Ordering the Soteriological Elements

[JM]

Please, let's leave Servetus out of the soteriology talk, we can start a new thread if ya'll like. But here's my final response on him.

Michael Servetus was a wicked man. This is acknowledged by any fair Trinitarian student of history. He was a blasphemer and an anti-Trinitarian. He was persistent and public with his blasphemy. He was warned not to show up in Geneva. He would have been condemned and executed had he stayed in Roman Catholic territory or had he visited anywhere else in Europe, whether Protestant or Catholic. For some strange reason, he chose to come back to Geneva and publicly blaspheme.

Calvin was not a civil magistrate. He did not pass judgment on Servetus. The Council of Geneva judged and executed Servetus for his crimes. They chose the manner of his execution (by fire) over Calvin's objection (he thought the pyre was too severe). In the process of passing judgment, the Council had the full support of all the Reformers in Europe. Servetus' guilt was not controversial at the time; the manner of his execution was, but the burning of Servetus is not something that can be attributed to Calvin.

I think what most people today really object to and prefer to blame Calvin for is the concept -- advocated by Calvin in the Institutes and elsewhere -- that civil magistrates have a duty to uphold the entire moral law of God, ie., the Decalogue, including the first table. Thus, by punishing blasphemy, Calvin believed that the magistrate was enforcing the first table of the law according to his place and calling, as well he should.

It is this principle to which modern minds strenously object. That is the real nature of the controversy over Servetus. The historical facts viewed without the lens of ACLU-style antagonism to theocratic principles of government would show that Calvin had a limited, non-determinative role in Servetus' death. He was in favor of the guilty judgment but not as to the manner of execution. But the principle that magistrates have the right and duty to punish crimes against the first table of the law is part and parcel of Calvinism and Reformed Biblical views on civil government.

Calvin's course in regard to Servetus was fully approved by all the leading Reformers of the time. Melanchthon, the theological head of the Lutheran Church, fully and repeatedly justified the course of Calvin and the Council of Geneva, and even held them up as models for imitation. Nearly a year after the death of Servetus he wrote to Calvin: "I have read your book, in which you clearly refuted the horrid blasphemies of Servetus.... To you the Church owes gratitude at the present moment, and will owe it to the latest posterity. I perfectly assent to your opinion. I affirm also that your magistrates did right in punishing, after regular trial, this blasphemous man." Bucer, who ranks third among the Reformers in Germany, Bullinger, the close friend and worthy successor of Zwingli, as well as Farel and Beza in Switzerland, supported Calvin. Luther and Zwingli were dead at this time and it may be questioned whether they would have approved this execution or not, although Luther and the theologians of Wittenberg had approved of death sentences for some Anabaptists in Germany whom they considered dangerous heretics, adding that it was cruel to punish them, but more cruel to allow them to damn the ministry of the Word and destroy the kingdom of the world; and Zwingli had not objected to a death sentence against a group of six Anabaptists in Switzerland. Public opinion has undergone a great change in regard to this event, and the execution of Servetus which was fully approved by the best men in the sixteenth century is entirely out of harmony with our twentieth century ideas.

http://carla_b.tripod.com/realfacts/tru ... vetus.html

 

[Dave...]

We were chosen before the decree to create for we are chosen before the foundation of the world.

We are part of creation, no? Are you saying that God chose us before He made the decision to create us?

Or are you saying that God chose us before He created us?

The second example I agree with. But again, the order of events within time is insignificant to when they were decreed. See what I mean?

Am I giving you a headache... :roll: sorry if I am. I'm not trying to be a wise guy.

 

[francisdesales]

But just as the Roman Catholic Institution, they had to point their entire false belief system on Peter in order to legitimize their beliefs!

And yours?

What is your false belief system resting on? Yourself?

 

[JM]

We are part of creation, no? Are you saying that God chose us before He made the decision to create us?

Or are you saying that God chose us before He created us?

The second example I agree with. But again, the order of events within time is insignificant to when they were decreed. See what I mean?

