John Calvin said this....

[Clete]

Usage of all caps -

All caps is used for emphasis, not "text screaming".

You said it wasn't necessary to exegete to know God isn't righteousness because he says he is. The only other option is non-exegesis.

Or just reading the bible.

The bible isn't written in code. You don't have to go through some formal exegetical process every time you want to learn even the most basic elementary thing from the pages of the bible. Just read it.

If God had not revealed to us in his word (said he is) righteousness, we wouldn't know it.

Yeah well that you saying that. The Bible you're so fond of exegeting says just the exact opposite.

Romans 1:18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.​

Furthermore, if God's word doesn't establish a thing in fact, I wonder at what to do with genesis chapter one. It's not as if God is a liar who's word can somehow contradict his own nature.

God is not arbitrary. Nothing is the first chapter of the first book of the bible on through to the last chapter of the sixty-sixth books suggests otherwise. If you disagree, your exegeter is broken.

Who cares if you feel the need? The question is, can you defend your position without resorting unerhanded tactics or other falsehoods; from the biblical texts as the final authority?

I will respond in kind. If you make an argument, I'll respond with an appropriate counter argument. If, on the other hand you say idiotic things, I'll call you an idiot. If you blaspheme God, I'll call you a blasphemer, etc.

If you can't, why should YOU even believe it?

I'm assuming that you've not been around here long.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Neopatriarch]

The bible isn't written in code. You don't have to go through some formal exegetical process every time you want to learn even the most basic elementary thing from the pages of the bible. Just read it.

Amen!
Men try to scrutinize the Bible to the point they will refute the clear text with some subtext they think to have discovered.

KISS

Keep
It
Simple
Saints

 

[Clete]

The only way you can say this with a straight face is because of your presuppositions, and even then it's a stretch.

Is this comment absolutely true or is it just your opinion?

Many a Christian would admit a non-believer's definition of absolute truth might be greatly different than their own and is of course a matter of opinion.

Is this comment absolutely true or is it just your opinion?

There may be differences in opinion over what constitutes absolute truth but that does not make what actually is absolute truth a matter of opinion. There are actual facts in this world, granite. Some truths are more obvious than others but whether something is or is not true does not hinge upon whether or not someone believes it. If, for example, someone where to somehow become convinced that he was the only human left alive, it doesn't mean that you and I don't exist. No matter how strong the dilution to the contrary, facts are facts. A is A.

(This same Christian would of course disagree with the definition but not seriously dispute the importance of opinion.) You're not seriously entering into an honest discussion with anyone the instant you assume they must in error--or that you must absolutely be right. But this presuppositionalism does go a long way towards explaining your approach throughout this thread.

I don't think we are talking about the same thing. The definition of "absolute truth" is that which is absolutely true. I know, I know that's a tautology but I think you understand my point. You either think that there are objective truths that are independent of a person's opinion or you don't. If you don't, then you're stuck trying to answer whether the non-existence of absolute truths is itself and absolute truth, which is clearly a self-defeating position to find yourself in. Thus absolute truth does exist because of the rational impossibility of the contrary.

Now, slow down for just long enough to understand that what I just wrote establishes two things...

1. There is such a thing as absolute truth.
2. That whatever truths fall into the category of "absolute" are not matters of opinion.

If you deny it, I want you to prove it. Show me. Give me a counter example. Do something besides just making the claim that absolute truth is a matter of opinion because if you do, you'll either find that you cannot do so or else you'll end up demonstrating that we are discussing two different things.

If you consider Rand's philosophy just how do you have such an issue with Calvinism?:chuckle:

Rand's philosophy takes responsibility for its errors, if it makes any.

Calvin's blames God.

Put another way; Rand's philosophy is intellectually honest.

With you on that one.



True enough.



Well, not exactly. The third possibility--that you're wrong, and should reconsider your position--doesn't appear to ever occur to you. Again, your ego is kind of out of control here.

No, granite! It doesn't work that way.

There is no way to substantively respond to an argument that has actually address either my premises or the form of my argument without reconsidering my position. There is no way for me to rationally respond to any argument (even bad arguments but especially good ones) without thinking.

