Calvinism

[Clete]

Exactly. God does nothing that is not just. But if He holds unbelievers morally responsible for their unbelief - which the Bible says He does - while in fact intended they be unbelievers and made it impossible for them to be anything BUT unbelievers - which Calvinistic election says He does - then the Gospel of grace is a fraud and He is a hypocrite, an unjust judge and a liar. This is been pointed out many times here on TOL but it never gets an honest response. Because there isn't one.

When such is pointed out, we are accused of sitting in judgment of God as though justice is our invention where we set the standard rather than God Himself.

The mindless Calvinist claims that we accuse God of wrong doing but we don't! The point we are making is that God DOES NOT do the things Calvinism accuses Him of.

IF Calvinism is true then God is unjust by HIS OWN standard!

God is not capable of violating His own standard!

Therefore Calvinism is false!

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Dialogos]

Exactly. God does nothing that is not just. But if He holds unbelievers morally responsible for their unbelief - which the Bible says He does - while in fact intended they be unbelievers and made it impossible for them to be anything BUT unbelievers - which Calvinistic election says He does - then the Gospel of grace is a fraud and He is a hypocrite, an unjust judge and a liar. This is been pointed out many times here on TOL but it never gets an honest response. Because there isn't one.

I find it fascinating that the best argument against Calvinism is the self same argument that Paul addresses in Romans 9.

You will say to me then, "Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?" (Rom 9:19 ESV)​

And the answer that is consistently given are the words Paul spoke in reply.

" But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, "Why have you made me like this?"
21 Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump bone vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use?
22 What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction,
23 in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory--
24 even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles? (Rom 9:20-24 ESV)​

Apparently, this just isn't honest enough a response for some....

:think:

 

[Totton Linnet]

I'm afraid I share AMR's confusion here. While not all may be of equal spiritual stature or have the same rewards, those who are in Christ are His and those who are not....are not. That, I read it, is why there is a division of sheep and goats in Matthew 25 - not sheep, goats and some other group.

The only scriptures that come to mind that hint that there could be those who are elected and then those who are let in on some less active basis are these :

A bruised reed shall he not break, and smoking flax shall he not quench, till he send forth judgment unto victory.
Matthew 12:20

All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.
John 6:37

They are only that - hints. And the second is only if you read them that the Father gives as being separate from those that come to Him (implied that the Father didn't give them).



They are still sheep...separated as a shepherd separates HIS sheep from the goats (v32). And should we even entertain the possibility that there are some that will make it in based on their works? Did their works make them sheep or did their works follow them...follow their "sheephood".

As to the "my brethren" quote, note that it can be read (in the English) more than one way. It could easily be read as Jesus calling the sheep His own brethren....for He fails to use the term when addressing the goats (v45).



I don't think they didn't understand that - rather, when brought before the throne, it is revealed instead that their works came out of love for those that they served - directly coming from the love they had in Christ. As such, when they work, they are not working to find entrance into heaven, but as a result of what has been done in them. So when told they ministered to Christ, all they see is what Christ has done in (and through) them - and so it brings a complete fulfillment to the statement that men will see the works believers do and glorify their Father in heaven. Those are the only character of works that could produce glory for the Father and a sincere "surprise" (poor word, I know) at being credited for those works that are not originally theirs to begin with.

So it is not lack of understanding but mere fruit of the work of Christ (as opposed to fruit of the work of man).



Note something in comparing the two groups. The one group (the sheep) is judged by those works that ministered to "the least of these" and the other group is judged by the works that didn't. Should we venture to say that anyone who goes overseas and feeds the masses should be assumed to be sheep simply because of an excessive natural generosity of spirit? Selfless giving is certainly a characteristic more natural to a people who have been blessed by the gospel for centuries (Europe and America...the Reformation), but is that what is being said here or is it being noted the true character of the works themselves?

Again....should we assume that the only goats are those who NEVER did anything selfless and giving to the poor or needy in their lives? That is the ONLY way I can see even beginning to allow the possibility of gaining heaven by works. And even then, it's a stretch (all our righteousness is as filthy rags).



