Objections to God's Sovereignty Answered..........Some

[atpollard]

It cannot be learned. Either it is in a man, which it is, or they shut it off, same as conscience.

point of clarification:

LUST (definition)

1. usually intense or unbridled sexual desire : lasciviousness
2. an intense longing : craving, enthusiasm
   • a lust to succeed
   • admired his lust for life

(It does not just apply to SEX and it does not just apply to MEN. Women can see and crave an object, too.)

 

[GodsGrace]

I read the link.
Very nice and interesting.
I can't really think of a Protestant denomination that does this,
but the CC did back in history, as is noted in the article.

There is a section I have to disagree with:

Under the rule of Constantine, Roman law demanded that all people in the Roman Empire become Christians. The result of this law was forcing Christianity upon the masses by infant baptism and a meaningless profession by adults. Accordingly, the Dark Ages are a testimony to the absolute failure imposed on believers when the "church" begins to dictate whatever "truth" it deems necessary to force all members to conform. Not only is Roman Catholocism guilty of this but so are many of the mainline Protestant denominations.

Constantine did not make Christianity the religion of the land.
He only removed the unlawfulness of it and it was then possible to practice Christianity without persecution.
It was called The Edict of Milan.

It was Theodocius in 380AD that declared Christianity the religion of the Roman Empire.

Also, infant baptism was practiced even immediately after Jesus, but the teachings of Augustine changed the reason as to why babies were baptized. But by about the same time, 380, is when Augustine changed the teaching and so it coincides, by chance, with the reign of Theodocius.

You have responded to a certain extent. Some of these responses are somewhat shifty ,redirecting to post about something you are more comfortable with, rather than really responded to what was asked....just sayin

That is why I offered it.



The right garment speaks of God's righteousness...not the fashion police summoned to make sure the dress code was maintained.

Calvinists are believing Christians who see and are not afraid of God and His absolute Sovereignty over all created.
You taking shots and poking us in the eye is only going to provoke us to dismantle your posts as you go off target.


You reject it, because God has not allowed you to see it yet! We are still hopeful.

Yes...He has children all over the world;
50 Nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not.

51 And this spake he not of himself: but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation;

52 And not for that nation only, but that also he should gather together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad.

Yes, God so loved the "world" that he destroyed the world of the ungodly with the flood, that he destroyed all the Sodomites in Lot's day..he is Love, he is holy, he is righteous and Just he must punish sin. He hates the workers of iniquity everyday.


I explained this in detail weeks ago. You ignore what I offered, so that is on you now. You repeat error because you can do nothing else.

and no more. God is not partial. All he elected were rebel sinners...

Which is what i explained to you weeks ago, search it out. It is about those who were saved, and others who were not born back then, like those elect who are being drawn to Jesus ,even today.



Not one elect person will perish, their salvation is guaranteed by Jesus, who agreed to this in the Covenant of Redemption , which you deny.
To say God "wishes" to save them, but cannot, is to deny Holy Scripture quite frankly.


My biblically consistent belief's stand throughout time. You denials of these truths for falsehood, does not change what happens at all.


NO one denies that. We have all explained to you it is not enough to save them.


Calvinism correctly views all the verses.

All gentiles, are not going to obey...this is a foolish idea. millions died the very year Jesus was on the cross. They died in their sins. All gentiles who have ever lived have not even heard the name of Jesus.

I'm no longer replying to your posts.
They're getting very personal and not sticking to the topic.
I just want to make two comments:

1. Your last paragraph. I never said all gentiles are going to get saved.
Please find out what OBEDIENCE OF FAITH means since you take my word for nothing.

2. Your remark about the fashion police was rather insulting.

3. You telling me that IT HAS BEEN EXPLAINED TO ME BY ALL OF YOU is also rather insulting.
Did you think I'd change my mind about what the NT teaches?

4. Telling me I repeat error because I can do nothing else is also offensive.

That's about all I have to say.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

You assume that we are all "Mother Tersa" and just need a little "dirt" washed off most of the time.