Further, you act as is I came to my current positions last week. There was a time when I firmly believed that God existed outside of time, that He knew EVERYTHING (not yelling! ) in advance, etc. There was a time when I believed miracles happened on T.V. and that speaking in tongues was an acceptable Christian practice. There was a time that I thought it reasonable to believe that the Catholic Church was the Beast of Revelation and that Christians should practice, not only the Mosaic Law but also observe the Old Testament feasts and various Sabbaths. There was a time when I beliefs bore almost no resemblance to what I believe today and what brought me to where I am is that which Martin Luther plead for at Worms; Scripture and plain reason. It was the strength of the arguments, both biblical and philosophical, in favor of a position that caused me to adopt it and it was the strength of the arguments against a positions I already held that caused me to drop them.

I very much like to think that my attitude toward my current beliefs are the same as they were in my youth. If someone can show me my error then I'll accept it as error, but they have to show me that I'm wrong, not simply state it.

Question--do you consider common sense, or even intuition, to fall under the umbrella of reason?

Everything that has meaning falls under the umbrella of reason. The only manner in which are minds accepts meaningful information is through reason, whether we are intentionally using it or just doing so by accident. Even if we were to accept the notion of something magical, like ESP or something equally as absurd, the information perceived must be meaningful (i.e. accurate and understood correctly) in order to be used. If you perceive X then it is reason that tells you to respond with Y or Z and not W and it is actual reality that will tell you whether your perception was accurate and whether your response was correct.

In other words, you cannot escape reality and sound reason is nothing more than conforming your mind to the constraints of that reality. You can pretend but that doesn't change reality. You can pretend that you've eaten food but that won't keep you from starving if you keep up the pretense long enough.

And plenty would disagree with you. Again, you're being incredibly dogmatic (by a layman's standards) about issues and individuals who are fiercely debated and discussed to this day.

I agree. My assessment of the value of Aristotle's contribution to the field of philosophy, while not baseless, still amount to a matter of opinion. Value judgements are very often matters of opinion.

HOWEVER!

It seems that you are saying that the mere fact that someone is willing to argue over a point makes that point a matter of opinion. That is just not so. Just because the Ayatollah Khomeini claims that the Holocaust didn't happen doesn't mean that it's happen is a matter of opinion. The Holocaust either occurred in history or it did not. Whether it happened or not is a matter of historical fact - not opinion!

Seriously, this seems to be the extent of your argument and literally the best you've got: "I'm right, you're wrong."

Look, I don't know what else you want me to say here. You've given me nothing to respond to other than a bald claim that they are opposite ends of the same elephant. I respond to that by saying they entirely different animals. What else is there to say? You've made no argument to substantiate this idea that I can respond to.

Take the following as an example.

Me: God wants for everyone to love Him but does not get that.

Calvin: God always gets precisely what He wants and wants, and in fact created, people to hate Him so that His glory could be shown by their destruction.​

Please tell me how in the world those two concepts of God are in any way compatible with one another. How, in your view, could we possibly be talking about the same God?


Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Granite]

There may be differences in opinion over what constitutes absolute truth but that does not make what actually is absolute truth a matter of opinion. There are actual facts in this world, granite.

Conveniently, the one big absolute truth you seem to be clinging to's the idea that you must be right and can't be wrong.

That is not an intellectually honest basis for a discussion.

Some truths are more obvious than others

Eye of the beholder and all that.

but whether something is or is not true does not hinge upon whether or not someone believes it. If, for example, someone where to somehow become convinced that he was the only human left alive, it doesn't mean that you and I don't exist. No matter how strong the dilution to the contrary, facts are facts. A is A.

We agree but for different reasons.

I don't think we are talking about the same thing. The definition of "absolute truth" is that which is absolutely true. I know, I know that's a tautology but I think you understand my point. You either think that there are objective truths that are independent of a person's opinion or you don't. If you don't, then you're stuck trying to answer whether the non-existence of absolute truths is itself and absolute truth, which is clearly a self-defeating position to find yourself in. Thus absolute truth does exist because of the rational impossibility of the contrary.

We are talking about the same thing, just from two completely different perspectives. Remember a while back the analogy I used about hammers? This conversation's starting to make me think of that old wag about Americans and the British: Two people separated by a common language.

1. There is such a thing as absolute truth.

Some things are absolutely true, but I suspect you're referring to a greater concept of "Truth," right? For example: My birthday was yesterday, and I'm blue-eyed. Both these things are absolutely true. Is there some idea of "absolute truth" written in the hearts of men that speaks to the reality of a creator? I don't believe so. If I've totally lost the thread let me know. (Working on cup of joe #2.)

