Does Calvinism Make God Unjust?

[Nang]

Yeppers.
I had thought of your bolded part too and almost posted it in the who's to blame part, because, yeah, someone could say that if the neighbor hadn't created/built the window in the first place then it would not have gotten broken.
And then you could also blame the factory worker that formed the glass and wood into the window. (If he hadn't done that, then the window would not have gotten broken.)
And then you could also blame the axeman for cutting down the tree that made the frame for the window,
Only with this type of mentality can one say that GOD is to blame because if He had not created man, trees, etc, then the window would not have gotten broken.
It's a silly mentality.

Yep.

It is an example of the humanistic philosophical abyss of infinite regress.

 

[Nang]

I am not quite sure you grasp what is exactly meant by "the son" here.

In Ezekiel 18:20 he still pursues the earlier mentioned sentiment that God is a just judge and treats every one according to his conduct. As Paul says, As each has lived in the flesh, so God lays up a reward for him. (Romans 8:13.) But Paul more clearly refuted the proverb (Ezekiel 18:2), that the sons should suffer for their fathers' sins. Paul says, then, that each when he comes before God's tribunal should be judged by his works.

As far then as the general sentiment is concerned, it is in accordance with common sense that God should exact punishment of the wicked, and that they should receive the just reward of their works. But in the next clause, the question arises how the Spirit here pronounces that the son should not pay the penalty due to the father, when God so often declares that He visits the sins of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation (Exodus 20:5).

That sentiment often occurs, but there are two passages peculiarly remarkable, where it is annexed to the second precept of the law (Deuteronomy 5:9), and then in the vision which occurred to Moses, God pronounces the same thing as before, namely, that the iniquity of the fathers should fall upon the sons (Exodus 34:7).

These passages seem opposed to each other, but it will be easy to remove the apparent contradiction by beginning with the fall of Adam, since if we do not consider the whole race fallen in Adam, we can scarcely extricate ourselves from that difficulty which we often feel as causing foul doubts. But the principle of one universal fall in Adam removes all doubts. For when we consider the perishing of the whole human race, it is said with truth that we perish through another's fault, but it is added at the same time, that everyone perishes through his own iniquity.

If then we inquire into the cause of the curse which presses upon all Adam’s progeny, it may be said to be partly another's and partly our own: another's, through Adam's decline from God, in whose person the whole human race was spoiled of righteousness and intelligence, and all parts of the soul utterly corrupted.

So that everyone is lost in himself, and if he wishes to contend with God, he must always acknowledge that the fountain of the curse flows from himself. For before the child was born into the world, the child was corrupt, since its menial intelligence was buried in darkness, and its will was perverse and rebellious against God. As soon as infants are conceived then born they contract pollution from their father Adam: their reason is blinded, their appetites perverted, and their senses entirely vitiated.

This rebellion does not immediately show itself in the young child, but before our omniscient God, who discerns things more perfectly than we do, the corruption of our whole nature is rightly treated as sin. There is no one who, during the course of his life does not perceive himself liable to punishment through his own works, yet original sin is sufficient for the condemnation of all men.

When men grow up they acquire for themselves the new curse of what is called actual sin, so that he who is pure with reference to ordinary observation, is guilty before God. Hence Scripture pronounces us all naturally children of wrath: these are Paul's words in the second chapter of the epistle to the Ephesians (Eph 2:3). If then we are children of wrath, it follows that we are polluted from our birth. This provokes God's anger and renders Him hostile to us, in this sense David confesses himself conceived in sin (Psalm 51:5).

David does not here accuse either his father or his mother so as to extenuate his own wickedness, but, when David abhors the greatness of his sin in provoking the wrath of God, he is brought back to his infancy, and acknowledges that he was even then guilty before God. We see then that David, being reminded of a single sin, acknowledges himself a sinner before he was born; and since we are all under the curse, it follows that we are all worthy of death. Thus, the son, David, properly speaking shall not die through the iniquity of his father, but is considered guilty before God through his own fault.

When God pronounces that the iniquity of the father returns into the bosom of the son, we must remember that when God involves the son in the same death with the father, God does so principally because the son of the impious is destitute of the Holy Spirit, from which it happens that the son remains in the death in which he was born.

For if we do not consider any other punishments than those which are openly inflicted, a new doubt will again arise from which we cannot free ourselves, since this inquiry will always recur, how can the son perish by his own fault, if he can produce good fruit and so reconcile himself to God?