Nope

Scripture says that we are really all "Ted Bundy" with God restraining our evil inclinations.

No where does any verse God is restraining evil and it’s pretty easy to see this is true if one looks at the evil done. It’s hard to see why anyone thinks God is restraining evil unless they don’t go outside or read any thing but the Bible, and only bits of it, no history.

... THERE BUT FOR THE GRACE OF GOD means something!

That is NOT a Bible verse!

 

[Dorothy Mae]

point of clarification:

LUST (definition)

1. usually intense or unbridled sexual desire : lasciviousness
2. an intense longing : craving, enthusiasm
   • a lust to succeed
   • admired his lust for life

(It does not just apply to SEX and it does not just apply to MEN. Women can see and crave an object, too.)

“For it is a shame even to speak of those things which are done of them in secret.”

 

[Dorothy Mae]

"No."
"Mine"
"You can't bite the other children."

My kids NEVER EVER bit. They weren’t work. But I know some kids are not given the love they needed and those were the real naughty ones.

... spoken like someone that either never had a toddler or is too old to remember.

I remember my own sister being a toddler, so remarkable is my memory. My 3 year old son thanked me for “having him because life is so wonderful.”

Jesus said that unless we become like the toddlers, we won’t enter Heaven. I know you’d prefer he hadn’t said that.

 

[atpollard]

This does not work well with an eeny meeny miny moe type selection of persons,
as John Calvin taught in 3/21/5.

It is a DARN good thing that I learned my theology by reading the BIBLE and have still never read any of John Calvin's very wordy books. The Doctrines of Grace (commonly called T.U.L.I.P) are found in scripture with TU*IP explicitly stated and "L" being at minimum a logical conclusion inferred and at best a logical conclusion directly implied by scripture.

Since the five points originate with the Synod of Dort, I really never saw the point in people constantly bringing up John Calvin. Why not Huss or Knox or any of the other reformers that contributed to the Reformation? Personally, I like the Heidelberg Catechism ... it focuses on what is important without getting in the weeds on minor issues (like the Westminster Confession of Faith). I do like The Baptist Faith and Message (Southern Baptist Convention) specifically because it was designed to embrace Particular (Reformed) theology without excluding General (Arminian) theology.

All that said, only the Calvinism-haters advocate that God's selection is based on "eeny meeny miny moe" capriciousness. What Particular Baptists like me say is "I am not God, so I do not know what criteria God uses ... God has not revealed that information to me". However, the fact that I am ignorant of God's reasons, does not prove that God has no reasons. It only proves that I am not God (which we both already knew).

 

[atpollard]

No where does any verse God is restraining evil and it’s pretty easy to see this is true if one looks at the evil done. It’s hard to see why anyone thinks God is restraining evil unless they don’t go outside or read any thing but the Bible, and only bits of it, no history.

THERE'S THE PROBLEM!
Your Bible doesn't have a Book of Job or a Romans Chapter 1!

No point continuing this conversation until you find a Bible that has all 66 books and read it.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

THERE'S THE PROBLEM!
Your Bible doesn't have a Book of Job or a Romans Chapter 1!

No point continuing this conversation until you find a Bible that has all 66 books and read it.

We are done.

Adieu!

 

[GodsGrace]

It is a DARN good thing that I learned my theology by reading the BIBLE and have still never read any of John Calvin's very wordy books. The Doctrines of Grace (commonly called T.U.L.I.P) are found in scripture with TU*IP explicitly stated and "L" being at minimum a logical conclusion inferred and at best a logical conclusion directly implied by scripture.

We don't all agree that TULIP is found in scripture.
(or its teachings thereof).
Let me say that God chose the HOW and at times the WHY,
but He never chooses the WHO.

Since the five points originate with the Synod of Dort, I really never saw the point in people constantly bringing up John Calvin. Why not Huss or Knox or any of the other reformers that contributed to the Reformation?

Because Calvin was a leader in the movement. Just like Luther was.
It's called Calvinism, not Knoxism or Zwingliism. I just use what it's known by.
As a group, it would be the reformed faith...either word should be understandable.