What about those who are alive and remain...? How is it not possible that this is a gathering of all those resurrected as well as those who are alive and remain?

AMR thought my reply showed animosity, nothing could be further from the truth...I really must work on my presentational skills...

I understand the accepted evangelical position. but I do not share it.

I think you are not giving enough precision to the word of God on this matter, not to put too fine a point on it, the accepted exegesis of this portion is downright abyssmal, sloppy.

A key to why [imho] it is so is found in St Jeromes translation which ALL other translations follow. It is found in the Catholic mindset of the 4th century, let's not kid ourselves the church of the 4th century was already horribly backslidden.

Two things to bear in mind are Greek dualism and the RomanCatholo conquest of the whole world. The world in the 4th century was either Catholic or it was barbarian and together with the church the Romans hoped to conquer the world.

See St Jerome had a problem in translating Matt 25. and it comes out in more than one place than the sheep and goats.

The portion begins "When the Son of man shall come in His glory and all His holy angels with Him..."

But the word that Jerome translates as holy angels is exactly the same word for saints, which indeed agrees with Paul's teaching concerning the judgement...not only do we come with the Lord but the world is actually judged by us, how? well Matt. 25 tells us.

But St Jerome's dilemma is that he fancies he has already spied out the church in the righteous sheep, he can't have two churches, the saints who came with the Lord to judge and the righteous sheep who are being judged.

So he slips in "holy angels" that solves his problem.

But it throws the whole scene out of kilter, and makes nonsense of the whole story.

We have the sheep on the right hand and we have the goats on the left before the Lord and addressing them He says "inasmuch as you ministered to one of these the least of My brethren you ministered to Me" now I have to say that doesn't make an atom of good literary sense.

He turns to the goats and says "inasmuch as ye did not minister to these sheep? no inasmuch as ye ministered not to one of these the least of My brethren...."

I say once again that the sheep and the "brethren" are two distinctly different people. I must remind you that we are passed from judgement to life, the teaching of Paul is that the saints who have died rise first then we are caught up together with them in the clouds. There IS no judgement at this time...."so shall we ever be with the Lord" [my favourite scripture that]

You DO believe there is to be a new earth...who do you suppose will inhabit it? our place is in heaven.

 

[musterion]

I find it fascinating that the best argument against Calvinism is the self same argument that Paul addresses in Romans 9.

You will say to me then, "Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?" (Rom 9:19 ESV)​

And the answer that is consistently given are the words Paul spoke in reply.

" But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, "Why have you made me like this?"
21 Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump bone vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use?
22 What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction,
23 in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory--
24 even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles? (Rom 9:20-24 ESV)​

Apparently, this just isn't honest enough a response for some....

:think:

Personal soul salvation from sin, as we might call it, is not the context of Romans chapter 9. The context is God's sovereign use of nations, including Israel.

Moreover, thus misusing the vessel/maker reference not only still avoids the issue -- it does not address the question hence the lack of any honest response from Calvinist on this fundamental point -- it amounts to saying, "Yeah, God's a liar, so what?"

 

[Clete]

I find it fascinating that the best argument against Calvinism is the self same argument that Paul addresses in Romans 9.

You will say to me then, "Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?" (Rom 9:19 ESV)​

And the answer that is consistently given are the words Paul spoke in reply.

" But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, "Why have you made me like this?"
21 Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump bone vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use?
22 What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction,
23 in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory--
24 even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles? (Rom 9:20-24 ESV)​

Apparently, this just isn't honest enough a response for some....

:think:

Its only the "self same argument" in the mind of Calvinists who ignore the context of Romans 9 and apply it to something it was never intended for. Not only that but it would in fact have the opposite effect than the Calvinist suggests and would actually prove God to be unjust!

How much sense does that make? Paul, by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, makes an argument that proves his own position false! Only in the broken mind of a Calvinist is such a thing possible to conceive.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[intojoy]

Calvinism

I agree, perhaps I would say that the GWT and the sheep and goats are the same but certainly there is a separate judgement for the saints.



But James seems to suggest that those who are leaders will be judged with greater severity....Paul also says "we must all appear before the judgement seat of Christ to receive what we have done in the body...whether good or bad" But our eternal home [heaven] is settled.

