ba557d No.9478
If I were born unable to respond to the gospel, it would be unjust to condemn me to eternal hell because of my lack of response.
This injustice is recognizable by natural theology (your conscience), and by God's description of responsibility in scripture.
Calvinists, please respond.
____________________________
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
fe0bbf No.9482
>>9478
Calvinists are basically just "Christians" who want to be Jews. Why do you think usury is allowed in Calvinism. Also, you're right, the idea of an "Elect" is stupid and pretty unfair.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
ea58d6 No.9491
Invidious embed. Click thumbnail to play.
>If I were born unable to respond to the gospel
It's not an "unable" as if it were a mere disability. It's an "unable" in the sense that you can't and don't want to do what is contrary to your ingrained spiritual/covenantal nature. You are born out of sin to sin, not to respond to God. The equivalent would be saying God is unable to make a rock to heavy to lift.
> it would be unjust to condemn me to eternal hell because of my lack of response.
Well, first, when God calls, we are to respond (See Matthew 22:1-14 and Mark 8:34). To not do so is the sin of omission, worthy of damnation because it is God Himself who is calling. He calls all men to repent (Mark 6:12, Acts 17:30). So even on you own terms, you're wrong. But the post-lapsarian human condition is not as simple or innocent as a "failure to respond".
There are way too many resources out there, which explain excellently why humans don't just "choose" God, for me to write a ten-posts essay of my own words to argue against you. It's waste of my time, which is not my own to spend. I don't expect you to go out and read or watch them, though you should, like this video by the late, great R.C. Sproul. I do expect you to do your research if you want your thread to be taken seriously. In other words, many Calvinists have already responded. You have Sproul. You have White. Listen to them. If they can't convince you, nothing will.
>This injustice is recognizable by natural theology (your conscience)
In so far that my conscience is not refined by the Holy Spirit and by Scripture, it would be foolish to follow my conscience. Your conscience is from your heart, which is deceitful beyond compare. Who can understand it (Jeremiah 17:9-10), but God who tests the heart and reveals what we need for salvation? What is written in Scripture shows that God is sovereign in all matters including choosing to whom He shows mercy and to whom He gives unto reprobation (Rom. 9:15 cf. Exodus 33:19).
>by God's description of responsibility in scripture.
You clearly don't understand what Calvinists believe if you think we deny human responsibility. But what of all the Scriptures about God's sovereignty even over the hearts of men? Why are you omitting that?
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
ea58d6 No.9492
>>9482
>Calvinists are basically just "Christians" who want to be Jews.
Cute.
>Why do you think usury is allowed in Calvinism.
It's true the Calvinists intellectuals have all too often supported economic evils such as usury. Know this, if the Reformed world reformed against and denounced all forms of usury, God will kill off your church within the decade, once and for all. I seriously believe our stupid fondness for Capitalism is the only reason we have not defeated your church.
But what is worse, monetary usury, or spiritual usury? That is, your false church claims that God demands extra payment of merit after the initial payment of sin debt Christ paid on the cross. Blasphemy!
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
fe0bbf No.9493
>>9492
>It's true the Calvinists intellectuals have all too often supported economic evils such as usury.
True.
>Know this, if the Reformed world reformed against and denounced all forms of usury, God will kill off your church within the decade, once and for all.
Cute. Pic related.
>I seriously believe our stupid fondness for Capitalism is the only reason we have not defeated your church.
The reason our church hasn't been "defeated" is because protestants are spiritual rebels, much like Lucifer. That's why the word protestant comes from the word protestor. I can agree with you about capitalism though, it's an anti-Christian system just like communism is.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
ba557d No.9497
>>9491
>You clearly don't understand what Calvinists believe if you think we deny human responsibility
I'm using responsibility here to mean ability to respond
>It's an "unable" in the sense that you can't and don't want to
>you can't
You're agreeing with the premise, just adding another dynamic
>What is written in Scripture shows that God is sovereign in all matters including choosing to whom He shows mercy and to whom He gives unto reprobation (Rom. 9:15 cf. Exodus 33:19)
Sovereignty does not mean He deals arbitrarily, sovereignty means He is unaffected by outside influence. I entirely affirm the sovereignty of God, it's only by grace that anyone is saved at all.
