Bible Study Matt. 25;46

[humble soul]

Well, I'm KIIND OF Catholic...but not really.

That's probably what I would say. I'm not a conservative traditional Catholic. I don't respect the rules as much as a devoted Catholic would. I don't attend Mass regularly. I don't observe feast days. Many people would say I'm not Catholic.
But I respect the teachings overall. Ina general way, I like the broad Church option which Pope Francis seems to choose. Guess I'm a flaming Liberal eh..?

 

[Quantrill]

Yeh, I don't try to be a Calvinist either, but I found myself to be one. In this forum, once you're willing to state it, it's like sticking your head out above the foxhole!

BTW, by my best judgment, what you say you believe on the Five Points of Calvinism is not what Reformed theology teaches. So you're safe!

If I were a Calvinist I certainly wouldn't mind saying it. Though I am not a thorough going Calvinist, that doesn't mean I am in a 'safe' zone.

Quantrill

 

[Hospes]

re: " I'd like to better understand what you mean...I'd just like to know what you're thinking."

Actually, I said what I thought. I think you're really asking why I thought it.

To return pandantic with pandantic, I would only know what you you were thinking if the sum total of your thoughts were in the post.

When a new belief is realized, I would guess that it has very likely come about by some process occurring in one's subconscious mind due to an exposure to stimuli, such as literature, lectures, media, conversation, reflection, experience, etc.

Sounds like a pretty bleak POV. Curious, how do you avoid nihilism?

 

[rstrats]

Hospes,
re: " ...I would only know what you you were thinking if the sum total of your thoughts were in the post.'

Well now you know that I was thinking that beliefs cannot be consciously engendered.


re: "Sounds like a pretty bleak POV."

I don't understand. How is the idea that beliefs may come about through some process occurring in one's subconscious mind due to an exposure to stimuli, such as literature, lectures, media, conversation, reflection, experience, a bleak point of view?


re: "...how do you avoid nihilism?"

I don't see what my comments have to do with nihilism.

 

[GodsGrace]

Well, I'm not trying to be a Calvinist which is why I am not trying to defend Calvinism. Are there not some things you believe that Catholics believe also? Of course there are.

I agree with total depravity but not to the point where it is said one is born-again first and then believes. I agree with unconditional election, but my understanding of election is not the same as Calvinism. It is not God observing people down here and then choosing who will be saved. It is God knows who His people are.

I do disagree completely with limited atonement. It is not limited in scope but is limited in it's final implementation. As far as irresistible grace, I don't have a problem with it, but I think it is covered in the other points already, such as election. I do agree with the preservation of the saints.

Quantrill

Hi Quantrill
Sorry for delay.

There are some things I can agree with for any denomination...we are, after all, all serving the same God.

Some comments on what you say above:

All Christians agree with depravity.
Some even agree with total depravity, but in the sense that we are depraved in every area of our thoughts/morals, etc.

Instead Calvinism teaches that man is so depraved that he is unable to reach God unless God pulls him to Him.
As you've stated above....this is not true. Man is not so depraved that he is unable to feel the presence of something...God gives His grace to all - some
choose to believe and some choose not to. This is from Romans 1:19-20; God has always revealed Himself to mankind.
So I agree with you here----first we come to believe and then we become born again.

Also, re unconditional election. Please let me say that you do NOT agree with it.
Unconditional Election means something very specific....we can't just change the meaning of it.
It means, quite simply, that God chooses who will be saved and He chooses who will be lost. There's no getting around this.
The way YOU understand is correct, but PLEASE do not call it unconditional election. Unconditional elections means that God chooses
who will be saved and who will be lost based on NO CONDITION ---thus UNCONDITIONAL.

Instead your way is correct. God KNOWS who will be saved and who will be lost,,,but the choice is left up to the
individual. This is CONDITIONAL ELECTION. Our salvation is based on a condition of God..the condition is that we
must believe in Jesus and serve Him and be a disciple.

Even some Calvinists cannot accept Limited Atonement.
It limits the sacrifice of Jesus to just some persons.
The N.T. teaches us that Jesus died for all people...
His sacrifice was sufficient to save everyone on earth...
but, as you say, it is effectual only for those that choose to be saved.
However, it's not correct theologically to say that it's limited.

Irresistable Grace goese along with Unconditional Elelction.
It means that God gives some special persons enough grace to become saved and believe and they
cannot deny this grace...they are forced to accept it.
God does not force us in any way...
I do believe the whole problem here is whether or not one believes in free will.
I believe God gave us free will to choose Him or not choose Him,
to sin or not sin.