Sheep are those who visited sick Jews fed Jews clothed Jews during the trib

They enter the kingdom in unglorified state

Goats head to Hades for a 1k stay

Judgement will be for rewards or loss of rewards not punishment for sins
All sins have been dealt with.

Some Christians build with wood hay stubble because they do not do their good works His way but according to their own ways

 

[nikolai_42]

AMR thought my reply showed animosity, nothing could be further from the truth...I really must work on my presentational skills...

I understand the accepted evangelical position. but I do not share it.

I think you are not giving enough precision to the word of God on this matter, not to put too fine a point on it, the accepted exegesis of this portion is downright abyssmal, sloppy.

A key to why [imho] it is so is found in St Jeromes translation which ALL other translations follow. It is found in the Catholic mindset of the 4th century, let's not kid ourselves the church of the 4th century was already horribly backslidden.

Two things to bear in mind are Greek dualism and the RomanCatholo conquest of the whole world. The world in the 4th century was either Catholic or it was barbarian and together with the church the Romans hoped to conquer the world.

See St Jerome had a problem in translating Matt 25. and it comes out in more than one place than the sheep and goats.

The portion begins "When the Son of man shall come in His glory and all His holy angels with Him..."

But the word that Jerome translates as holy angels is exactly the same word for saints, which indeed agrees with Paul's teaching concerning the judgement...not only do we come with the Lord but the world is actually judged by us, how? well Matt. 25 tells us.

But St Jerome's dilemma is that he fancies he has already spied out the church in the righteous sheep, he can't have two churches, the saints who came with the Lord to judge and the righteous sheep who are being judged.

I have to say that I trust Tyndale here and I believe he rendered it angels based on angelos - which is consistently "angels".

So he slips in "holy angels" that solves his problem.

But it throws the whole scene out of kilter, and makes nonsense of the whole story.

We have the sheep on the right hand and we have the goats on the left before the Lord and addressing them He says "inasmuch as you ministered to one of these the least of My brethren you ministered to Me" now I have to say that doesn't make an atom of good literary sense.

He turns to the goats and says "inasmuch as ye did not minister to these sheep? no inasmuch as ye ministered not to one of these the least of My brethren...."

But it doesn't say "not" when "brethren" is mentioned. In other words, couldn't this be read as saying "My brethren...as often as you did it to the least of these (the naked, poor, wretched etc...) you did it to Me..."? Or could it not even be referring to those most needy amongst the sheep (who are His brethren)?

{Another thought...even if these are actually angels that Jesus is speaking of (as far as those to whom the sheep ministered), remember this...

Be not forgetful to entertain strangers: for thereby some have entertained angels unawares.
Hebrews 13:2}

And again I point out that you would have to believe that these goats NEVER ministered to any of "the least of these". Otherwise, Jesus is rather speaking about the pattern of good works that attend the sheep and the pattern of wickedness attending the unrighteous.

I say once again that the sheep and the "brethren" are two distinctly different people. I must remind you that we are passed from judgement to life, the teaching of Paul is that the saints who have died rise first then we are caught up together with them in the clouds. There IS no judgement at this time...."so shall we ever be with the Lord" [my favourite scripture that]

You DO believe there is to be a new earth...who do you suppose will inhabit it? our place is in heaven.

The meek do inherit the earth...and delight themselves in the abundance of peace.

 

[Totton Linnet]

I have to say that I trust Tyndale here and I believe he rendered it angels based on angelos - which is consistently "angels".



But it doesn't say "not" when "brethren" is mentioned. In other words, couldn't this be read as saying "My brethren...as often as you did it to the least of these (the naked, poor, wretched etc...) you did it to Me..."? Or could it not even be referring to those most needy amongst the sheep (who are His brethren)?

{Another thought...even if these are actually angels that Jesus is speaking of (as far as those to whom the sheep ministered), remember this...

Be not forgetful to entertain strangers: for thereby some have entertained angels unawares.
Hebrews 13:2}

And again I point out that you would have to believe that these goats NEVER ministered to any of "the least of these". Otherwise, Jesus is rather speaking about the pattern of good works that attend the sheep and the pattern of wickedness attending the unrighteous.