Personally, I like the Heidelberg Catechism ... it focuses on what is important without getting in the weeds on minor issues (like the Westminster Confession of Faith). I do like The Baptist Faith and Message (Southern Baptist Convention) specifically because it was designed to embrace Particular (Reformed) theology without excluding General (Arminian) theology.

I have Calvin's works and also the WCF.
I don't know how reformed theology could be mixed with arminian theology, unless it was at the end of the writings of J. Arminius because he did change.

All that said, only the Calvinism-haters advocate that God's selection is based on "eeny meeny miny moe" capriciousness. What Particular Baptists like me say is "I am not God, so I do not know what criteria God uses ... God has not revealed that information to me". However, the fact that I am ignorant of God's reasons, does not prove that God has no reasons. It only proves that I am not God (which we both already knew).

But the problem is that in Calvinism IT IS God choosing based on nothing we can know.
Is this a just God in your opinion?
God would not WANT us to know how to become saved?
Doesn't God love His most precious creation?

We are told all throughout the NT how we must become saved.
Isn't this the reason Jesus came to us?
To show us how to be a part of God's Kingdom and save ourselves?
Why did Jesus come to us if not for that?

Jesus would like to be like a mother hen to us...
but we must be willing...
Matthew 23:37...
37“Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling.


John 7:17
17“If anyone is willing to do His will, he will know of the teaching,,,


We must be willing to go to God...and He tells us how.
But you won't be interested because you don't believe it.

 

[atpollard]

Let me say that God chose the HOW and at times the WHY,
but He never chooses the WHO.

Did God choose Saul on the road to Damascus?

Acts 9
1 Now Saul, still breathing threats and murder against the disciples of the Lord, went to the high priest,

• [Saul was clearly NOT looking for Jesus.]

2 and asked for letters from him to the synagogues at Damascus, so that if he found any belonging to the Way, both men and women, he might bring them bound to Jerusalem. 3 As he was traveling, it happened that he was approaching Damascus, and suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him; 4 and he fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to him, “Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me?” 5 And he said, “Who are You, Lord?” And He said, “I am Jesus whom you are persecuting, 6 but get up and enter the city, and it will be told you what you must do.”

• [no invitation ... just a command.]

7 The men who traveled with him stood speechless, hearing the voice but seeing no one. 8 Saul got up from the ground, and though his eyes were open, he could see nothing; and leading him by the hand, they brought him into Damascus. 9 And he was three days without sight, and neither ate nor drank.

10 Now there was a disciple at Damascus named Ananias; and the Lord said to him in a vision, “Ananias.” And he said, “Here I am, Lord.” 11 And the Lord said to him, “Get up and go to the street called Straight, and inquire at the house of Judas for a man from Tarsus named Saul, for he is praying, 12 and he has seen in a vision a man named Ananias come in and lay his hands on him, so that he might regain his sight.” 13 But Ananias answered, “Lord, I have heard from many about this man, how much harm he did to Your saints at Jerusalem; 14 and here he has authority from the chief priests to bind all who call on Your name.” 15 But the Lord said to him, “Go, for he is a chosen instrument of Mine, to bear My name before the Gentiles and kings and the sons of Israel; 16 for I will show him how much he must suffer for My name’s sake.”

• [God does not "ask", God "tells".]

17 So Ananias departed and entered the house, and after laying his hands on him said, “Brother Saul, the Lord Jesus, who appeared to you on the road by which you were coming, has sent me so that you may regain your sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit.” 18 And immediately there fell from his eyes something like scales, and he regained his sight, and he got up and was baptized; 19 and he took food and was strengthened.

 

[atpollard]

It's called Calvinism, not Knoxism or Zwingliism.

Do you know why it is called Calvinism?

• Calvin founded no School of Theology.
• Calvin founded no Church and was not a Pastor.
• There is no Calvinist denomination created by his followers.

Who started calling Reformed Theology "Calvinism"?