Am I giving you a headache... :roll: sorry if I am. I'm not trying to be a wise guy.

I quoted a verse that reads "he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world." Dave, I understand what you're saying. The order of the decree doesn't matter, but we are told before the decree to have a foundation of the world, we were chosen. Outside of time and in eternity with God we were chosen.

Jacob was loved and Esau was hated. Think about that for a second. If Jacob was loved before he sinned or confessed faith how does that affect your understanding of the decrees? If Esau was hated before he sinned, how does that affect your understanding of the decrees?

These are the questions I ask myself, I'm not claiming to have the answers.

:D

~JM~

 

[Dave...]

If Jacob was loved before he sinned or confessed faith how does that affect your understanding of the decrees?

It really doesn't. I don't think that this is contrary to what i've been saying. I'll admit, getting what I want to say typed out to be plainly understood has been difficult. God foreknew him. Meaning He loved him, not because of anything that he did. I get that. There is nothing we could do to earn that or sway God to that. I'm not sure how that changes things. I'll ponder it over the evening and see if I'm missing something.

If Esau was hated before he sinned, how does that affect your understanding of the decrees?

Just the other side of the coin. God chose Jacob and left Esau to himself. Is God responsible for the state of Esau?

Think about this....God cannot cause, tempt, or teach man to sin, otherwise He would need to hang a millstone around His own neck, be called least in the kingdom of heaven, and no longer be the way, the truth, and the life.

Here's one to ponder, the context too. Jesus said "A house divided against itself cannot stand."

Even man, while rightly judicially blinded, is not blinded by God, but by the god of this age. Some would say that evil is not caused, but the result of an absence of light.

I cannot see how God can effectually will evil or sin. He can only allow it, but not for it's own sake, but for a eventual greater good.

 

[unred typo]

I quoted a verse that reads "he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world." Dave, I understand what you're saying. The order of the decree doesn't matter, but we are told before the decree to have a foundation of the world, we were chosen. Outside of time and in eternity with God we were chosen.

Jacob was loved and Esau was hated. Think about that for a second. If Jacob was loved before he sinned or confessed faith how does that affect your understanding of the decrees? If Esau was hated before he sinned, how does that affect your understanding of the decrees?

These are the questions I ask myself, I'm not claiming to have the answers.

:D

~JM~

You got that right. You don’t even have the questions.

You left out the two most important words in the verse when you say "he hath chosen us ___ ___ before the foundation of the world." God is saying that those who are ‘in Christ’ will be chosen. And this was his decree from before he created anyone. He planned to save all those who are ‘in Christ,’ whosoever they might be.

Jacob was not chosen to be saved while Esau was damned. It was determined before they were born that the elder would serve the younger. Instead of the elder traditionally receiving the double portion of the Father’s inheritance, the younger was chosen to receive it. Why would God do that? Not because one was nicer than the other, but so the purpose of election might stand, not of works but because of the choice of God for the human ancestry of his Son.

The ‘hatred’ is not hating the person of Esau, but by not giving him his rightful place, he was treated as one who was hated and Jacob was treated as the favorite. When the family of Esau fought against the family of Jacob, God gave the victory to Jacob, because Jacob‘s descendants would be the ancestor of Christ and God is going to preserve them as a remnant. This is not about salvation, JM. When are you going to get over it?


:smt102

 

[JM]

Just the other side of the coin. God chose Jacob and left Esau to himself. Is God responsible for the state of Esau?

Think about this....God cannot cause, tempt, or teach man to sin, otherwise He would need to hang a millstone around His own neck, be called least in the kingdom of heaven, and no longer be the way, the truth, and the life.

Here's one to ponder, the context too. Jesus said "A house divided against itself cannot stand."

Even man, while rightly judicially blinded, is not blinded by God, but by the god of this age. Some would say that evil is not caused, but the result of an absence of light.

I cannot see how God can effectually will evil or sin. He can only allow it, but not for it's own sake, but for a eventual greater good.