The meek do inherit the earth...and delight themselves in the abundance of peace.

No it is too darned untidy, I'll bet my hat you would not apply such loose exegesis to any other portion of scripture...I have read your posts.

Tynedale [and I have his translation] translated Jerome's sacredos when referring to those who come with the Lord, sacredos can mean either angels or saints.

Suppose Jerome had said "When the Son of Man shall come in His glory and all His saints with Him...."

Why then the whole scripture not only agrees with Paul's doctrine but the narrative falls into place perfectly...there is no need for fantastic somersaults to make it work.

And it is the NATIONS who the King divides and sets on His right hand or left hand.

The church is not the nations.

You now have the King and with Him His saints, you have before Him the nations divided into the righteous on the right hand and the wicked on the left.

The church will judge the world, and we do see that the righteous and the unrighteous are judged by whether or not they ministered to the church.

I remind that these were being judged by works.

 

[nikolai_42]

No it is too darned untidy, I'll bet my hat you would not apply such loose exegesis to any other portion of scripture...I have read your posts.

My exegesis of that passage (such as it is) was not really what I was proposing. I was more raising objections or questions that arise when one separates brethren, saints, nations etc...

Were I to attempt to comment on the passage, I would note that salvation by works is universally impossible and so when these sheep are called "sheep", it is because they are justified by faith. They can't be anything other than elect in even the most general sense. Tyndale calls them "just" :

Then shall the just answer him saying: master, when, saw we thee an hungered...
Matthew 25:37 (Tyn NT)

...and the KJV calls them "righteous" :

Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink?
Matthew 25:37 (KJV)

There can be no doubt that these righteous are not simply those that seek fairness and justice in a natural sense :

Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:
Matthew 25:34

And I would point out that this appears to correspond to Rev 13:8 and Rev 17:8. So unless the kingdom was prepared for those that will be saved by their works, I can't see that this is any different. If we allow that, then we get to a place where Jesus is minimizing His own sacrifice and saying something like "Well...you couldn't get in because of Calvary, but I'll give you credit for some of the good things you did..." or "Your good works amount to the same thing as the cross...".

Based simply on the above, I can't see a second class of elect (or something like them).

Tynedale [and I have his translation] translated Jerome's sacredos when referring to those who come with the Lord, sacredos can mean either angels or saints.

I believe this is from his 1525 edition :

When the son of man shall come in his majesty, and all his holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the seat of his majesty, and before him shall be gathered all nations.
Matthew 25:31

Tyndale didn't stick with Jerome. In fact he broke free of the Vulgate where he felt it necessary. And the KJV underlying manuscript has it as "angels" so when Tyndale's English NT has it the same, I can only assume that the underlying term was more accurately rendered as "angels" in the English.

Suppose Jerome had said "When the Son of Man shall come in His glory and all His saints with Him...."

Why then the whole scripture not only agrees with Paul's doctrine but the narrative falls into place perfectly...there is no need for fantastic somersaults to make it work.

And it is the NATIONS who the King divides and sets on His right hand or left hand.

The church is not the nations.

The church contains some of the nations. That's why the division.

Unless this "nations" is drawn directly from the OT usage of Gentiles (and the sheep are simply those that treat Israel as Jesus describes) and salvation is judged that way for all non-Israel, the division seems to me artificial and forced. It leads to MADness....

You now have the King and with Him His saints, you have before Him the nations divided into the righteous on the right hand and the wicked on the left.

The church will judge the world, and we do see that the righteous and the unrighteous are judged by whether or not they ministered to the church.

I remind that these were being judged by works.

So you mean this :

He that receiveth you receiveth me, and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me.
He that receiveth a prophet in the name of a prophet shall receive a prophet's reward; and he that receiveth a righteous man in the name of a righteous man shall receive a righteous man's reward.
And whosoever shall give to drink unto one of these little ones a cup of cold water only in the name of a disciple, verily I say unto you, he shall in no wise lose his reward.
Matthew 10:40-42

If so, I would point out that the receiving of a righteous man is done in the name of that righteous man - not just out of basic humanity. In that situation, I agree with you but say that Jesus is saying that such a person is elect (cf v40) - thus bringing us back to square one.