Two kinds of punishment…

Spoiler

But the first punishment with which God threatens the reprobate is that their offspring are destitute and deprived of spiritual gifts, so that they sink deeper and deeper into destruction, for there are two kinds of punishment, the one outward and the other inward. God punishes the transgressors of his law by either the sword, or by famine, or by pestilence, as God everywhere denounces. God is also armed with other means of slaughter for executing His wrath, and all these punishments are outward and openly apparent.

But there is another sort of punishment inward and hidden, when God takes away the spirit of rectitude—morally correct behavior or thinking; righteousness—from the reprobate, when God gives them up to a reprobate mind, subjects them to foul desires, and deprives them of all his gifts. Hence God is said to cause the fathers' iniquity to recoil upon the children not only when God outwardly punishes the little ones, but because God devotes a cursed offspring to eternal destruction, through being destitute of all the gifts of the Spirit.

Now we know that God is the fountain of life (Psalm 36:9) from which it follows that all who are separated from God are dead. Therefore it is evident how God throws the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, since when God devotes both father and son to eternal destruction, He deprives them of all His gifts, blinds their minds, and enslaves all their appetites to the devil.

Although we may embrace the whole matter of the children suffering for the fathers when God leaves them to simple nature since in this way He drowns them in death and destruction. But outward punishments also follow afterwards, as when God sent lightning upon Sodom many young children perished, and all were absorbed with their parents (Genesis 19:24).

Now if anyone asks by what right they perished, we should answer: first, they were sons of Adam and so were accursed, and then God wished to punish the Sodomites through their offspring, and He could do so deservedly. Concerning the young who thus perished with their fathers, it is said, happy is he who dashes thy young ones against the stones or the pavement (Psalm 137:9). Indeed, at first sight, that atrocity seems intolerable that a child whose age and judgment is so tender should be so cruelly slain: but as has already said, all are naturally children of wrath (Ephesians 2:2).

It is no wonder that God withdraws His favor from the offspring of the reprobate, even if he executes these outward judgments. But how will this question now be suitable: shall not the son bear the iniquity of the father?

Ezekiel here in Eze. 18:20 speaks of adults, for he means that the son shall not bear his father's iniquity, since the son shall receive the reward due to himself and sustain his own, the son's, burden. Should any one wish to strive with God, he can be refuted in a single word, for who can boast himself to be innocent? Since therefore all are guilty through their own fault, it follows that the son does not bear his father's iniquity, since the son must bear his own iniquity at the same time.

Now that question is solved.

AMR

God does not hold specific sins of biological fathers against the sons, but due to the imputation of guilt against the original sin of Adam, all sons of Adam inherit the corrupted nature and propensity to continue in the unbelieving motivations of their first father.

IOW's sinners are not judged according to mere specific acts, but according to ruling heart motives, which are universally tainted and corrupt due to original sin . . until and unless the heart motives are regenerated, changed, and enabled to serve in holiness & Spirit, the righteousness of God.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

God does not hold specific sins of biological fathers against the sons, but due to the imputation of guilt against the original sin of Adam, all sons of Adam inherit the corrupted nature and propensity to continue in the unbelieving motivations of their first father.

IOW's sinners are not judged according to mere specific acts, but according to ruling heart motives, which are universally tainted and corrupt due to original sin . . until and unless the heart motives are regenerated, changed, and enabled to serve in holiness & Spirit, the righteousness of God.

My response was to the specific context of the often quoted passage by many anti-Calvinists from Ezekiel and his treatment of the people wronging God by their interpretation of the proverb put forth in the opening of the chapter (Eze. 18).

The anti-Calvinist often assumes the passage makes their argument against original sin, denying that all are born sinners just as if they were there with Adam when he sinned. The passage does not support their argument at all, for theirs is but a facile interpretation of the verse lifted from its surrounding complexities of context (Ezekiel 18:1-32).

Matthew Henry is helpful here:

Spoiler

The Prophet appeals to themselves then whether they did not wrong God with their proverb. “Thus plain the case is, and yet you say, Does not the son bear the iniquity of the father? No, he does not; he shall not if he will himself do that which is lawful and right,” Eze. 18:19.

But this people that bore the iniquity of their fathers had not done that which is lawful and right, and therefore justly suffered for their own sin and had no reason to complain of God’s proceedings against them as at all unjust, though they had reason to complain of the bad example their fathers had left them as very unkind. Our fathers have sinned and are not, and we have borne their iniquity (Lam. 5:7).