Dave...I don't think I wrote that God will effectually "will" evil, but it seems that God "wills" evil that already exists because He "worketh all things after the counsel of his own will." Eph. 1:11

Evil Spirit from the Lord Passages:

1Sa 16:14 But the Spirit of the LORD departed from Saul, and an evil spirit from the LORD troubled him.

1Sa 16:15 And Saul's servants said unto him, Behold now, an evil spirit from God troubleth thee.

1Sa 16:16 Let our lord now command thy servants, which are before thee, to seek out a man, who is a cunning player on an harp: and it shall come to pass, when the evil spirit from God is upon thee, that he shall play with his hand, and thou shalt be well.

1Sa 16:23 And it came to pass, when the evil spirit from God was upon Saul, that David took an harp, and played with his hand: so Saul was refreshed, and was well, and the evil spirit departed from him.

1Sa 18:10 And it came to pass on the morrow, that the evil spirit from God came upon Saul, and he prophesied in the midst of the house: and David played with his hand, as at other times: and there was a javelin in Saul's hand.

1Sa 19:9 And the evil spirit from the LORD was upon Saul, as he sat in his house with his javelin in his hand: and David played with his hand.

1Ki 22:23 Now therefore, behold, the LORD hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these thy prophets, and the LORD hath spoken evil concerning thee.

2Ch 18:22 Now therefore, behold, the LORD hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of these thy prophets, and the LORD hath spoken evil against thee.
__________________________________________

I'll have to sit on the fence for a while so we can sort these things out, but I'm interested in how you understand 1 Kings 22:23 and it's reading of, "...the LORD hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of all thy prophets..." and do you think it is related to 2Th 2:11 "And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:"

Peace,

~JM~

 

[Dave...]

Dave...I don't think I wrote that God will effectually "will" evil, but it seems that God "wills" evil that already exists because He "worketh all things after the counsel of his own will." Eph. 1:11

I agree 100% here. That would be His permissive will, no? I know we are not as far apart as someone reading may suspect. I think I have a pretty good idea of what you believe from talking to you over the years.

When Satan asked Jesus to sift Peter as wheat, and then Jesus tells Peter that He will pray for Him, in other words, Satan was allowed to do as he asked, would this mean that Satan was sent from Jesus? I can see how the words can be accurate, but the meaning can be distorted very easily. I don't know. I'm sure that there are going to be tough verses to deal with. Some of which you posted.

Anyways, lets start here...Saints are predestined to adoption. The Romans 8:29-30 verse plays right off of what you posted because it starts with "For whom He foreknew" Meaning foreloved. Romans 8:29-30, Ephesians 1:5, 11.

The Meaning of "FOREKNEW" in Romans 8:29
http://www.christianforums.net/viewtopic.php?t=22374

Even Thessalonians 2:13 says the same.

13 But we are bound to give thanks to God always for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God from the beginning chose you for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth,

I think that I finally understood the point you were trying to make from your previous post. Maybe. It hit me while driving home ten minutes after I logged off. If not, I'll address it anyways. Some of this may not be directly written to you, just something that I felt needed to be entered into the discussion.

Concerning Jacob and Esau....assuming a neutral start?

But for the ones left to themselves, not chosen, they are already dead in Adam even before they were created. Romans 5:12, Romans 5:18.

Some may say at this point....."we were chosen, elected before the fall, so man cannot yet be fallen by nature." But the fall was already part of the God's decree. So while Adam's fall still had to play out in time, and I believe permissively so, the end was sure.

Some may still say....."your answer is still not satisfactory".

But consider this...

Revelation 13:8 All who dwell on the earth will worship him, whose names have not been written in the Book of Life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

Luke 11:50 that the blood of all the prophets which was shed from the foundation of the world may be required of this generation,

Matthew 25:34 Then the King will say to those on His right hand, ‘Come, you blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:

It's not that Jesus was slain from the foundations of the world, it's that it was already part of the decree from the foundations of the world. But why would God decree this from the foundations of the world if not for Him also factoring in Adam's fall? What was Jacob saved from? What were we elected out of?

No neutral starting point. Man who is not predestined/elected, left to himself, does not need to be predestined to this end, he only need be left to himself.