2. That whatever truths fall into the category of "absolute" are not matters of opinion.

I'd agree but only to a point. The conversational point, if you like. "Granite is blue-eyed" would be an obvious, absolute trueism. "Granite denies God even though he deep down believes there's a God" would be a total lie...but may be an idea offered by someone who sincerely believes it (as many TOLers have demonstrated). Such folks, mean-spirited or sincere as they may be, could be quite convinced they were speaking the "absolute truth," and would even be persuaded that their faith leaves no doubt what they're saying is true and absolute. I'd know (and do) that they're mistaken. Where does that leave us? With our own opinions.

Is there a great over-arching absolute truth all men are privy to that speaks to us when we gaze at the sky, or is the only absolutely true thing the fact that the sky is indeed blue?

Rand's philosophy takes responsibility for its errors, if it makes any.

Find that slightly hard to believe.

Calvin's blames God.

No, not really.

No, granite! It doesn't work that way.

:chuckle:

Why am I not surprised.

There is no way to substantively respond to an argument that has actually address either my premises or the form of my argument without reconsidering my position. There is no way for me to rationally respond to any argument (even bad arguments but especially good ones) without thinking.

Do you ever, ever, entertain the possibility that you're simply and completely wrong?

Further, you act as is I came to my current positions last week.

No, not at all. It's clear you've given this a lot of time and thought. But that's kind of irrelevant. Investment of time doesn't speak to sincerity or accuracy. A ninety-year-old lama's spent his entire life being sincerely wrong, far as I can see. But I have no doubt as to his lifetime of belief or study.

I very much like to think that my attitude toward my current beliefs are the same as they were in my youth. If someone can show me my error then I'll accept it as error, but they have to show me that I'm wrong, not simply state it.

Clete, your ego's never going to allow that. Ever. Short of a major breakthrough. When you don't even grant the chance you're incorrect, the discussion's essentially over.

Everything that has meaning falls under the umbrella of reason. The only manner in which are minds accepts meaningful information is through reason, whether we are intentionally using it or just doing so by accident. Even if we were to accept the notion of something magical, like ESP or something equally as absurd, the information perceived must be meaningful (i.e. accurate and understood correctly) in order to be used.

If sleeping under that umbrella helps you at night, go right on ahead. Strikes me as pretty darn dull, all said and done.

It seems that you are saying that the mere fact that someone is willing to argue over a point makes that point a matter of opinion.

Often, that's exactly right.

That is just not so. Just because the Ayatollah Khomeini claims that the Holocaust didn't happen doesn't mean that it's happen is a matter of opinion. The Holocaust either occurred in history or it did not. Whether it happened or not is a matter of historical fact - not opinion!

In this case, I agree. But plenty exists either within or without the historical record that's very much up in the air. Case by case basis and all that.

Look, I don't know what else you want me to say here.

Well, I know. That's kind of the point. I'm boiling it down to illustrate you don't know what else to say beyond "I'm right, you're wrong." Think of it as a wake up call, if you like.

You've given me nothing to respond to other than a bald claim that they are opposite ends of the same elephant.

No. Not really. Again: The hammer analogy, and the illustration I used about two art critics appreciating the same performance but responding in dramatically different ways, were my attempts to show that you can very well be right (to a point) but not hold all the cards and possess all the answers. That, in fact, you may be woefully wrong about a few things, or overlooking worthy observations made by those with whom you disagree.

The trouble you're having, the concept you find slippery and confusing, is the possibility that you are wrong. Mistaken. Or at the very least that your understanding (no matter how many manhours or years you've invested in study) is in error, or missing the entire picture.

You make me think of a few of the specters encountered by Lewis's nameless narrator in The Great Divorce.

Take the following as an example.

Sure.

Me: God wants for everyone to love Him but does not get that.

Calvin: God always gets precisely what He wants and wants, and in fact created, people to hate Him so that His glory could be shown by their destruction.

This reflects a fundamental and common misconception of Calvinism (in fact, you do that a lot).

Please tell me how in the world those two concepts of God are in any way compatible with one another. How, in your view, could we possibly be talking about the same God?

Because you don't understand Calvinism as perfectly as you think you do.

I have zero interest in getting sucked into a theological debate so maybe we should prepare our closing remarks and call it a day after another exchange.

Happy Sunday.

:cheers:

 

[moparguy]

All caps is used for emphasis, not "text screaming".

Screaming is for emphasis too. Imagine that.

Or just reading the bible.

Aka, doing exegesis.