It is true that there is a curse entailed upon wicked families, but it is as true that the entail may be cut off by repentance and reformation; let the impenitent and unreformed therefore thank themselves if they fall under it. The settled rule of judgment is therefore repeated (Eze. 18:20): The soul that sins shall die, and not another for it.

What direction God has given to earthly judges (Deu. 24:16) God will himself pursue: The son shall not die, not die eternally, for the iniquity of the father, if he do not tread in the steps of it, nor the father for the iniquity of the son, if he endeavour to do his duty for the preventing of it.

In the day of the revelation of the righteous judgment of God, which is now clouded and eclipsed, the righteousness of the righteous shall appear before all the world to be upon him, to his everlasting comfort and honour, upon him as a robe, upon his as a crown; and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him, to his everlasting confusion, upon him as a chain, upon him as a load, as a mountain of lead to sink him to the bottomless pit.

Ezekiel 18 combines corporate and individual dimensions of personality in a way that is not contradictory, as I explained in my post. The story of Achan in Josh 7:1–26 is a classic example of corporate responsibility. Achan sinned, but his whole family suffered for his sin. Such a passage is difficult to understand unless we see the biblical distinction between guilt and consequences. In Achan’s case he was the guilty party (7:21), but his family, who may have shared guilt by remaining silent about his misdeed, shared at least the consequences of his guilt, which was death by stoning. This was the point made in Exodus 20:5; 34:6–7. Hence the outward punishments to which was alluded to in my post. Corporate responsibility does exist, but too much emphasis on it induces a fatalistic attitude and the evasion of individual responsibility. Ezekiel’s message is a necessary corrective—the parents’ sins do not excuse the children’s sins.

Individually each person is responsible for his or her own guilt of sin. But we must always be aware that the consequences of sin will affect others who may be innocent of the guilt for that particular sin. This is true even when the sin is forgiven. God promised to remove the guilt of sin, but most often the consequences remain. David is a good example. Though he was forgiven of his sins of adultery and murder, he still suffered the consequences (2 Sam 12:11–20).

There is a general disposition in man to reply against God; and rather to lay charges against God's justice, than to condemn himself. Occasion was taken for this by the Jews of old, even from the declarations of the law and the prophets. The law had said, that God would “visit the sins of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generation;” and the prophets had frequently declared, that the iniquities of Jeroboam, Manasseh, and others, should be visited on their descendants.

Henceforth, the Jews profanely characterized the Divine procedure by this proverb, “The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children’s teeth are set on edge.” They did not consider, that they themselves were sinners like unto their fathers, and merited for their own iniquities every judgment which God had threatened to lay upon them. Nor did they ever consider, that if God was pleased to exercise forbearance towards some, God was not necessitated to continue it towards all, when God saw that the very exercise of it emboldened men even more to sin against Him. Nor did they ever consider, that the menaces, which were uttered in reference to temporal judgments(outward punishments) were erroneously interpreted, when they were applied to the judgments of the eternal world (inward punishments).

Ezekiel therefore was instructed to exposit to them, the exiles, on their misinterpretation of God’s word; and to declare to them, that though in this world children must unavoidably participate in the judgments of their fathers, it should not be so in the world to come: there the son should not bear in any respect the iniquity of the father, nor the father of the son; but “the soul that sinned, it should die.” In confirmation of this truth, Ezekiel argues with them in Chapter 18, wherein the whole plan of the Divine proceedings, in reference to the different characters of mankind, is stated, vindicated, and improved.

Sister, I do not think you have read my post carefully for it appears you are seeing disagreement between what you have posted and what I have posted, when in fact, upon a more careful reading, no difference is in evidence.

AMR

 

[popsthebuilder]

How can you be peaceful of your own rudeness? Your foul mouth may end up in my ignore list

I can wish you peace and still not take you seriously. I would prefer to take you seriously, but find it quite difficult given your more recent posts towards me.

Please feel free to ignore me if you so choose.

Peace

Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk

 

[TulipBee]

I can wish you peace and still not take you seriously. I would prefer to take you seriously, but find it quite difficult given your more recent posts towards me.

Please feel free to ignore me if you so choose.