 

[JM]

Dave, you're right, we are doing a little theological hair splitting. :-D

I went back and re-read Calvin's Institutes, bk 3, chp. XXIII. I can't believe the Institutes were written by the time he was 30! Anyways, here's a few things I'd like to share.

THE human mind, when it hears this doctrine, cannot restrain its petulance, but boils and rages as if aroused by the sound of a trumpet. Many professing a desire to defend the Deity from an invidious charge admit the doctrine of election, but deny that any one is reprobated (Bernard. in Die Ascensionis, Serm. 2). This they do ignorantly and childishly since there could be no election without its opposite reprobation. God is said to set apart those whom he adopts for salvation. It were most absurd to say, that he admits others fortuitously, or that they by their industry acquire what election alone confers on a few. Those, therefore, whom God passes by he reprobates, and that for no other cause but because he is pleased to exclude them from the inheritance which he predestines to his children. Nor is it possible to tolerate the petulance of men, in refusing to be restrained by the word of God, in regard to his incomprehensible counsel, which even angels adore. We have already been told that hardening is not less under the immediate hand of God than mercy. Paul does not, after the example of those whom I have mentioned, labour anxiously to defend God, by calling in the aid of falsehood; he only reminds us that it is unlawful for the creature to quarrel with its Creator. Then how will those who refuse to admit that any are reprobated by God explain the following words of Christ? "Every plant which my heavenly Father has not planted shall be rooted up," (Mt. 15:13). They are plainly told that all whom the heavenly Father has not been pleased to plant as sacred trees in his garden, are doomed and devoted to destruction. If they deny that this is a sign of reprobation, there is nothing, however clear, that, can be proved to them.

They add also, that it is not without cause the vessels of wrath are said to be fitted for destruction, and that God is said to have prepared the vessels of mercy, because in this way the praise of salvation is claimed for God, whereas the blame of perdition is thrown upon those who of their own accord bring it upon themselves. But were I to concede that by the different forms of expression Paul softens the harshness of the former clause, it by no means follows, that he transfers the preparation for destruction to any other cause than the secret counsel of God. This, indeed, is asserted in the preceding context, where God is said to have raised up Pharaoh, and to harden whom he will. Hence it follows, that the hidden counsel of God is the cause of hardening. I at least hold with Augustine that when God makes sheep out of wolves, he forms them again by the powerful influence of grace, that their hardness may thus be subdued, and that he does not convert the obstinate, because he does not exert that more powerful grace, a grace which he has at command, if he were disposed to use it (August. de PrÊdest. Sanct., Lib. 1, c. 2).

First, they ask why God is offended with his creatures who have not provoked him by any previous offense; for to devote to destruction whomsoever he pleases, more resembles the caprice of a tyrant than the legal sentence of a judge; and, therefore, there is reason to expostulate with God, if at his mere pleasure men are, without any desert of their own, predestinated to eternal death. If at any time thoughts of this kind come into the minds of the pious, they will be sufficiently armed to repress them, by considering how sinful it is to insist on knowing the causes of the divine will, since it is itself, and justly ought to be, the cause of all that exists. For if his will has any cause, there must be something antecedent to it, and to which it is annexed; this it were impious to imagine. The will of God is the supreme rule of righteousness,50[1] so that everything which he wills must be held to be righteous by the mere fact of his willing it. Therefore, when it is asked why the Lord did so, we must answer, Because he pleased. But if you proceed farther to ask why he pleased, you ask for something greater and more sublime than the will of God, and nothing such can be found. Let human temerity then be quiet, and cease to inquire after what exists not, lest perhaps it fails to find what does exist. This, I say, will be sufficient to restrain any one who would reverently contemplate the secret things of God. Against the audacity of the wicked, who hesitate not openly to blaspheme, God will sufficiently defend himself by his own righteousness, without our assistance, when depriving their consciences of all means of evasion, he shall hold them under conviction, and make them feel their guilt. We, however, give no countenance to the fiction of absolute power,50[2] which, as it is heathenish, so it ought justly to be held in detestation by us. We do not imagine God to be lawless. He is a law to himself; because, as Plato says, men laboring under the influence of concupiscence need law; but the will of God is not only free from all vice, but is the supreme standard of perfection, the law of all laws. But we deny that he is bound to give an account of his procedure; and we moreover deny that we are fit of our own ability to give judgment in such a case. Wherefore, when we are tempted to go farther than we ought, let this consideration deter us, Thou shalt be "justified when thou speakest, and be clear when thou judges," (Ps. 51:4).