Preservation of the saints has been argued for hundreds of years.
I just want to say that the early Christians...those that were taught by John or Paul or Peter,
did NOT believe in this. They believed that one could become lost again---by leaving the living church
or not abiding in Christ.

I think sometimes we use the incorrect terms for something and I wish we could all speak the same language!
Thanks for writing the above.

 

[GodsGrace]

That's reassuring actually. Thanks. But am I actually searching for Him?.
You can be searching for God and running away from Him at the same time. A bit like running on a treadmill. Running but getting nowhere.

A person is either seeking God or they are not.
God said He could be found.
Proverbs 8:17
I love those who love me, and those who seek me diligently find me.

A person is either walking TOWARD God,
or AWAY from God.


(I know you dislike my caps, but I write how I speak---sorry 'bout that).

 

[GodsGrace]

That's probably what I would say. I'm not a conservative traditional Catholic. I don't respect the rules as much as a devoted Catholic would. I don't attend Mass regularly. I don't observe feast days. Many people would say I'm not Catholic.
But I respect the teachings overall. Ina general way, I like the broad Church option which Pope Francis seems to choose. Guess I'm a flaming Liberal eh..?

The problem with this Pope HS, is that when he became Pope he took an oath not to change of the church's doctrines -- those already established.
He's change 3 that I know of.
Capital punishment.
Remarrieds receiving communion.
Gays being OK'd for a civil union.

I left the Catholic Church many many years ago but have been in the loop for years - although now not as much.
What he does is a problem for the laity, the bishops and the priests.
There doesn't seem to be a set doctrine anymore.
Some priests will openly say that he is not their Pope and the church (small c) has no pope.

One thing I know for sure is that no church is going to get anyone to heaven....God will be judging
us on an individual basis. Jesus meant for a church to exist, but when He spoke it was always about
an individual and his faith/behavior.

(wow...no caps!).

 

[Quantrill]

Hi Quantrill
Sorry for delay.

There are some things I can agree with for any denomination...we are, after all, all serving the same God.

Some comments on what you say above:

All Christians agree with depravity.
Some even agree with total depravity, but in the sense that we are depraved in every area of our thoughts/morals, etc.

Instead Calvinism teaches that man is so depraved that he is unable to reach God unless God pulls him to Him.
As you've stated above....this is not true. Man is not so depraved that he is unable to feel the presence of something...God gives His grace to all - some
choose to believe and some choose not to. This is from Romans 1:19-20; God has always revealed Himself to mankind.
So I agree with you here----first we come to believe and then we become born again.

Also, re unconditional election. Please let me say that you do NOT agree with it.
Unconditional Election means something very specific....we can't just change the meaning of it.
It means, quite simply, that God chooses who will be saved and He chooses who will be lost. There's no getting around this.
The way YOU understand is correct, but PLEASE do not call it unconditional election. Unconditional elections means that God chooses
who will be saved and who will be lost based on NO CONDITION ---thus UNCONDITIONAL.

Instead your way is correct. God KNOWS who will be saved and who will be lost,,,but the choice is left up to the
individual. This is CONDITIONAL ELECTION. Our salvation is based on a condition of God..the condition is that we
must believe in Jesus and serve Him and be a disciple.

Even some Calvinists cannot accept Limited Atonement.
It limits the sacrifice of Jesus to just some persons.
The N.T. teaches us that Jesus died for all people...
His sacrifice was sufficient to save everyone on earth...
but, as you say, it is effectual only for those that choose to be saved.
However, it's not correct theologically to say that it's limited.

Irresistable Grace goese along with Unconditional Elelction.
It means that God gives some special persons enough grace to become saved and believe and they
cannot deny this grace...they are forced to accept it.
God does not force us in any way...
I do believe the whole problem here is whether or not one believes in free will.
I believe God gave us free will to choose Him or not choose Him,
to sin or not sin.

Preservation of the saints has been argued for hundreds of years.
I just want to say that the early Christians...those that were taught by John or Paul or Peter,
did NOT believe in this. They believed that one could become lost again---by leaving the living church
or not abiding in Christ.

I think sometimes we use the incorrect terms for something and I wish we could all speak the same language!
Thanks for writing the above.

Well, at this stage I am convinced that I hold to unconditional election, and that it is not the same as Calvinist's. I probably wasn't clear enough when describing it, but I was trying to be brief.

In other words, in my view of the 'elect', they are not elect because God knows the future and sees who will turn to Him. They are elect, because they are of God. They have always been of God. Adam and Eve were the first two elect. Of God. And from them the whole family of the elect would come. God's people.