 

[Totton Linnet]

Yes you keep coming back to election which for Reformed Christians is perfectly understandable...I also am reformed, I also believe in election.

Election to what?

Does the bible teach that the election is to salvation? isn't it election to the blessing of Abraham? isn't election to be a blessing to the world?

A city built upon a hill...to what purpose?

Paul says we are chosen [elected] to be conformed to the image of the Son, again he teaches we are chosen before the foundation of the world having predestined us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ

...to the praise of His glorious grace.

None of this actually says anything about salvation, although we understand that in order to these things we must be saved.

It does not preclude others from being saved.

Where does Paul draw his doctrine from Abraham? does it show then that Lot was unsaved? Paul draws upon Jacob and Esau, we know that Jacob gained the election...is Esau therefore damned? what about Laban?

There are a great many scriptures which you overlook, like the one which says that Christ went into the underworld to preach the gospel to those who had perished before the flood.

Romans 2 which show Gentiles who having not the law do what the law requires thus showing that the law is written on their hearts their conscience also bearing witness and their thoughts the meanwhile excusing or accusing them

In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Christ Jesus, according to Paul's gospel.

Hold fast there good sir, do you have the right to assume that those who receive the disciple or minister to them receive the reward in that they become disciples themselves? I think that is taking the scripture beyond what it says to make it fit into your doctrine.

What about those who John saw casting out devils and would have prevented seeing they did not follow the Lord?

Look at that more closely, what if they had been clothing the naked or feeding the poor instead of casting out devil's?

You BELIEVE God is holy, He must judge rightly, He must avenge sin....can He overlook righteous deeds?

 

[Totton Linnet]

Let me put another proposition to you

Do you believe that children are saved? on what grounds then are they saved? is it because they believe the gospel or even understand it?

 

[Totton Linnet]

Let me show you this again, I call it St Jerome's dilemma

It comes out in the wise and foolish maidens story.

"....they all slumbered and slept
and at midnight there was a cry made "behold the bridegroom cometh, go ye out to meet him"

But there are older texts than the latin vulgate which say "behold the bridegroom cometh and his bride"

You see how this puts St Jerome in a tiswas for once again he has already spied out the church in the wise maidens, if he includes the "and his bride" he is saddled with two churches....so he simply drops the bride, it solves his problem. But once again it alters the meaning of the parable entirely.

Of COURSE the bride comes with the groom, of COURSE she has no need to seek entrance at the marriage feast...the feast is in celebration of her and the groom.

How can the church be both the bride and the bridal attendants whether wise or foolish?

Even if the bride is not mentioned in the text she is still there, made the more noticeable by her absence in the text.

 

[musterion]

Riffing off the OP, do Calvinists believe only Calvinists will be saved? That is, once regenerated and caused to believe the Gospel (a false gospel in itself), do Calvinists also believe the regenerated will sooner or later become so enlightened that they will invariably become Calvinists? Or, are there some regenerates out there who will die as Arminian lose-your-salvation free willers...yet saved?

 

[Clete]

Riffing off the OP, do Calvinists believe only Calvinists will be saved? That is, once regenerated and caused to believe the Gospel (a false gospel in itself), do Calvinists also believe the regenerated will sooner or later become so enlightened that they will invariably become Calvinists? Or, are there some regenerates out there who will die as Arminian lose-your-salvation free willers...yet saved?

There are many Calvinists who believe Calvinism itself is the gospel.

Most however aren't that far gone off the cliff.

 

[Bright Raven]

There are many Calvinists who believe Calvinism itself is the gospel.

Most however aren't that far gone off the cliff.

Examples being B57 and Nanja.

 

[Dialogos]

Happy Thanksgiving Clete.

I hope that you and your family have had a happy, healthy and restful time together.

Its only the "self same argument" in the mind of Calvinists who ignore the context of Romans 9 and apply it to something it was never intended for.

You and I have already been over Romans 9.