Here they recur to the distinction between will and permission, the object being to prove that the wicked perish only by the permission, but not by the will of God. But why do we say that he permits, but just because he wills? Nor, indeed, is there any probability in the thing itself--viz. that man brought death upon himself merely by the permission, and not by the ordination of God; as if God had not determined what he wished the condition of the chief of his creatures to be. I will not hesitate, therefore, simply to confess with Augustine that the will of God is necessity, and that every thing is necessary which he has willed; just as those things will certainly happen which he has foreseen (August. de Gen. ad Lit., Lib. 6, cap. 15). Now, if in excuse of themselves and the ungodly, either the Pelagians, or Manichees, or Anabaptists, or Epicureans (for it is with these four sects we have to discuss this matter), should object the necessity by which they are constrained, in consequence of the divine predestination, they do nothing that is relevant to the cause. For if predestination is nothing else than a dispensation of divine justice, secret indeed, but unblamable, because it is certain that those predestinated to that condition were not unworthy of it, it is equally certain, that the destruction consequent upon predestination is also most just. Moreover, though their perdition depends on the predestination of God, the cause and matter of it is in themselves. The first man fell because the Lord deemed it meet that he should: why he deemed it meet, we know not. It is certain, however, that it was just, because he saw that his own glory would thereby be displayed. When you hear the glory of God mentioned, understand that his justice is included. For that which deserves praise must be just. Man therefore falls, divine providence so ordaining, but he falls by his own fault. The Lord had a little before declared that all the things which he had made were very good (Gen. 1:31). Whence then the depravity of man, which made him revolt from God? Lest it should be supposed that it was from his creation, God had expressly approved what proceeded from himself Therefore man's own wickedness corrupted the pure nature which he had received from God, and his ruin brought with it the destruction of all his posterity. Wherefore, let us in the corruption of human nature contemplate the evident cause of condemnation (a cause which comes more closely home to us), rather than inquire into a cause hidden and almost incomprehensible in the predestination of God. Nor let us decline to submit our judgment to the boundless wisdom of God, so far as to confess its insufficiency to comprehend many of his secrets. Ignorance of things which we are not able, or which it is not lawful to know, is learning, while the desire to know them is a species of madness.

That quoted, this thread has helped me and encouraged me in many ways. I probably best fit into the supra position right now, but with a twist, I'll pm you as I work thru it...hoping you can help. Here's a Biblical defence of the supra position you might be interested in.

Jesus Christ created all things visible and invisible. Sin is invisible. Sin is used as both a verb and a noun in the Bible. Nothing can be excluded from the seemingly infinite parameter of God's creation. The atheist affirms that the universe suddenly appeared or evolved out of nothing. We say that this is futile and illogical. Yet these very atheists attack the man-centered presentation of God as all-knowing, all-powerful, yet not the author and cause of all things. This attack is justified primarily because the atheist sees the extreme irrationality of a God who is such. Though we will not consider it here, it is very profitable to thoroughly consider the profundity of the omniscience and omnipotence of God. Sadly, many secular courses in logic present a more Biblical view of God than most professing Christians. Certainly Arminianism has entirely deviated from the God of Scripture.