I'm saying that the God of John 3:16 is one who freely offers a gift, but the God of determinist calvinism damns people for His own choice not to elect them. This is incompatible with God's holiness.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
4036e2 No.9502
>>9482
>Also, you're right, the idea of an "Elect" is stupid and pretty unfair.
Are you a literal retard? Catholicism believes in predestination. The concept of the "Elect" is Catholic. Read Saint Augustine sometime.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
fe0bbf No.9505
>>9502
That's not true. Catholics believe in the idea of free will. I actually asked my priest about that once.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
a0d505 No.9506
>>9478
>If I were born unable to respond to the gospel
Ten words in and we already have a major strawman. Can't say I'm surprised.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
ba557d No.9514
>>9506
That's the stance of total depravity as articulated by mainstream Evangelical calvinists
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
a0d505 No.9517
>>9514
No sir it is not. No Calvinist believes that sinners are unresponsive to the gospel, the whole point is they respond negatively.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
ba557d No.9518
>>9517
Okay, and why do they respond negatively according to calvinism?
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
a0d505 No.9519
>>9518
Because they hate God
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
4036e2 No.9520
>>9505
Did I say that Catholics don't believe in free will? Furthermore, your priest is probably an arch-heretic Novus Ordo modernist. I would stay away from any priest that is not traditional.
Predestination is Catholic teaching. The elect are predestined (to Heaven). Calvin taught double predestination, which includes predestination to reprobation. That's a different thing.
The idea of salvation outside the Church is opposed to the Doctrine of Predestination. This Doctrine means that from all eternity God has known who were His own. It is for the salvation of these, His Elect, that Providence has directed, does direct, and will always direct, the affairs of men and the events of history. Nothing, absolutely nothing, that happens, has not been taken into account by the infinite God, and woven into that tapestry in which is written the history of the salvation of His saints. Central in this providential overlordship is the Church itself, which is the sacred implement which God devised for the rescuing of His beloved ones from the damnation decreed for those who would not. (Mt. 23:37).
The Doctrine of Divine Election means that only certain individuals will be saved. They will be saved primarily because, in the inscrutable omniscience of God, only certain individuals out of all the human family will respond to the grace of salvation. In essence, this doctrine refers to what in terms of human understanding and vision, is before and after, the past, the present, and the future, but what in God is certain knowledge and unpreventable fact, divine action and human response.
Calvin and others have made the mistake of believing that these words mean that predestination excludes human choice and dispenses from true virtue. Catholic doctrine explains simply that the foreknowledge of God precedes the giving of grace. It means, further, that, since without grace there can be no merit, and without merit no salvation, those who will be saved must be foreknown as saved by God, if they are to receive the graces necessary for salvation.
Those who say there is salvation outside the Church (no matter how they say it) do not comprehend that those who are in the Church have been brought into it by the Father, through Christ the Savior, in fulfillment of His eternal design to save them. The only reason that God does not succeed in getting others into the Church must be found in the reluctant will of those who do not enter it. If God can arrange for you to be in the Church, by the very same Providence He can arrange for anyone else who desires or is willing to enter it. There is absolutely no obstacle to the invincible God's achieving His designs, except the intractable wills of His children. Nothing prevents His using the skies for his billboard, and the clouds for lettering, or the rolling thunder for the proclamation of His word. (Indeed, for believers, He does just this: "The heavens shew forth the glory of God, and the firmament declareth the work of his hands." I Ps. 18: 11. (But for atheists the heavens have no message at all.) If poverty were the reason some do not believe, he could load them down with diamonds; if youth were the reason, He could make sure they grew to a hoary old age. If it were merely the want of information; put a library on their doorstep, or a dozen missionaries in their front room. Were it for a want of brains, he could give every man an I.Q. of three hundred: it would cost Him nothing.
Now, Predestination– in the Thomistic view– seems to be advanced as the notion of God's positive will of election, i.e., the extension of efficacious grace which is not refused by man, whereas reprobation is merely God's passive will and permission of evil (from which succeeds reprobation).