 

[GodsGrace]

Did God choose Saul on the road to Damascus?

Acts 9
1 Now Saul, still breathing threats and murder against the disciples of the Lord, went to the high priest,

• [Saul was clearly NOT looking for Jesus.]

2 and asked for letters from him to the synagogues at Damascus, so that if he found any belonging to the Way, both men and women, he might bring them bound to Jerusalem. 3 As he was traveling, it happened that he was approaching Damascus, and suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him; 4 and he fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to him, “Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me?” 5 And he said, “Who are You, Lord?” And He said, “I am Jesus whom you are persecuting, 6 but get up and enter the city, and it will be told you what you must do.”

• [no invitation ... just a command.]

7 The men who traveled with him stood speechless, hearing the voice but seeing no one. 8 Saul got up from the ground, and though his eyes were open, he could see nothing; and leading him by the hand, they brought him into Damascus. 9 And he was three days without sight, and neither ate nor drank.

10 Now there was a disciple at Damascus named Ananias; and the Lord said to him in a vision, “Ananias.” And he said, “Here I am, Lord.” 11 And the Lord said to him, “Get up and go to the street called Straight, and inquire at the house of Judas for a man from Tarsus named Saul, for he is praying, 12 and he has seen in a vision a man named Ananias come in and lay his hands on him, so that he might regain his sight.” 13 But Ananias answered, “Lord, I have heard from many about this man, how much harm he did to Your saints at Jerusalem; 14 and here he has authority from the chief priests to bind all who call on Your name.” 15 But the Lord said to him, “Go, for he is a chosen instrument of Mine, to bear My name before the Gentiles and kings and the sons of Israel; 16 for I will show him how much he must suffer for My name’s sake.”

• [God does not "ask", God "tells".]

17 So Ananias departed and entered the house, and after laying his hands on him said, “Brother Saul, the Lord Jesus, who appeared to you on the road by which you were coming, has sent me so that you may regain your sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit.” 18 And immediately there fell from his eyes something like scales, and he regained his sight, and he got up and was baptized; 19 and he took food and was strengthened.

I've been posting a lot to others.
I always have said that God can choose special persons to do special tasks.
He's God, He can do as He wishes.
Everyone always forgets about poor Mary, but she's on the list of Chosen Persons too.

This does not mean EVERYONE is chosen.
That's why we remember the names of the ones who were.

 

[GodsGrace]

Do you know why it is called Calvinism?

• Calvin founded no School of Theology.
• Calvin founded no Church and was not a Pastor.
• There is no Calvinist denomination created by his followers.

Who started calling Reformed Theology "Calvinism"?

I think I told you why.
He was very important in the dissemination of the reformed faith.
He practically owned Geneva and had a lot of influence with other teachers.
I can't remember if he was a pastor, I'll take your word for it.

I don't know WHY it's known as Calvinism, except for the reasons above.
I say reformed half of the time...

 

[atpollard]

I don't know how reformed theology could be mixed with arminian theology, unless it was at the end of the writings of J. Arminius because he did change.

There is an old joke that Baptists practice "Multiplication by Division". Baptist Churches are famous for splitting over arguments and starting a new Baptist Church in the same town. It grows out of the "Baptist Distinctives", which are traits that make "Baptists" a Baptist (as distinct from some other denomination or just an Independent Church). There is no "Baptist Denomination" ... every local church is completely autonomous and answers to Christ (period).

Some quick Baptist Church history with a focus on just TWO points:

1. Baptists believe that NOBODY has the right to compel another person to believe something if their conscience tells them different. That comes back to the Baptist Distinctive called "Individual Soul Liberty" (all souls have the liberty to believe what their conscience tells them and answer to only the Bible and Jesus).
2. For as long as there have been Baptists, there have been Particular Baptists (Reformed) and General Baptists (Arminian). Very often there are BOTH Particular and General Baptists within the same congregation! This is possible because of that "Individual Soul Liberty" Baptist Distinctive. Over time, the majority of Baptists have swung from being Particular to General and back to Particular. Never was either General or Particular 100% of all Baptists.