Though this may seem extreme, infralapsarianism leads to the same deviation when taken to its logical conclusion. I fully confess that just about every doctrine we hold could lead to deviation from Scripture if we scrutinized every possible result from any given doctrine. However, because this involves such enormous and clear attributes of God, and because it involves such obvious reproach against Jesus Christ we must review our presuppositions and make sure they are in conformity with Scripture. In doing so we will not only have a far greater appreciation for the absolute sovereignty of God over righteousness and sin; we will also present God as He is to the fallen world and to professing Christians: namely, a God who is actively (not permissively) involved with each event transpiring in time and eternity from the salvation of the soul to the sparrow that falls to the ground, from a corrupt murderer of millions of Russian peasants to those who crucified the Lord of glory.

In this examination I will make brief comments concerning the following passages:

Isaiah 46:9-11 Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me, {10} Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure: {11} Calling a ravenous bird from the east, the man that executeth my counsel from a far country: yea, I have spoken it, I will also bring it to pass; I have purposed it, I will also do it.

God has declared the end from the beginning. Nothing was left undone. Nothing was decreed after an event. To say otherwise would be to deny the omniscience of God. Not only did God declare the end from the beginning, He also promised to bring it to pass and to do it. "Do it" is not an act of permission but commission.

Proverbs 16:4 The LORD hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil.

God created all things, sin and righteousness for Himself. This is the purpose of all creation: to bring glory to God. God created the wicked to be damned.

Jude 1:4 For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.

This passage clearly teaches they were ordained for condemnation. God planned or decreed that certain men would be damned for eternity.

Romans 9:22-23 What if God, willing to show his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: {23} And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,

For the rest you'll have to swing by: http://www.5solas.org/media.php?id=553

Peace,

~JM~

 

[stranger]

JM wrote:

I can't believe the Institutes were written by the time he was 30!

There is no denying his intelligence as with Luther - and the capacity for work is hard to believe considering their pen was a quill and the printing press had been recently invented. Calvin did off course revise the institutes many times so the (rare) first edition could be compared with the final edition.

As I have said before 'publishers' can take liberties with the text by 'filtering' the harsh language. I have a book about predestination by Calvin where the publishers made the decision to offer a literal translation of the original - it is the language employed that is eye opening. Our words are part of our works for which we have to give account. The same can be said about Luther.

blessings: stranger

 

[JM]

There is no denying his intelligence as with Luther - and the capacity for work is hard to believe considering their pen was a quill and the printing press had been recently invented. Calvin did off course revise the institutes many times so the (rare) first edition could be compared with the final edition.

As I have said before 'publishers' can take liberties with the text by 'filtering' the harsh language. I have a book about predestination by Calvin where the publishers made the decision to offer a literal translation of the original - it is the language employed that is eye opening. Our words are part of our works for which we have to give account. The same can be said about Luther.

blessings: stranger

Calvin's first edition was printed when he was around 25 and the bulk of it was written by the time he was around the age of 30. The first edition is very slim.

As for Calvin's work on predestination, I've never heard of a translation that was sugar coated, it's a difficult topic to write about.

__________________

Dave...did you see this, "Infralapsarianism can be technically defined as God decreeing salvation because of the fall. Supralapsarianism is defined as God decreeing both the fall and salvation based upon no condition whatsoever. In essence infralapsarianism is here seen to closely parallel the Arminian doctrine of conditional election. Infralapsarianism must end with that conclusion. For if God decreed salvation because of the fall, for God to be consistent in His decree He must have decreed election because of the activity of the one who had fallen. This is not logic supporting supralapsarianism; rather this is the logic of infralapsarianism. There are many more logical conclusions to which infralapsarianism leads, however, we will examine the Biblical position of supralapsarianism."

 

[unred typo]

As for Calvin's work on predestination, I've never heard of a translation that was sugar coated, it's a difficult topic to write about.

Surely you could put a little sugar with it. How about this: “You’re going to burn in hell for all eternity and there’s not a blessed thing you can do about it because that is the lot in life you were dealt by your loving maker. Please take some comfort in knowing that although I am going to an eternity of unimaginable bliss, I deserve hell as much or more than you and it just so happens, through no fault of my own, I was chosen to be so blessed. Like a lollipop, sucks to be you.â€Â

I wish I wasn't on 'ignore.' I'd like to ask you how you sleep at night....
:roll:

 

[Dave...]