I think that were the Catholic view of predestination (inasmuch as St. Thomas emblemizes it) to include the "predestination of the damned," St. Thomas wouldn't use different terms. It (reprobation) is part of providence (as virtually all things are) but it is distinct from predestination. Why else would St. Thomas use two separate terms if this were not the case? For any other term with multiple meanings he will always say "We can speak of x in [however many] ways…". He could say "Now, we can speak of predestination in two ways: the predestination of the elect and the predestination of the reprobate. But predestination clearly refers to election, per St. Thomas. And he distinguishes between God's positive will (which elects men) and God's permissive will (which allows them to be reprobate). These are two very different operations.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
4036e2 No.9522
>>9520
Thus, what is the meaning of this election? That from all eternity God has ordered the events of history, so that His Elect might have the grace of salvation. And how do they know of this election? By the fact that they are in the Church, through no deservingness of their own? They know of no reason why God should bestow this grace, the knowledge of the truth, and the willingness and power to believe it, upon them, while others, who seem more worthy, go without it. As regards His Elect, not only has God determined to bestow necessary grace, but also, all His actions in the world must be seen as part of His salvific plan. In a word, nothing that He does is unrelated to the salvation of His Beloved Sheep. Human history, apart from the glory of Holy Church, and the salvation of the Elect, and the punishment of the wicked, has little importance for almighty God. Yet, all these purposes are only a part of the manifestation of His glory. The Doctrine of Predestination is that almighty God from all eternity both knew and determined who would be saved, that is, who would allow Him to save them. He would be the cause of their salvation, and, as there is no power that can even faintly obstruct or withstand Him, there is no power which can prevent His saving whom He wishes, except, of course, the man himself.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
ba557d No.9524
>>9519
Why do they hate God?
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
4036e2 No.9529
>>9524
First of all, I am a traditional Catholic and not a Calvinist. Calvin taught that free will plays no part in justification, which is a different thing.
It's actually in in His Mercy …
God in His Foreknowledge, knows how we are going to act from the moment of our conception. Hence He knows that no matter how much grace He gives, certain souls are going to reject Him. In His justice He gives the talents in number and kind to those who He predestines. It is not for us to question…but for us to be thankful and to spread the truth whenever we are able. Also His Divine Integrity demands He saves us how He said He would i.e. through Water, Blood and Spirit- the blessed Trinity. This is what we are required to believe absolutely…not what He may or may not do, but what He revealed - John 3:5.
By witholding graces from those He foreknows will reject them He's sparing them the punishment that would have come from that rejection.
Does God give sufficient grace to a baby born in the jungles of New Guinea who dies shortly after birth? In a natural sense, that baby never had a chance. But the baby ends up in a state of natural happiness through God's Mercy. So God WOULD give and wills to give everyone sufficient grace to be saved, but sometimes withholds these graces out of His Mercy.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
4036e2 No.9531
>>9522
Predestination implies, therefore, along with foreknowledge a love of predilection or the will to effect in a particular person and by means of him in preference to a certain other, this salutary good by which such a person will actually merit and attain eternal life. The Council of Orange makes no positive affirmation about predestination to glory and grace; but we see that this is the logical result of the canons just quoted, especially of canons twelve and twenty. The latter canon reads: "There is no good act done by man which God does not help man to do." Canon twelve declares that "God loves us because of what we will be by the gift of His grace, not because of what we are by our own merit." These two statements along with the Pauline text: "What hast thou that thou hast not received?" are tantamount to saying that one would not be better than another if one were not loved more and helped more by God, and that in the work of salvation everything comes from God, in this sense that we cannot detect therein the least good which could be said to be exclusively from ourselves and not from Him. On the other hand, as regards the consequent will, St. Thomas affirms, more clearly than anyone had done before his time, the principle of predilection, which is that one would not be better than another unless one were loved more by God. As he says: "Since God's love is the cause of goodness in things, as has been said, no one thing would be better than another if God did not will greater good for one than for another . . . And the reason why some things are better than others, is that God wills them a greater good. Hence it follows that He loves more the better things. The predestined are elected by God, so that predestination presupposes election, and this latter presupposes love. As St. Thomas says: "Predestination presupposes election, in the order of reason; and election presupposes love"–The second principle applied here is that of predilection: no thing would be better than another, unless it were loved more by God. St. Thomas, without alluding at all to the foreseeing of our merits, whether conditionally future or future, excludes any idea of passivity or dependence from the divine knowledge. He writes as follows: "Election and love, however, are differently ordered in God than in ourselves: because in us the will in loving does not cause good, but we are incited to love by the good which already exists; and therefore we choose someone to love, and so election in us precedes love. In God, however, it is the reverse. For His will, by which in loving He wishes good to someone, is the cause of that good possessed by some in preference to others. Thus it is clear that love precedes election in the order of reason, and election precedes predestination. Whence all the predestinate are objects of election and love." But, this foreknowledge of God, according to St. Augustine, is not merely a foreseeing of what men will do by the assistance and graces of God's ordinary providence, much less a foreseeing of what they will do by their own natural strength, as the Pelagian heretics pretended: but is a foreknowledge including an act of the divine will, and of his love towards His elect servants; (as to know in the Scriptures, when applied to God, is many times the same as to approve and love) God therefore has foreseen or predestinated, or decreed that these elect, by the help of his special graces, and by the co-operation of their free-will, should be conformable to the image of his Son, that so his Son, even as man, might be the first-born, the chief, and the head of all that shall be saved. God hath preordained that all his elect shall be conformable to the image of his Son. We must not here offer to dive into the secrets of God's eternal election: only firmly believe that all our good, in time and eternity, flows originally from God's free goodness; and all our evil from man's free will.