The bible isn't written in code. You don't have to go through some formal exegetical process every time you want to learn even the most basic elementary thing from the pages of the bible. Just read it.

Yes, you do. "Reading" is the formal process of decoding grammar and definitions and genre. Without doing this, you can't read.

Yeah well that you saying that. The Bible you're so fond of exegeting says just the exact opposite.

Romans 1:18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.​

Because GOD made it known. If you want to confuse the means used with the one who made it known...

Again, GOD made it known.

Do you understand the passages that speak about what God has done with the wisdom of the world?

God is not arbitrary. Nothing is the first chapter of the first book of the bible on through to the last chapter of the sixty-sixth books suggests otherwise. If you disagree, your exegeter is broken.

I didn't say God was arbitrary. I in fact said the opposite, in the very post you've replied to here. "It's not as if God is a liar who's word can somehow contradict his own nature. "

I will respond in kind. If you make an argument, I'll respond with an appropriate counter argument. If, on the other hand you say idiotic things, I'll call you an idiot. If you blaspheme God, I'll call you a blasphemer, etc.

You haven't been responding in kind. You've been making unjustifiable claims and you've been hateful for no good reason.

I have said nothing idiotic; you've called me an idiot anyways.

I haven't blasphemed; you've called me a blasphemer anyways.

You have accused me of posting things that I have not posted.

I'm assuming that you've not been around here long.

This is a non-answer to the question I posted to you.

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

This reflects a fundamental and common misconception of Calvinism (in fact, you do that a lot).



Because you don't understand Calvinism as perfectly as you think you do.

I have zero interest in getting sucked into a theological debate so maybe we should prepare our closing remarks and call it a day after another exchange.

Happy Sunday.

:cheers:

Clete does not believe he has been subjected to vanity.

He thinks he got a free pass.

Therefore he has no hope.

I'm curious Granite, you know these things, so why did you let go of your hope?

 

[Clete]

Screaming is for emphasis too. Imagine that.



Aka, doing exegesis.



Yes, you do. "Reading" is the formal process of decoding grammar and definitions and genre. Without doing this, you can't read.



Because GOD made it known. If you want to confuse the means used with the one who made it known...

Again, GOD made it known.

Do you understand the passages that speak about what God has done with the wisdom of the world?



I didn't say God was arbitrary. I in fact said the opposite, in the very post you've replied to here. "It's not as if God is a liar who's word can somehow contradict his own nature. "



You haven't been responding in kind. You've been making unjustifiable claims and you've been hateful for no good reason.

I have said nothing idiotic; you've called me an idiot anyways.

I haven't blasphemed; you've called me a blasphemer anyways.

You have accused me of posting things that I have not posted.



This is a non-answer to the question I posted to you.

Fine, I'm a jackass. Whatever. Happy?
If all you want to do is be a cry baby then you can do that if you want. I no longer even know what the heck you said that I responded to and I really am not interested enough to go through the trouble of figuring it out.

However, if you want to start again then I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that I completely read you wrong.

Make an argument that addresses the opening post or any point therein and I'll respond with as much substance as I can muster.

 

[moparguy]

Fine, I'm a jackass. Whatever. Happy?

Happy about what?

"winning" to me would at least minimally be worthwhile interaction with the goal of understanding.

If all you want to do is be a cry baby...

So, when you repetitively behave like an abusive hateful jerk, refusing to show any affect in your life of christian charity even for an enemy, and I point this out, I'm being a "cry baby?"

I no longer even know what the heck you said that I responded to and I really am not interested enough to go through the trouble of figuring it out.

If you had bothered to interact decently in the first place it would have never gotten to this point.

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4441058&postcount=258

There you go: the reply I made to your original post in this thread.

 

[Clete]

I am under no compulsion to follow calvin where he is not in line with what God's word, the bible, teaches. I know of literally nobody that follows calvin substantially who think they should follow him and not God where the two differ.

I never suggested otherwise.

This prevailing knee-jerk defensive reaction is telling in that no Calvinist has disagreed with a single one of the quotes I've presented so far. The instinctive defensiveness against a non-Calvinists (me) quoting Calvin himself as an argument against Calvinism, seems to me to indicate an ignorance of just what Calvin taught.

I would love love love for someone to start quoting John Sanders or Greg Boyd in an attempt to undermine Open Theism! That never happens though because it would turn out badly for anyone who attempting it and they know it.