Due to the fall of Adam, the elect were now 'lost' or separated from God. But also due to the fall, another seed line was introduced into mankind. A seed line not of God. They are not 'lost' as they were never of God. They are children of the devil as opposed to children of God. The kingdoms of this world is their home as their father is the prince of this world.

Therefore, all of the lost, the elect, will be saved. God chose the method by which those who are His would come into this salvation. This was/is through the work of the Holy Spirit in bringing them and their faith being exercised. (2 Thess. 2:13). This does not discount 'unconditional election'. Just because God chooses the means, does not mean it is 'conditional election'. It is unconditional because there are those who God is going to save, Whom He has chosen, Who are and always have been His. They will exercise faith because God opens their eyes to Him.

Much more can be said, but I think it is enough to show that I do hold to 'unconditional election' but it is not the same as Calvinist's.

Quantrill

 

[GodsGrace]

Well, at this stage I am convinced that I hold to unconditional election, and that it is not the same as Calvinist's. I probably wasn't clear enough when describing it, but I was trying to be brief.

In other words, in my view of the 'elect', they are not elect because God knows the future and sees who will turn to Him. They are elect, because they are of God. They have always been of God. Adam and Eve were the first two elect. Of God. And from them the whole family of the elect would come. God's people.

Due to the fall of Adam, the elect were now 'lost' or separated from God. But also due to the fall, another seed line was introduced into mankind. A seed line not of God. They are not 'lost' as they were never of God. They are children of the devil as opposed to children of God. The kingdoms of this world is their home as their father is the prince of this world.

Therefore, all of the lost, the elect, will be saved. God chose the method by which those who are His would come into this salvation. This was/is through the work of the Holy Spirit in bringing them and their faith being exercised. (2 Thess. 2:13). This does not discount 'unconditional election'. Just because God chooses the means, does not mean it is 'conditional election'. It is unconditional because there are those who God is going to save, Whom He has chosen, Who are and always have been His. They will exercise faith because God opens their eyes to Him.

Much more can be said, but I think it is enough to show that I do hold to 'unconditional election' but it is not the same as Calvinist's.

Quantrill

Could you explain to me the calvinist description of Unconditional Election?

Trying very hard to understand you.

 

[Quantrill]

Could you explain to me the calvinist description of Unconditional Election?

Trying very hard to understand you.

Why should I explain the Calvinist description? You already know it.

Do you understand it?

But you don't understand mine?

That should show you that I am not Calvanist concerning 'unconditional election'.

Quantrill

 

[GodsGrace]

Why should I explain the Calvinist description? You already know it.

Do you understand it?

But you don't understand mine?

That should show you that I am not Calvanist concerning 'unconditional election'.

Quantrill

Gosh, some new members here are not answering simple questions - you're not the only one.
If you don't care to discuss and wish to go back and forth with this "not understanding" stuff.
§What's the use of being here???

You have a very odd believe as to "unconditional election".
You don't explain it exactly the way calvinists do,
but you also are not explaining conditional election (what I believe).

If you'd rather not discuss this, just say so.

 

[GodsGrace]

Well, at this stage I am convinced that I hold to unconditional election, and that it is not the same as Calvinist's. I probably wasn't clear enough when describing it, but I was trying to be brief.

In other words, in my view of the 'elect', they are not elect because God knows the future and sees who will turn to Him. They are elect, because they are of God. They have always been of God. Adam and Eve were the first two elect. Of God. And from them the whole family of the elect would come. God's people.

Due to the fall of Adam, the elect were now 'lost' or separated from God. But also due to the fall, another seed line was introduced into mankind. A seed line not of God. They are not 'lost' as they were never of God. They are children of the devil as opposed to children of God. The kingdoms of this world is their home as their father is the prince of this world.

Therefore, all of the lost, the elect, will be saved. God chose the method by which those who are His would come into this salvation. This was/is through the work of the Holy Spirit in bringing them and their faith being exercised. (2 Thess. 2:13). This does not discount 'unconditional election'. Just because God chooses the means, does not mean it is 'conditional election'. It is unconditional because there are those who God is going to save, Whom He has chosen, Who are and always have been His. They will exercise faith because God opens their eyes to Him.

Much more can be said, but I think it is enough to show that I do hold to 'unconditional election' but it is not the same as Calvinist's.

Quantrill

P.S.
Unconditional Election means something specific.
You can't change the meaning of a word/phrase and then also expect others to know what you're speaking of.

 

[Hospes]

Hospes,
re: " ...I would only know what you you were thinking if the sum total of your thoughts were in the post.'