…I wonder when was the last time the principle of predilection/predestination was spoken of by a priest in a homily.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
ba557d No.9532
>>9529
You are not articulating the calvinist position, you're just giving an explanation as to why God's apparently arbitrary calling of some and not others could be seen as just. I'm not interested in speculating about it.
In calvinism, the unelect hate God because they have total inability to do otherwise.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
4036e2 No.9533
>>9531
In a nutshell, the predetermination and choice of God includes the choice that the elect act "freely." This can be understood philosophically and logically, without contradiction to either the principle of God's infallible and independent choice, not based on the merits of men, and the freedom of the ones chosen. As to sufficient grace being insufficient - no. The grace is sufficient; the response to it is insufficient. The power is capable of doing what it was intended for; thus, it is "sufficient." The failure in fact shows that the power is not sufficient potentially. If I roll a normal die a thousand times and a 1 never comes up, that does not show the die "insufficient" in the matter of rolling ones, or not truly have the power to come up 1. It just presents the circumstance of the die not coming up 1. If this were to happen a million or a billion times, you still would not be able to prove the die was not sufficient to roll a 1, or that a claim that it "could" was not true. Man's failure in fact does not show the grace insufficient for its purpose, or to not truly have the potential. As I said, it's an objection that does not reveal a rational or logical contradiction, and thus is not an objection that stands the test of truth. Everyone at some point has either the guilt of original and/or actual mortal sin on their soul. God is at perfect liberty to either pardon them, grant them efficacious grace, and regenerate their wills, or to leave them in their current state. When God does do this it was not because of one's will, but God's mercy. Also God's mercy does not just mean a pardoning and forgiveness of sin, but also an aid in preventing from falling into future or further sin. Many if not most Conservative Neo-Catholics and some who call themselves Traditionalists believe that man is basically good (Pelagianism), that numerous amounts of pagans will be saved because they followed their pagan "God(s)" as best as they could, etc.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
a0d505 No.9535
>>9524
Because they are children of wrath, sold under sin.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
4036e2 No.9536
>>9533
Here is a resource that will help you find traditional priests:
http://www.traditio.com/tradlib/masslat.pdf
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
4fa302 No.9538
>>9535
Being a child of wrath does not entail total inability to respond positively to the gospel. In your system you understand that it does, so in the final analysis God is the one who has to first cause the man to accept the gospel.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
a0d505 No.9544
>>9538
The term "inability" is highly misleading. It is not as though they have any yearning to repent, and some force is pressing down on them forcing to remain as they are, it is, rather, the absolute object of every level of their mind to destroy God and all that reminds them of Him. This is the object and purpose of their conscious thoughts, there is no goodness in them, they are wholly irredeemable. The problem with synergism is that if men are by nature haters of God, totally bereft of any righteousness, as scripture so plainly teaches they are, then no mere sprinkling of grace will save them, indeed, anything less than the grace to turn them into lovers of God will prove entirely insufficient, for while they remain haters of God (and there is no in-between), they will continue to act on the basis of that hate.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
ba557d No.9545
>>9544
Ok. Use whatever phrase you prefer over inability, but the fact of the relationship between God and man under a calvinist view is such that men are damned for God's lack of choosing them.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
a0d505 No.9547
>>9545
They are damned because of their sins. The fires of hell are a just retributive punishment for breaking the law of God. They are damned, because they deserve to be damned.