Peace

Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk

Don't talk like that again or I will

 

[popsthebuilder]

Don't talk like that again or I will

If I speak that way towards you again then it will have to be motivated by retaliation towards a post of yours. I'll try to keep my motives honest, perhaps you could do the same, and we can continue to converse. I would hope anyway. It was, evidently overly harsh and offended you past what I had expected or intended. I could have conveyed my message in a more becoming fashion. So in retrospect; my own selfish defensive motives were the cause of offence towards you after I had so easily been offended by you.

I shouldn't have ever gotten offended.

I do apologize and do really sincerely hope that we can continue.

Peace

Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk

 

[TulipBee]

If I speak that way towards you again then it will have to be motivated by retaliation towards a post of yours. I'll try to keep my motives honest, perhaps you could do the same, and we can continue to converse. I would hope anyway. It was, evidently overly harsh and offended you past what I had expected or intended. I could have conveyed my message in a more becoming fashion. So in retrospect; my own selfish defensive motives were the cause of offence towards you after I had so easily been offended by you.

I shouldn't have ever gotten offended.

I do apologize and do really sincerely hope that we can continue.

Peace

Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk

Thought you were so cool one minute and you split your personality in the next minute. It gets hard to work around your rapid changing emotions. Carry on. You have every right to be yourself.

 

[popsthebuilder]

Thought you were so cool one minute and you split your personality in the next minute. It gets hard to work around your rapid changing emotions. Carry on. You have every right to be yourself.

I'm relatively constant for the most part and generally consciously attempt to be so. However; at times when something I hold dear (such as the origins or motives or rationalities behind my faith) is mocked, or made out to be of little substance or rather that negative substance, then I can, quite immediately take significant offence. But we know from scripture that being easily offended, even about such significant a thing as ones own faith, isn't right, and I do attempt to keep my patience and calm about me. Anyway, really, that is quite enough about me personally.


Peace

Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk

 

[SimpleMan77]

Of course it does. How is one going to trust in God and his Son Jesus Christ and then believe that God predestinates people to hell before they are born? Answer is that it is not possible to have faith and trust in a God that would do such a thing.

Calvinism is not teachable and is not believable. The Bible teaches that God is kind, loving, just and merciful in all of his dealings with fallen man. "The Lord is not slack concerning his promises as some men count slackness; but is LONGSUFFERING TOWARD US and is not willing that any should perish, but that ALL should come to repentance" 2 Peter 3:9.

How can a God that so loves the world that he gives his only begotten Son, John 3:16, predestinate people to hell before they are ever born? Does that make sense to you? And then in Hebrews 2:9 the scripture says... "That he by the grace of God should taste death for everyone". If Jesus has tasted death for everyone, then salvation has been provided for everyone.

What kind of a God would predestinate people to hell before they are born? Not the God of the Bible. King David probably wrote more about the mercy of God than anyone. "Give thanks unto the Lord; for he is good: for his mercy endureth for ever" Psalm 136:1. The following 25 verses all end with "His mercy endureth for ever".

The God of the Bible is the great provisional God. He provides salvation for his fallen creatures by sending has Son Jesus Christ into the world to atone for their sins. God gives and we receive. Everything that we own comes from God. It was placed here on the earth when he created the earth. He knew what we would need. Your home, your car, even your diamond ring are all gifts from God. Why would you believe that he hasn't provided salvation and that you have to be predestinated?

It absolutely not only makes God unjust, but it makes unnecessary any type of evangelism.

If Calvinism is right, we should all party it up, stepping on as many people as we need to in order to make this earth experience as fun as possible. If that takes killing other, it is good all around. They get to go to their predestinated reward, and my life is better here. Win-win. Let's live completely for ourselves because we can't affect ours or anyone else's eternity.

I will say this though - at least Calvin was honest. His is the only way to truly believe "saved by grace + nothing". If you say "you must believe, the word "believe" is an action verb - in third grade English and in every dictionary. It is a choice of something you do.

Don't be dishonest and say "works don't affect anything", but then say "you have to believe".

Biblical works vs Grace goes this way: God does for us what we can't possibly do for ourselves. He holds it out to us as an offer, and says "if you will come to me I'll heal you, save you, give you life, etc". Obedience isn't and will never be a works-based salvation.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

 

[TulipBee]

I'm relatively constant for the most part and generally consciously attempt to be so. However; at times when something I hold dear (such as the origins or motives or rationalities behind my faith) is mocked, or made out to be of little substance or rather that negative substance, then I can, quite immediately take significant offence. But we know from scripture that being easily offended, even about such significant a thing as ones own faith, isn't right, and I do attempt to keep my patience and calm about me. Anyway, really, that is quite enough about me personally.