The context absolutely supports my use of those verses and my answer to your assertions still goes unanswered.

If you like to address that post, I'd be happy to reply.

Not only that but it would in fact have the opposite effect than the Calvinist suggests and would actually prove God to be unjust!

This is an argument from eisegesis, do you realize this?

You conclude that God could not have done X because you have already determined that X is unjust on purely philosophical grounds, and then you argue that the scriptures could not possibly say that God has done X.

This is a textbook example of eisegesis.

How much sense does that make? Paul, by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, makes an argument that proves his own position false!

Paul's position is exactly the opposite of what you claim it to be.

 

[Dialogos]

Riffing off the OP, do Calvinists believe only Calvinists will be saved?

Not characteristically, no.

That is, once regenerated and caused to believe the Gospel (a false gospel in itself), do Calvinists also believe the regenerated will sooner or later become so enlightened that they will invariably become Calvinists?

I have never heard of such a doctrine or teaching. I personally believer that those who come to understand the doctrines of grace gain a much greater appreciation for their salvation as they come to realize that redemption is 100% God's work.

The only reason I am saved is because God saved me by His grace, not by His grace and because I was smarter, better, more spiritually sensitive, etc.... than my unbelieving neighbor.

Or, are there some regenerates out there who will die as Arminian lose-your-salvation free willers...yet saved?

I count those who believe Christ as Arminians as my brothers in Christ.

 

[patrick jane]

Not characteristically, no.


I have never heard of such a doctrine or teaching. I personally believer that those who come to understand the doctrines of grace gain a much greater appreciation for their salvation as they come to realize that redemption is 100% God's work.

The only reason I am saved is because God saved me by His grace, not by His grace and because I was smarter, better, more spiritually sensitive, etc.... than my unbelieving neighbor.



I count those who believe Christ as Arminians as my brothers in Christ.

However, both systems fail to adequately explain the relationship between God’s sovereignty and mankind’s free will—due to the fact that it is impossible for a finite human mind to discern a concept only God can fully understand.

 

[Clete]

Happy Thanksgiving Clete.

I hope that you and your family have had a happy, healthy and restful time together.

Back at ya!

You and I have already been over Romans 9.

The context absolutely supports my use of those verses and my answer to your assertions still goes unanswered.

If you like to address that post, I'd be happy to reply.

I responded, you just don't like what I had to say.

It is EXACTLY as if you do not speak English except that the words are the same. As if the meaning flips and switches in random, unpredictable ways once the word itself passes into your consciousness.

This is an argument from eisegesis, do you realize this?

Call it what you will. If God does the things you claim He does, then He is unjust by His own standard.

Of course He doesn't do the things you claim but your argument here is that Paul was arguing that He does. If Paul was making that argument then Paul's argument proves that God is unjust by His own standard.

You conclude that God could not have done X because you have already determined that X is unjust on purely philosophical grounds,

Philosophical grounds are the only grounds upon which to make any determination.

Further, all I am doing to comparing what you claim God does with what God says His standard of righteousness (justice) is. They don't fit. God says He is righteous, I believe Him. I therefore do not believe you when you claim He has done something that would violate His own standard of righteousness.

and then you argue that the scriptures could not possibly say that God has done X.

Yes, its called sound reasoning!

• X= Any unrighteous action
  
• The scriptures give an accurate account of some of God's actions.
  
• God does not act in an unrighteous manner - ever.
  
• Therefore the scripture could not possibly say that God has done X.

This is a textbook example of eisegesis.

If you say so. I do not care.

Paul's position is exactly the opposite of what you claim it to be.

That's my line.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Clete]

However, both systems fail to adequately explain the relationship between God’s sovereignty and mankind’s free will—due to the fact that it is impossible for a finite human mind to discern a concept only God can fully understand.

What if I told you that God was a block of blue cheese?

You might respond, "No, He is not!"

I'd say, "How do you know?"

You'd respond, "Well, because it's ridiculous!"

I could then say, "Well yes, it is ridiculous to our finite human minds! Duh! You don't expect everything about God to make sense to us idiotic human beings do you?"


See the problem?


Resting in Him,
Clete