Now, there is a sense in which it is correct to say that they are damned only because of God's good pleasure. This is from the view of eternity of past, when they were chosen though they had not done anything good or bad. But we must note that there is a strict distinction between election and salvation, and reprobation and damnation.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
ba557d No.9549
>>9547
Yes all have sinned, and the wages of sin is death, BUT, the free gift is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
I mean as opposed to the elect, those who ultimately find themselves damned could not do a single thing about it, according to calvinism. This is unjust.
>there is a strict distinction between election and salvation, and reprobation and damnation.
Not in effect according to irresistible grace and unconditional election.
I wish you would plainly accept the stated dilemma, because you've already provided yourself a way out if accepted: everyone who goes to hell would not have received the gospel according to God's foreknowledge even if He had called them, and that fact makes them undeserving of the offer of grace anyway.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
a0d505 No.9555
>>9549
>those who ultimately find themselves damned could not do a single thing about it
Of course they could have done something about it. They too heard the gospel, did they not? But instead of accepting it in faith they rejected it with scorn.
On this point, what about those who did not hear the gospel? In your view, saved, or damned without being able to do anything about it? God knew about them, didn't He?
>This is unjust.
Thus saith the mortal. You should read Job 38 again. Also, no man is owed grace, which they must be for God to be unjust in denying it to them. Romans 11:6
>Not in effect according to irresistible grace and unconditional election.
Yes, there absolutely is a difference between God's choice in eternity past and someone today dying and going to heaven or hell. If you think that statement is somehow inconsistent with those doctrines then I promise you, you are misunderstanding them.
>I wish you would plainly accept the stated dilemma
I wish you would accept the teaching of scripture.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
449729 No.9564
The Calvinist god isnt unjust just as a child who plays with his toys and assigns them roles in his narrative scenario isnt unjust just because a particular toy may be a 'villian' in the child's imaginative roleplay.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
ba557d No.9576
>>9555
>But instead of accepting it in faith they rejected it with scorn.
In my view, that's their own fault. In your view, God chose not to cause them to accept it.
>what about those who did not hear the gospel?
Faith comes by hearing. We have to go preach to them.
>>This is unjust.
>Thus saith the mortal. You should read Job 38 again. Also, no man is owed grace, which they must be for God to be unjust in denying it to them. Romans 11:6
I'm not arguing that anyone is owed grace, and I'm not arguing grace is on the basis of works.
>Yes, there absolutely is a difference
>you are misunderstanding them.
Tell me where I'm mistaken. Every elect will receive salvation, and every reprobate (calvinist understanding) will go to hell. Hence why I say "in effect".
>I wish you would accept the teaching of scripture.
Rude, uncharitable, and not an argument. I was only asking you to stay on the topic so we could discuss it. I'm not sure I value your perspective any more if that's your attitude.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
a0d505 No.9683
>>9576
>In your view, God chose not to cause them to accept it.
No blame can be layed at God's feet, they alone are responsible.
>Faith comes by hearing. We have to go preach to them.
You sidestepped the problem so I'll just repeat the question and hope for an answer this time
<In your view, saved, or damned without being able to do anything about it? God knew about them, didn't He?
>Tell me where I'm mistaken
Well I'll repeat
<God's choice in eternity past and someone today dying and going to heaven or hell.
What part of that do you have difficulty understanding? In what way do these two very different on their face things seem the same?
>Every elect will receive salvation, and every reprobate (calvinist understanding) will go to hell
Do you not see how the fact you had to use the word "will" shows a difference? If they were the same, they would happen at the same time. But that's also something you believe, unless you believe God does not know all things. He already knows who is going to be saved and who is not, and it's going to happen in accordance with His foreknowledge.
>Rude, uncharitable
Wow, this is your reaction to someone wanting you to follow scripture, brother?
>I was only asking you to stay on the topic
No, you were asking me to concede.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
ea58d6 No.9713
Invidious embed. Click thumbnail to play.
>>9497
>I'm using responsibility here to mean ability to respond
And almost every serious theologian, Arminian, Cavlinist, and Molinist, don't mean that.