Peace

Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk

You talk too much

 

[Nang]

Sister, I do not think you have read my post carefully for it appears you are seeing disagreement between what you have posted and what I have posted, when in fact, upon a more careful reading, no difference is in evidence.

AMR

My post was mere commentary, and not meant as argument.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

My post was mere commentary, and not meant as argument.

I see. Thanks for the clarification!

AMR

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

It absolutely not only makes God unjust, but it makes unnecessary any type of evangelism.

If you actually understood Calvinism you would know the error of your statement.

The decree of God [<--link!] includes the means by which His ends are made manifest. One of the ordinary means by which those marked out by God for salvation are brought into the Kingdom is by the promiscuous preaching of the Good News. Those so gifted and called are commanded to preach the Gospel to all persons. In fact, this is why evangelism is so effective by the Reformed.

Some of the most dedicated and admired evangelists since the time of the Reformation were Calvinists (Jonathan Edwards, George Whitefield, Charles Spurgeon, etc.). And they were consistent with their doctrine. They realized that God not only ordains whomsoever will be saved; He ordains the means by which they will be saved -- namely, the preaching of the gospel. The Spirit moves the believer to spread the gospel, for that is his commission and one of the chief ends for which he was saved.

Yes, the gospel is to be preached to all men (and women). Moreover, it should be delivered persuasively and with conviction (Acts 18:28; 2 Cor 5:11). We do not know who the elect are, whose eyes the Spirit will open and whose heart He will soften. That is a secret not revealed to us (Deuteronomy 29:29).

As in the parable of the seed and the sower (Matthew 13:1-9), the evangelist is not to be a "soil sampler". Instead, he scatters the seed on all ground, preaching the good news of God's Kingdom to all men. Yet it is only the good soil -- the heart which God has prepared beforehand -- that may receive the word in such a way that it takes root (c.f., Ezekiel 26:24-17 and John 3:1-12). The soil is not good in and of itself (Jeremiah 17:9; Romans 3:10-18). God makes it good (Matthew 12:33). And His word does not return to Him void, but accomplishes the purpose for which it is sent (Isaiah 55:11).

You can bash Calvinism and try to set it against evangelism, but history will sharply rebuke you. Calvinism has been and continues to be a strong motivation for preaching to the lost. I mentioned Edwards, Whitefield, and Spurgeon because they are well known (if in name only) to most Arminians. But the evangelistic zeal of Calvinism did not live and die with them. There is also William Burns, who led spiritual revival in China. Rowland Hill, who preached in England prior to Spurgeon. Robert Murray M'Cheyne of Scotland. David Brainerd, William Carey, John Flavel, Benjamin Keach, John Rippon, Christmas Evans, John Clifford, Archibald Brown, J. B. Moody, H. B. Taylor, I. M. Haldeman, Jeremiah Burroughs, George S. Bishop, T. T. Eaton, and Martin Lloyd-Jones. Latimer, Knox, Wishart, Perkins, Rutherford, Bunyan, Owen, Charnock, Goodwin, Watson, Henry, Watts and Newton.

The list goes on and on an on, completely shattering your misguided notions about Calvinism and evangelism. The truth is that wherever Calvinism is embraced wholeheartedly, the gospel of Jesus Christ thunders forth with Spirit and conviction. Only in anti-Calvinist caricatures, wrought from warped and vain imaginations, do we find Calvinists ignoring the Great Commission.

AMR

 

[popsthebuilder]

You talk too much

Hah... You wouldn't say that if you actually knew me.

Peace

Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk

 

[SimpleMan77]

If you actually understood Calvinism you would know the error of your statement.

The decree of God [<--link!] includes the means by which His ends are made manifest. One of the ordinary means by which those marked out by God for salvation are brought into the Kingdom is by the promiscuous preaching of the Good News. Those so gifted and called are commanded to preach the Gospel to all persons. In fact, this is why evangelism is so effective by the Reformed.

Some of the most dedicated and admired evangelists since the time of the Reformation were Calvinists (Jonathan Edwards, George Whitefield, Charles Spurgeon, etc.). And they were consistent with their doctrine. They realized that God not only ordains whomsoever will be saved; He ordains the means by which they will be saved -- namely, the preaching of the gospel. The Spirit moves the believer to spread the gospel, for that is his commission and one of the chief ends for which he was saved.