So the "Baptist Faith and Message" was written and approved to be used by BOTH Particular (Reformed) and General (Arminian) Baptists.

BAPTIST BONUS:
The terms Particular and General are better than "Calvinist" and "Arminian". A "Particular Baptist" believes that God's call is "effective" and directed to a "particular" people ... in other words, God calls those whom He intends to save and it always saves those whom He calls [Particular individuals]. A "General Baptist" believes that God's call is "general" and directed to all people who are free to accept or reject it ... in other words, God makes a General offer of salvation to all men without exception and it saves whomsoever chooses to believe. So "General" offer of salvation to all or a "Particular" offer of salvation to the elect.

 

[atpollard]

I always have said that God can choose special persons to do special tasks.

Saul appears "unsaved" heading from Jerusalem to Damascus to kill Christians.
Jesus chose Saul on the Road to be His Apostle.
[That sure sounds like "chosen for salvation" to me.]

 

[GodsGrace]

There is an old joke that Baptists practice "Multiplication by Division". Baptist Churches are famous for splitting over arguments and starting a new Baptist Church in the same town. It grows out of the "Baptist Distinctives", which are traits that make "Baptists" a Baptist (as distinct from some other denomination or just an Independent Church). There is no "Baptist Denomination" ... every local church is completely autonomous and answers to Christ (period).

Some quick Baptist Church history with a focus on just TWO points:

1. Baptists believe that NOBODY has the right to compel another person to believe something if their conscience tells them different. That comes back to the Baptist Distinctive called "Individual Soul Liberty" (all souls have the liberty to believe what their conscience tells them and answer to only the Bible and Jesus).
2. For as long as there have been Baptists, there have been Particular Baptists (Reformed) and General Baptists (Arminian). Very often there are BOTH Particular and General Baptists within the same congregation! This is possible because of that "Individual Soul Liberty" Baptist Distinctive. Over time, the majority of Baptists have swung from being Particular to General and back to Particular. Never was either General or Particular 100% of all Baptists.

So the "Baptist Faith and Message" was written and approved to be used by BOTH Particular (Reformed) and General (Arminian) Baptists.

BAPTIST BONUS:
The terms Particular and General are better than "Calvinist" and "Arminian". A "Particular Baptist" believes that God's call is "effective" and directed to a "particular" people ... in other words, God calls those whom He intends to save and it always saves those whom He calls [Particular individuals]. A "General Baptist" believes that God's call is "general" and directed to all people who are free to accept or reject it ... in other words, God makes a General offer of salvation to all men without exception and it saves whomsoever chooses to believe. So "General" offer of salvation to all or a "Particular" offer of salvation to the elect.

Thanks.
I find it confusing that not all Baptist churches believe in "calvinism".
I do know that there are different "conventions",,,like the Southern Baptist Convention, that certain churches belong to, but that's as far as my understanding goes.

I also don't like to be called an arminian because I don't really know what he believed well enough to think I might be one!

It's unfortunate, I think, that we Protestants don't all believe the same doctrines. I find this disconcerting.

So, I agree with the general baptists. I believe God calls all to salvation, with some kind of grace that is offered to all - enough to make us be aware of Him. Then it's up to each individual person to respond with a yes or no.
To me, this seems to be the only way God could have the attributes that are given to him in the bible.
The elect are those that have chosen God...or, at times it could mean the Hebrew people whom God elected to be His mode of revelation.

 

[atpollard]

I think I told you why.
He was very important in the dissemination of the reformed faith.
He practically owned Geneva and had a lot of influence with other teachers.
I can't remember if he was a pastor, I'll take your word for it.

I don't know WHY it's known as Calvinism, except for the reasons above.
I say reformed half of the time...

It was a label given by the all-powerful Lutheran (official German State) Church as an insult to the Reformation. They implied (as many critics today still do when they refer to John Calvin) that the Reformation was not based on the BIBLE but was the teaching of a man.