>Sovereignty does not mean He deals arbitrarily
It means He can if God wills to, but we don't and shouldn't argue as if God's sovereignty existed separately from God's omniscience. That's strawmanning Reformed theology.
>sovereignty means He is unaffected by outside influence
Wrong, that's God's impassibility. You are redefining theological terms to suit your argument rather than relying on what definitions theologians have already used.
>I entirely affirm the sovereignty of God
You affirm a strawman.
>it's only by grace that anyone is saved at all.
Amen, but now you're agreeing with my premise. Without God's gift/grace, a person would only choose hell.
>I'm saying that the God of John 3:16 is one who freely offers a gift,
Like the rest of your post, you fail to define key words carefully. What exactly is God gifting? What is or are God's grace/s that man needs.
>John 3:16
Funny you mention this verse.
You also don't go far enough. See what John the Baptist truthfully says: "John answered, 'A person cannot receive even one thing unless it is given him from heaven.'" (Jn. 3:27 ESV) This includes faith and belief that saves. You also skip 3:8
"The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit." (Jn. 3:8 ESV) And you say we are free and able to come to Chist ourselves?
Go further several chapters and you read this:
"Jesus answered them, 'I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in my Father's name bear witness about me, but you do not believe because you are not among my sheep. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me.'" (Jn. 10:25-27 ESV) And who are the sheep, those that the Father has given to Christ from eternity past (verse 29).
>but the God of determinist calvinism [sic] damns people for His own choice not to elect them.
God damns sinners for sinning against His glory. He elects to not save some from the coming wrath well-deserved.
>This is incompatible with God's holiness.
Why? Where does Scripture say God is obligated to save sinners?
>>9493
>Pic related
That doesn't disprove anything. I just said that the Reformed church as a whole still believes the very thing keeping your (((church))) from collapsing.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
f2bedb No.9715
For heresy free discussion go to >>>/christian/
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
ea58d6 No.9762
>>9715
Whoops! You forgot the "-ity" bro. Let me help you out…
>>>/christianity/
There, I fixed your post for you. :)
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
95d450 No.9769
Grace is a red herring here, yes, faith exists because of grace, because faith is an infused virtue, but Jesus explicitly said that it is His will that everyone would be saved. However, we have our free will, so, we have to choose to confess with our mouths that Jesus is Lord, that is the the minimum Jesus requires from us, according to Sts. Paul and John the Evangelist writing in their New Testament Epistles.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
b56a5b No.9776
I'm not seeing any reason to reject the conclusion. Under calvinism, in the final analysis, those who are in Hell were damned because God chose not to save them. If this statement is accurate, the only defense a calvinist should be making is that God's choice was just and non-arbitrary for reasons related to His foreknowledge.
>>9713
>Without God's gift/grace, a person would only choose hell.
No. The gift is the forgiveness, the gift is not causing one to receive the forgiveness.
<For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; (Eph. 2:8 NAS)
"it is the gift of God" refers to grace.
Faith is the means.
>And almost every serious theologian, Arminian, Cavlinist, and Molinist, don't mean that.
Leighton Flowers
>It means He can if God wills to, but we don't and shouldn't argue as if God's sovereignty existed separately from God's omniscience. That's strawmanning Reformed theology.
Sure He can, but to be arbitrary is against His nature and inconsistent with the Bible. Is God arbitrary to you?
>'A person cannot receive even one thing unless it is given him from heaven.'" (Jn. 3:27 ESV)
The thing has to be given in order for it to be received. This does not necessitate that God causes the person to choose to receive.
>And you say we are free and able to come to Chist ourselves?
No, Christ did all the work already and the grace is freely offered for anyone who chooses to believe. I am not a pelagian.
>Why? Where does Scripture say God is obligated to save sinners?
Nowhere, but he's gracious to do it anyway.
>>9683
>You sidestepped the problem so I'll just repeat the question and hope for an answer this time
>>In your view, saved, or damned without being able to do anything about it? God knew about them, didn't He?
I thought you were asking about our response, "what about those who did not hear the gospel?". There's no subject in this sentence so it's confusing "in your view, saved, or damned without being able to do anything about it?"
I'm still not sure what you question is. There are people going to hell who have never heard the gospel. God knows about them.
You're being patronizing and avoiding the central issue, so I'm going to respectfully cease discussion with you.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