“The devil, and the whole train of the ungodly, are in all directions, held in by the hand of God as with a bridle, so that they can neither conceive any mischief, nor plan what they have conceived, nor how muchsoever they may have planned, move a single finger to perpetrate, unless in so far as he permits, nay unless in so far as he commands, that they are not only bound by his fetters but are even forced to do him service” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 1, Chapter 17, Paragraph 11)

Yes, God is bigger than sin, and turns it to morally good ends.

Any affirmation of Calvin's comment is blasphemy - pure and simple.

Did you even read the quote? It states directly that God commands sin!

Interestingly, it also calls those who "are even forced to" obey God's "commands" the "whole train of the UNGODLY". How can they be ungodly if they are simply doing what God commands and are entirely incapable of doing otherwise?

Your god is an unjust bully who forces others to do evil and then punishes them for it.

Shockingly, God doesn't fit the human-centered box we all want to stuff him in.

The box of reality, you mean. Or is it the box of justice and righteousness that you're refer to? Just which box is it that you think I'm stuffing God into by objecting to this quote from Calvin?

Golly, you could have done better by digging up the luther quotes on the topic.

Don't temp me.

“thieves and murderers, and other evildoers, are instruments of divine providence, being employed by the Lord himself to execute judgments which he has resolved to inflict.” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 1, Chapter 17, Paragraph 5)

Just a repetition of the same topic of the first quote. Same answer.

This one takes my breath away! Pure unadulterated blasphemy in a bottle!

Murders, according to Calvin, are inflicted on the families of thousands upon thousands of murder victims every year by God via murderers who are "employed by the Lord himself to execute judgments which he has resolved to inflict".

So if you get murdered, its because God has judged you and employed a murderer to do his dirty work!

Your god isn't just a bully, he's a gangster!

The God of scripture is the King of Kings, yours is the mob boss of mob bosses!

Are amos 3:6, Isaiah 45:7, Lamentations 3:38, and Micah 1:12 not in the bible? Or do you simply not believe the bible is true, or use principals that require you treat the bible as if it was not true?

Of course they are in the bible and they mean what they say, in context. They do not say what you pretend they say, out of context.

If God had not have created, there could have been no evil; do you think God is not creator?

More blasphemy!

The implication being that creation is a sufficient condition for evil (that's a formal philosophical term, look it up before responding). Creation was a necessary condition but not a sufficient one. There's a gigantic difference.

If God had not have made the angels, there would be no lucifer.

Lucifer was created good and chose to rebel. His rebellion was not caused by God nor was it a logically necessary result of the creation.

If God had not made adam, there would have been no fall.

See above.

I separate it out only to point out each of your blasphemies. Make no mistake, you will give an account for every idle word.

Did God create neither lucifer or Adam?

Both were created along with everything else in six days. At the end of which God declared the whole of creation to be VERY good.

Did God not know there would be evil?

God expected it, yes but there is no reason to believe God knew it in the immutable way your Calvinist brain thinks He did. Lucifer could have done otherwise as could Adam and Eve have done otherwise. God would not have broken in half and cried in the Post Toasties because their righteousness ruined His plan.

If he didn't know, how could have have been right to have created?

This is the sort of stupidity (and yes, I do mean stupidity) that is only possible for the Augustinian mind. By what convoluted, wack job, stupidity do you arrive at the conclusion that unless God knows everything in advance, He can't do anything rightly?

If God knows everything that can be known, and created, than the discussion doesn't evaporate.

God knows everything that can be known that He wants to know. The bible doesn't teach anything else.

One either is bible believing and must deal with the language in a Godly way or introduce positions and principals on the topic that destroy the truth of the bible.

Neither is possible if you're stupid, except by accident.

Everything a Calvinist reads is distorted and twisted. Words mean different things, passages that say one thing mean the opposite. It's a real problem. I'm only half kidding when I say that Calvinism is a mental disorder. You cannot fix stupid except by throwing the whole mess in the trash can and starting over from scratch. A process most would be unwilling to do even if they knew how to start.

God is not responsible for evil for the same reason creation happened and we exist: because he is the definer of WHAT IS.

This is where you start in proclaiming God to be arbitrary....

God says he is not responsible; therefore he is not responsible; because he has said he is not.

Except that you just got through declaring that sin would not exist if God did not create.

I've been recently trying to convince another poster that Calvinists like to have things both ways. This is a terrific example of exactly that. Did you just forget that you had written that there would have been no fall if God hadn't created Adam, or is your mind so compartmentalized that you just don't notice the glaringly self-contradictory statements that you make within moments of each other?