That is why I generally refuse to discuss the writings of John Calvin ... I cannot be bothered sifting honest scholarship from petty attacks. What I know is that John Calvin himself was only a 4 point Calvinist. He considered Limited Atonement" to be logical, but could not find sufficient Biblical information on "Limited" or "Universal" Atonement to proclaim "Limited Atonement" as Biblical Dogma.

Even Classical Arminianism agrees with "Total Depravity" and the other three (U,I,P) all have overwhelming scriptural support (pick one and I would be happy to discuss it in a new topic). I just don't find arguing over Atonement as having any point ... like God cares what we think about who He died for.

 

[atpollard]

Thanks.
I find it confusing that not all Baptist churches believe in "calvinism".
I do know that there are different "conventions",,,like the Southern Baptist Convention, that certain churches belong to, but that's as far as my understanding goes.

Conventions are strange things and uniquely Baptist. They have NO AUTHORITY. However, it is hard for one tiny church of 150 people to support a missionary overseas or build a Seminary to train new pastors. The solution was to invite a bunch of churches, big and small, to all pool their resources into one big pot to support "Seminaries" and "Missions" and things like that. Any church is free to join or to leave at any time. There are few rules about who can join (just enough to keep out anti-biblical cults). So the Southern Baptist Convention is like your church buying membership to Sam's Club. Get it if you want it and don't get it if you don't ... but Sam's Club doesn't have any control over your local Church.

 

[GodsGrace]

It was a label given by the all-powerful Lutheran (official German State) Church as an insult to the Reformation. They implied (as many critics today still do when they refer to John Calvin) that the Reformation was not based on the BIBLE but was the teaching of a man.

Funny!
This is what I think of the reformed faith.
That it's the teaching of a man...and that man is John Calvin.
It's because I can't find those teachings in the bible - instead you can.
So they seem man-made to me.

That is why I generally refuse to discuss the writings of John Calvin ... I cannot be bothered sifting honest scholarship from petty attacks. What I know is that John Calvin himself was only a 4 point Calvinist. He considered Limited Atonement" to be logical, but could not find sufficient Biblical information on "Limited" or "Universal" Atonement to proclaim "Limited Atonement" as Biblical Dogma.

Well, yes, that was honest of him.
Don't you believe that the Confessions are taken from Calvin's writings, but are softened up to make them more palatable? I told you I have the Institutes and the WCF and that's what it seems like to me.

Even Classical Arminianism agrees with "Total Depravity" and the other three (U,I,P) all have overwhelming scriptural support (pick one and I would be happy to discuss it in a new topic). I just don't find arguing over Atonement as having any point ... like God cares what we think about who He died for.

Yes, this would be interesting to do, but not ad infinitum.
I hate when these discussion get personal, and they always seem to.
And then I have to bow out...

But we could give it a go...
Total Depravity...
If we want to call the sin nature, total depravity, then I agree.
I'm just concerned that you mean that man is depraved in every area of his being, his soul.
And that this depravity is so great that he is unable to reach out for God.
I believe that man is born lost and with the sin nature imbedded in him from the fall of Adam.
IOW, we are AFFECTED by Adam's sin, but not IMPUTED with his sin.
This makes us tend toward sin, but God gives everyone enough grace to know He is there and to seek Him, or at least, respond to Him.

I do have to say good night, but will check in tomorrow.

 

[Fastfredy0]

Interesting that the “wrong” makes sense but the other side has to redefine words and proposes mutually exclusive points generally doing a shuffle not to mention

a conclusion without foundation.

Just did a random scan.

Iconoclast made responses to 9 comments and used scripture 4 times
atpollard made responses to 5 comments and used scripture 4 times (though 3 didn't give exact verse
wondering made responses to 18 comments and used scripture 2 times
Dorothy Mae made responses to 11 comments and used scripture 1 time
Statistically, anecdotal but the pattern seems to be that Reformed people use scripture to define doctrine and non-reformed people rarely do.
That's reform citing verses 62% of time
That's non-reform citing verses 10% of time

More support to show Reformed is God-centered and non-reformed is man-centered