Yes, the gospel is to be preached to all men (and women). Moreover, it should be delivered persuasively and with conviction (Acts 18:28; 2 Cor 5:11). We do not know who the elect are, whose eyes the Spirit will open and whose heart He will soften. That is a secret not revealed to us (Deuteronomy 29:29).

As in the parable of the seed and the sower (Matthew 13:1-9), the evangelist is not to be a "soil sampler". Instead, he scatters the seed on all ground, preaching the good news of God's Kingdom to all men. Yet it is only the good soil -- the heart which God has prepared beforehand -- that may receive the word in such a way that it takes root (c.f., Ezekiel 26:24-17 and John 3:1-12). The soil is not good in and of itself (Jeremiah 17:9; Romans 3:10-18). God makes it good (Matthew 12:33). And His word does not return to Him void, but accomplishes the purpose for which it is sent (Isaiah 55:11).

You can bash Calvinism and try to set it against evangelism, but history will sharply rebuke you. Calvinism has been and continues to be a strong motivation for preaching to the lost. I mentioned Edwards, Whitefield, and Spurgeon because they are well known (if in name only) to most Arminians. But the evangelistic zeal of Calvinism did not live and die with them. There is also William Burns, who led spiritual revival in China. Rowland Hill, who preached in England prior to Spurgeon. Robert Murray M'Cheyne of Scotland. David Brainerd, William Carey, John Flavel, Benjamin Keach, John Rippon, Christmas Evans, John Clifford, Archibald Brown, J. B. Moody, H. B. Taylor, I. M. Haldeman, Jeremiah Burroughs, George S. Bishop, T. T. Eaton, and Martin Lloyd-Jones. Latimer, Knox, Wishart, Perkins, Rutherford, Bunyan, Owen, Charnock, Goodwin, Watson, Henry, Watts and Newton.

The list goes on and on an on, completely shattering your misguided notions about Calvinism and evangelism. The truth is that wherever Calvinism is embraced wholeheartedly, the gospel of Jesus Christ thunders forth with Spirit and conviction. Only in anti-Calvinist caricatures, wrought from warped and vain imaginations, do we find Calvinists ignoring the Great Commission.

AMR

"He ordains the means by which they will be saved".

That indicates that without that "means" salvation can't happen.

True predestination says that if a preacher refuses to go, then God saves those anyway, even if they never hear the name Jesus.

I don't argue that some very prolific evangelists were Calvinists, but I do say that the same number of people would have went to heaven if they all would have stayed home (if that doctrine is true).


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

 

[TulipBee]

Hah... You wouldn't say that if you actually knew me.

Peace

Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk

You don't want me to know you. You ran me off

 

[Nang]

That indicates that without that "means" salvation can't happen.

Care to confess what you believe the "means" of salvation is, apart from the sovereign grace of God?

True predestination says that if a preacher refuses to go, then God saves those anyway, even if they never hear the name Jesus.

Unbiblical and impossible.

There is nothing in the Word of God to substantiate this claim.

I don't argue that some very prolific evangelists were Calvinists, but I do say that the same number of people would have went to heaven if they all would have stayed home (if that doctrine is true).

Wrong. Very wrong . . .

Salvation of sinners comes according to the proclamation of the divine Covenant promise of the Savior (Gospel), apart from which, no man is granted knowledge of Jesus Christ and His grace.

 

[patrick jane]

Care to confess what you believe the "means" of salvation is, apart from the sovereign grace of God?



Unbiblical and impossible.

There is nothing in the Word of God to substantiate this claim.



Wrong. Very wrong . . .

Salvation of sinners comes according to the proclamation of the divine Covenant promise of the Savior (Gospel), apart from which, no man is granted knowledge of Jesus Christ and His grace.

Wrong.

1 John 2:2 KJV -

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

@SimpleMan77

True predestination says that if a preacher refuses to go, then God saves those anyway, even if they never hear the name Jesus.

Again you show your misunderstandings of Calvinism. Election is unto salvation. The predestination of the elect is not election to salvation.

See:
http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...es-Us-to-God&p=4836528&viewfull=1#post4836528

AMR

 

[Catholic Crusader]

Again you show your misunderstandings of Calvinism. Election is unto salvation. The predestination of the elect is not election to salvation.

Calvinism is a lie & heresy, and you're a fool. That's all anybody need to know about this thread and your posts. You haven't got the first clue about authentic Christianity.

Here come the stupid anti-Catholic remarks.