Well now you know that I was thinking that beliefs cannot be consciously engendered.


re: "Sounds like a pretty bleak POV."

I don't understand. How is the idea that beliefs may come about through some process occurring in one's subconscious mind due to an exposure to stimuli, such as literature, lectures, media, conversation, reflection, experience, a bleak point of view?


re: "...how do you avoid nihilism?"

I don't see what my comments have to do with nihilism.

Maybe I am reading too much into what you have written, so I apologize upfront if I have. Feel free to correct me.

Here's my reasoning: if what a person believes results from "some process occurring in one's subconscious mind due to an exposure to stimuli", then our beliefs are determined by the nature of the stimuli. Change the stimuli, we necessarily change our beliefs. In the end, our most cherished beliefs are simply the product of a specific set of stimuli. Given this, why cherish any set of beliefs? One set is as good/bad as another. For the same reason, why advocate for any beliefs? Even the belief that beliefs are determined by stimuli, is simply the result of stimuli and may have no truth-value for anyone but the person having the belief. In the end, there is no truth (I'll refer to it as Truth, with a capital letter "T") that universally applies to everyone. If there is no Truth, then there is no purpose, i.e. nihilism.

 

[rstrats]

Here's my reasoning: if what a person believes results from "some process occurring in one's subconscious mind due to an exposure to stimuli", then our beliefs are determined by the nature of the stimuli.

How else can a new belief be realized?

 

[Quantrill]

Gosh, some new members here are not answering simple questions - you're not the only one.
If you don't care to discuss and wish to go back and forth with this "not understanding" stuff.
§What's the use of being here???

You have a very odd believe as to "unconditional election".
You don't explain it exactly the way calvinists do,
but you also are not explaining conditional election (what I believe).

If you'd rather not discuss this, just say so.

I have told you before I have no interest in defending Calvinism.

I know my understanding of unconditional election is not the same as Calvinist's. I already said that.

If you have questions of my understanding of election, then just ask. I have described it pretty thoroughly. But quit trying to push me into the camp of Calvinism.

Quantrill

 

[Quantrill]

P.S.
Unconditional Election means something specific.
You can't change the meaning of a word/phrase and then also expect others to know what you're speaking of.

I explained in post #(192) what I am speaking of. I do expect anyone who is able to read and comprehend to be able to understand what I said. Whether you agree or not is immaterial.

Quantrill

 

[Hospes]

How else can a new belief be realized?

Good question. Not easy. I can only answer as a Christian. I think we have free moral agency to evaluate and choose Truth. There is more going on inside of us than a determinative electro-chemical process. The agency that we have gives us a role in rationally evaluating truth claims and deciding a claim as true or false. Given a claim we determine as True, we can then argue that it is true for everyone. I believe that bravery is good. Given this belief, I can encourage my grandson to face fears. It gives me one little sliver of purpose. I much prefer purpose over nihilism. Of course, my world-view requires I think that Truth exists.

Like I wrote, it's a great question and has lots of facets to look at. Thanks for asking it.

 

[GodsGrace]

I have told you before I have no interest in defending Calvinism.

I know my understanding of unconditional election is not the same as Calvinist's. I already said that.

If you have questions of my understanding of election, then just ask. I have described it pretty thoroughly. But quit trying to push me into the camp of Calvinism.

Quantrill

I won't be posting to you anymore.
But, up above you're again stating that your idea of Unconditional Election is different than the calvinists.
Then you should stop calling it unconditional election since, as I've said, it means something specific.

And EVERYTHING you believe should be based on the bible.
The bible is our authority.
A person cannot make up his own theology....God has already explained Himself...
we only are left with learning about Him and His ways.

 

[GodsGrace]

Good question. Not easy. I can only answer as a Christian. I think we have free moral agency to evaluate and choose Truth. There is more going on inside of us than a determinative electro-chemical process. The agency that we have gives us a role in rationally evaluating truth claims and deciding a claim as true or false. Given a claim we determine as True, we can then argue that it is true for everyone. I believe that bravery is good. Given this belief, I can encourage my grandson to face fears. It gives me one little sliver of purpose. I much prefer purpose over nihilism. Of course, my world-view requires I think that Truth exists.

Like I wrote, it's a great question and has lots of facets to look at. Thanks for asking it.

Do you believe in determinism or not?
The above sounds like you don't.

 

[GodsGrace]

I explained in post #(192) what I am speaking of. I do expect anyone who is able to read and comprehend to be able to understand what I said. Whether you agree or not is immaterial.

Quantrill

Nice of you Quantrill.

Tell you what...
post some scripture that explains what you're talking about.
I KNOW I'll understand that.