Jason, i'm going to go over your long post tonight and also consider the verses that you posted at the end of your previous post. Just wanted to let you know...

These are the questions I ask myself, I'm not claiming to have the answers.

Me too, brother, me too.

Dave

 

[JM]

Jason, i'm going to go over your long post tonight and also consider the verses that you posted at the end of your previous post. Just wanted to let you know...



Me too, brother, me too.

Dave

So much to read so little time!

Peace,

~JM~

 

[Vic C.]

Surely you could put a little sugar with it.... edited for space.
... I wish I wasn't on 'ignore.' I'd like to ask you how you sleep at night....
:roll:

C'mon unred typo, you know better... lets cut out the melodrama.

 

[unred typo]

C'mon unred typo, you know better... lets cut out the melodrama.

Melodrama? Have I fallen through the looking glass? What could be more horrible than the theology espoused on this thread? Excuse me for noticing the cavalier attitude and callous indifference to the fate of the ‘non-elect’ whom they claim have absolutely NO CHOICE in the matter. They are not acting as if these are vermin that should be exterminated but as if it should be heralded as an act of awesome glory to God! Sorry, but it repulses me to see my loving God and savior so maligned and his character so slandered. Believe me, I’m holding myself back.

 

[Vic C.]

Fine. Do some studying on total depravity of man, try to determine whether or not election was only for the Jews, and not the Gentiles, determine whether or not we actually have free will in the matter and report your findings; but please leave out the personal attacks on others. Thanks.

 

[unred typo]

Fine. Do some studying on total depravity of man, try to determine whether or not election was only for the Jews, and not the Gentiles, determine whether or not we actually have free will in the matter and report your findings; but please leave out the personal attacks on others. Thanks.

I have written about the verses sited as ‘proof’ of the total depravity of man, showing how they were taken out of context. I also found dozens of examples of the righteous seeking God.
I was ignored and/or personally denigrated. The only actual argument against my explanation was circular reasoning stating that if the righteous were called righteous, then God made them righteous.

I have studied this subject and I am satisfied that election is nothing more than God choosing some for special privileges and assignments, not for salvation. I explained all these examples that were given as ‘proof’ of God’s election to salvation. Again, I was basically ignored.

Now it seems that the best reason for believing in Calvinism/Reformed is that Calvin/Reformed leaders were greatly respected by their followers. Everything is so&so said this, so&so said that. I thought this was a discussion forum, not a ‘cut and paste’ library. You may find my posts objectionable, but they are my own thoughts and not some dusty doctrine from centuries ago dead men who apparently had little Christian compassion in their hearts for the suffering of their fellow believers or the lost. "Beheading is kinder than burning alive"? :shocked!: You say I’m over-dramatizing? Wow. You honestly don’t see the irony of this? :smt102

 

[Solo]

Fine. Do some studying on total depravity of man, try to determine whether or not election was only for the Jews, and not the Gentiles, determine whether or not we actually have free will in the matter and report your findings; but please leave out the personal attacks on others. Thanks.

I haven't read anything from unred typo that wasn't melodramatic, sarcastic, and a personal attack on others. Nor have I read much of his posts that are Scriptural. Other than that, he is a swell guy. :D

 

[unred typo]

I haven't read anything from unred typo that wasn't melodramatic, sarcastic, and a personal attack on others. Nor have I read much of his posts that are Scriptural. Other than that, he is a swell guy.

Obviously, you haven’t been reading very many of my posts, then. I don’t scream at people in giant bright colored fonts while condemning them as not born again and a child of Satan, but if you feel threatened by the truth, I guess I can understand your trepidation in regards to the content. Your insolent remarks don’t bother me but I find mostly you try to insult my intelligence with coy remarks about my ‘lost spiritual condition’ rather than dealing scripturally with an issue you can’t answer. Padding a post with paragraphs of un-interpreted scripture or a word search list is another favored tactic. Otherwise, you just pronounce your own argument superior based on your own opinion.

I’m sure you’re a swell guy, too.:wink: