that he should do wickedness; and from the Almighty, that he should commit iniquity.

For the work of a man shall he render unto him, and cause every man to find according to his ways.

Not only a heretic but Calvin's interpretation of God is unbiblical and evil.

>>686018

>That's exactly what He is then, but in the context of killing someone for a good reason.

What? If a baby dies at birth or a man dies of a brain aneurysm, God has every right to do so. He is the giver of life and damn well has every right to take that life away too!

>Oh yeah I forgot, 1500 years long nobody could rightly interpret the scriptures

I love this accusation against the reformed sect that we ignore 1500 years of church history. In fact we do take in the early church fathers in to account and learn about the development of certain doctrine. But we are also aware of their down falls. There are many things to take into account before just believing in something because "muh church fathers" said so such as the fact that only two early church fathers actually knew how to speak both Greek and Hebrew ( Origen and jerome). Also, if you look at Origen and his allegorical interpretation of the OT and how this style of interpretation infected the church until… The reformation. It was only until then did people drop this allegorical interpretation of the OT. All these things need to be taken into consideration when consulting the ECF but at the same time I do not deny them but rather take their thoughts and ideas into consideration when reading scripture.

And if you look here you'll see that Augustine had a lot of the same ideas as John Calvin had: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf102.iv.XVIII.49.html

>If I kill you or anybody on the street, does that glorify me if I can just show my power through it?

You have no right to take a life and there is no purpose for you to display your ability to kill. God is the supreme and sovereign one and has every right to make His power known to the world whereas you are a clay vessel created for His purpose.

>We got both the knowledge of good and evil AND the scriptures literally telling us what God thinks is good and what not.

Yes, we have some knowledge of good and evil since we have a conscience. But it is not perfect. Still God predestining some people for damnation and others for salvation is completely within His prerogative as a Just and Holy God.

>That's like saying that America allowing open-carry is like sending the school shooter to kill his classmates.

I literally quoted where God says "I" sent a lying spirit. It's simple exegesis, which I know papists are not very fond of. By God letting the spirit go out it was akin to Him sending the lying spirit. Also, it is a false equivocation to compare it to America allowing guns since they did not intend people to use the guns for a school shooting, but God intended the lying spirit to deceive them.

>Oh, well I should not be so surprised that a protestant creates his own denomination

Again, another displayal of your ignorance.

>So you admit to not being able to explain how an omnipotent, omniscient God can make it so that His power is projected through sinners who at the last moment still convert so that they can get saved?

God made it so. Simple.

>Because well, God wants all men to be saved so either He's lying in scripture (which I doubt) or He's not omnipotent nor omniscient enough to make people sin then repent and show His glory.

He wants all to be saved but has only decreed some to be saved. This does not mean He is not omnipotent since He could save all, but He has not decreed so. And I don't know where omniscience fits into all of this.

>>686036

>That's a contradiction.

It's not

>John 5:40

Because God has not drawn them and they do not desire to come to Christ.

>No it doesn't.

Did you even bother to read the link?

>No. All simply means all.

Same word for all here also appears in Matthew 2:3. Would make the verse sound funny If it literally means all.

>They deny the Lord that bought them. That is what it says. Can't get around it.

Yes, all have gone astray like sheep. No one is good.

>You haven't mentioned anything out of scripture to back up this statement. Just a bunch of distractions to draw attention away from this lack of scripture here.

Read my OP.

>No. He is quoting Malachi 1:2-3. There is nothing about hatred before birth, only Malachi 1:3.

OMG, yes He's quoting Malachi but Paul applies it to before they were born. Now you're using your own interpretation and not Paul's interpretation.

>What Hosea 9:15 states is that those whom God hates "I will love them no more." So you see? No hatred from birth. He hated them in Gilgal, for there was their wickedness.

Actually, it is using a rhetorical device known as meiosis that is a euphemistic tool used to understate the significance of something. The verse is saying "I will cease to express any more love to them in the form of blessings."

>John 3:16

Wonderful verse but now you have to define world and the word for world here (kosmos) is used in a variety of ways. Just check out these verses: John 1:29 talks about taking away the sins of the world. But if world means everyone then all will go heaven IE universalism. Also, look at John 12:19 and John 14:17 and John 16:8

>>686036

>According to John 12:32-33 all men are now being drawn to him. But according to John 5:40 some will not come unto him that they might have life.

First of all, John 12 isn't discussing the drawing to salvation. This is clear by the context, John 6 on the other hand is talking about being drawn to salvation because there is an intimate connection between the two clauses. The first clause is discussing our inability to come to Christ unless the Father acts in the person and this person will be raised up to salvation.

>Far be it from God, that he should do wickedness; and from the Almighty, that he should commit iniquity. For the work of a man shall he render unto him, and cause every man to find according to his ways.

Amen!

>>686648

I've given you the biblical evidence, now, why do you think it's heretical or even worse "evil?"

>>686659

I never judged Him for deaths, but taking a life is still killing.

It's the context that makes it right or wrong.

>Also, if you look at Origen and his allegorical interpretation of the OT and how this style of interpretation infected the church until… The reformation.

I'm pretty sure that the OT was taken even more literal as it is today before the reformation.

Sure Origen discussed about Genesis but that's about it.

>And if you look here you'll see that Augustine had a lot of the same ideas as John Calvin had

That's what I meant.

First of all, you find one Church Father, maybe with some more effort 3 or something.

Then you take their work, skim through everything you call us 'papists' for and then decide to interpret one part in a calvinistic way.

>You have no right to take a life and there is no purpose for you to display your ability to kill. God is the supreme and sovereign one and has every right to make His power known to the world whereas you are a clay vessel created for His purpose.

That's not what I asked, so I'll ask it again:

If I kill you or anybody on the street, does that glorify me if I can just show my power through it?

>I literally quoted where God says "I" sent a lying spirit

You didn't.

He does not send lying spirits in a literal sense, He let's them do as they please when He wants to as with job.

>Again, another displayal of your ignorance.

One half of my family are protestants, whatever denomination they might me.

In the same time I live very close to the cradle of the reformation and the country which embraced Calvin's teachings with open arms.

I know enough of Calvinism to know that you are not a pure reformed in a Calvinistic sense, maybe Zwinglian but I don't know as much about him.

>God made it so. Simple.

Not an argument either, seems like you can't explain why God would contradict Himself.

>He wants all to be saved but has only decreed some to be saved. This does not mean He is not omnipotent since He could save all, but He has not decreed so. And I don't know where omniscience fits into all of this.

Omniscience means all-knowing, and together with omnipotence, all-powerful, God can do anything.

He therefore has the knowledge and the power to make His will be done.

However, if God decrees something entirely different than what scripture says, it isn't really His will if He has the capability to do it yet decrees something else.

What God decrees is His will on the end, and with Calvinism it seems to contradict scripture.

>>686669

>It's not a contradiction

If I see someone who needs some money in the grocery store, and I will that he had that extra money, yet I do not give it to him.

Did I then really want to give it to him, or did I just not have the money myself?

>Same word for all here also appears in Matthew 2:3. Would make the verse sound funny If it literally means all.

https://biblehub.com/greek/3956.htm

The word for all encompasses a whole, so yeah it just means all.

>>686713

>It's the context that makes it right or wrong.

There is no context needed for God to take a life.God can take the life of a baby in the womb or make awfully grown healthy man die of a brain aneurysm. In fact there was a Muslim by the name of nabeel qureshi who converted to Christianity and wrote many books about coming to Christ and leaving Islam, yet he died of cancer recently.

>I'm pretty sure that the OT was taken even more literal as it is today before the reformation.

No, they mostly had an allegorical interpretation of the OT that also effected how they read the bible. It wasn't until the reformation that the OT was taken more seriously. And I'm not talking about it they interpreted genesis literally or no but rather their form of exegesis. I liked Jerome because he didn't use this form of biblical interpretation.

>That's what I meant.

What?

>First of all, you find one Church Father, maybe with some more effort 3 or something. Then you take their work, skim through everything you call us 'papists' for and then decide to interpret one part in a calvinistic way.

Oh, Augustine was the main inspiration for John Calvin's view on grace and free will. It's not even skimming, Augustine was kinda like the father of this and John Calvin developed on some of his teachings. And I don't think it's fair to say I'm cherry picking early church fathers since Augustine was a very influential church father especially for catholics.

>If I kill you or anybody on the street, does that glorify me if I can just show my power through it?

How would it glorify you? It's a false equivocation because you're saying that God doing something is equal to you doing it. Also, what do you mean by glorify? Only God can attain glory and us once we have gained out inheritance in heaven. They're different situations completely.

>I know enough of Calvinism to know that you are not a pure reformed in a Calvinistic sense, maybe Zwinglian but I don't know as much about him.

I am a Presbyterian and am much closer to the Puritants in my theology. Yes, God damns some soul to hell by predestining them while glorifies others by predestining them to heaven. But with the case of the damned souls, we believe that all people are on the path to hell and it's only when God does His acts of regeneration do we finally change. He leaves the sinners in their state of sin. But this does not mean that God doesn't cause some to sin by giving them over to a sinful spirit such as the case with the pharoah but these are people God has already predestined for hell and since they are going to hell anyway God then uses as an example by making them fall further into sin.

>Not an argument either, seems like you can't explain why God would contradict Himself.

It's not a contradiction. God desires all to be saved but has only decreed some. I could ask you if God wants all to be saved then why doesn't He? When it you say because of man's free will then Did God limited in His power by the will of man. Does God wait in anticipation for someone to come to Him and was there a possibility that no one could have been saved making Christ's death be in vain?

>However, if God decrees something entirely different than what scripture says, it isn't really His will if He has the capability to do it yet decrees something else.

Yes, there is a distinction between God's will and His decree but just because He decrees something doesn't mean it is also His will to do so.

>What God decrees is His will on the end

It is not. That is a important distinction to make.

>>686716

>Did I then really want to give it to him, or did I just not have the money myself?

We are not God and His ways are not our ways so any way you try to equivocate humans with God, it will always be a false equivocation. Furthermore, there was no reason for you to not give that person money. God withholds His grace from some for the greater good.

>The word for all encompasses a whole, so yeah it just means all.

Yes, but it can also mean an all encompassing group such as simply the believers or a certain area etc.

b-bump

I'm not gonna read everything in this thread (for now), so please forgive me if someone already posted this.

>>685395

> Could they really believe that they had hope of salvation if they were not even of a part of Christ's flock? Clearly salvation is not meant for all.

The reason Jesus uses words like "flock" and "sheep", is because "following Him" is central in this. If someone isn't following Jesus', then they're not part of His flock. If a person is raised in (e.g.) an atheist home, then he's not following Jesus, and therefore not part of His flock. However, he can become a follower later in his life. One can go from a state of "not following" to a state of "following", thereby becoming part of His flock.

If Jesus Christ died for the elect only, then how can the ones who aren't elected even be accountable for their deeds? They can just say to God "You ordained me to live in sin… I had no choice in this matter, so punishing me is immoral". This just doesn't make any sense to me.

My grandmother is Reformed and believes in this kind of hyper-calvinism, and it will probably lead her to hell. She's 84 now, still waiting for God to save her, while God is in fact waiting for her to repent..

>>686659

Augustine is only a Calvinist insofar as Limited Atonement goes. That's it. He denies God predestinating people to damnation and contrary to many Calvinistic justification for double predestination, says God cannot will evil as an end in itself.

Reprobation in Calvinism does this

In my opinion Calvinist theology leads to more problems than it solves, it really just seems like bending over backwards to avoid becoming Catholic

>>704660

Calvinist theology is a mutation from Catholic views of predestination. Whereas most Catholic predestinarians like Aquinas are cautious to clarify and make clear those who arent elect are deservably so and not forced, Calvinism says that if one is a reprobate, that is indeed God's decree and predestination.

>>704663

The traditional viewpoint is that God knew everything that would possibly happen before he created it, and he made a plan according to that for those that would listen to him and follow the narrow path. It doesn't mean we don't have freewill or that evil people are responsible for their evil actions, I don't know why people have trouble with this because it always seemed like the most obvious Christian viewpoint

1)The use of sheep is just for the purposes of illustration and analogy. It isnt meant to tell you about free will but about God's love for his covenantal people. Saying "sheeps cannot choose their masters" go beyond what the NT authors want to illustrate.

2)Being drawn by the Father does not prove limited atonement or determinism. Why? Because Lutherans and Catholics can say one cannot turn to God without Grace yet they mostly today deny limited atonement. In fact even Judaism can acknowledge God's sovereignity in repentance as Craig Keener points out in his commentary on John(see pic). Only Qumran Jews are determinist in this period, the rest believe in free will.