And, just for the record. You're flatly wrong. It isn't that God is innocent of wrong doing because He declares Himself innocent. It's because He hasn't done anything wrong. The reason God is righteous is because He acts rightly.

By his very nature he cannot be wrong.

This is not what the bible teaches, this is what your doctrine requires you to believe.

Jesus was God in the flesh and was tempted in all ways as we are. Your doctrine teaches that Jesus' temptations where nothing at all but an academic exercise, the Bible teaches that Jesus was tempted.

Are Matthew 4:1-11 and Hebrews 4:15 not in the bible? Or do you simply not believe the bible is true, or use principals that require you treat the bible as if it was not true?

God is the definer, man is not. God says we are responsible for the evil we do; for the mere reason that he has said we are responsible, we are responsible, and deserving of punishment.

Blasphemous non-sense! God is a just judge! He is NOT arbitrary! We are responsible not because God merely declared us responsible but because we actually are responsible! The sins we are responsible for are those sins we chose to perform. It is the act of choosing that makes us responsible for those acts. The same works for rewards. To punish or reward someone for an act they did not choose to perform is to make the reward meaningless and makes a mockery of justice. Everything in your being testifies to the truth of this. You know intuitively what justice is and what it is not, or at least you should. If not, your heart is hardened beyond imagining.

God has also told us that he is not evil: therefore, he is not evil. Psalm 136:1 and etc.

More blasphemy!

God is not evil because He has not ever done anything wrong!
How can you not see that your worldview renders it meaningless to call God righteous!

I say it again! Calvinism is a mental disorder!

The Bible teaches that God has not only decreed evil, and that all evil happens exactly according to his plan, but that had God not created, there *could be no evil.*

Three blasphemies in one sentence!

God did not decree evil, God does not always get what He wants and creation was not a sufficient condition for the existence of evil.

Without created moral agents there could be no evil.

Your only possible point being that evil was a logically necessary result of creation. That is flatly not true and there's nothing in the bible that suggests otherwise and if the bible did teach this it would mean that God was evil and would thereby falsify the whole book!

Or do you prefer that evil be bigger than God, that it be ultimately pointless and random, that it not serve the ultimate good?

More mind boggling stupidity that is only possible in the mind of a Augustinian.

By what twisted idiocy do you arrive at the conclusion that if God didn't create evil that evil is somehow bigger than God? How is it that if God didn't meticulously plan out every evil thing that its just wildly out of control randomness? How do you come to a place where evil has to be ultimately good or else God isn't God any more?

Calvinism IS a mental disorder!!!!

Should the murder of millions and millions by governments and societies be ultimately just random out of control not for any ultimate good events, that a nigh-hopeless God is incapable of turning to the ultimate good?

Blasphemies on top of blasphemies as well as continued moronic stupidity.

This question implies that God causes governments to murder millions of people and that such murders are ultimately good because God is doing it.

OUTRAGIOUS!!!!

You will justly burn in an eternal Hell if you do not repent!

That God chooses who will be saved and who will be damned NOT according to the merits of the ones so chosen is purely biblical; Romans 9:11-18.

Romans 9 is speaking about nations. More specifically, the nation of Israel. Romans 9:4-5 & 30-32

Or would you prefer that your loved ones who die unsaved die unsaved because they had a bad pizza just before they had the gospel shared with them?

You literally have the lowest opinion of the power of God I've ever come across.

If your god doesn't have the game fixed, he loses. Unbelievable.

Do you want to be responsible for not sharing the gospel with them in a convincing enough manner?

Better that than blaming my lack of commitment or passion in sharing of the gospel on God!

Do you want God to play favorites and pick people because of some merits in them, when God has clearly indicated that all in adam (romans 5) are by nature sinners (romans 1-3)?

Well Romans has more than one chapter doesn't it?

Read Romans 5 much? Apparently not!

Is Romans 5:18 not in the Bible? Or do you simply not believe the bible is true, or use principals that require you treat the bible as if it was not true?

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[ttruscott]

I have a collection of quotes of John Calvin that I think most Calvinists wouldn't admit to agreeing with, if they agree at all.

...

I am not a Calvinist but these sound good to me...GOD's sovereignty is a fact.

 

[Clete]

I am not a Calvinist but these sound good to me...GOD's sovereignty is a fact.

How can you not be a Calvinist then? I mean, I believe you, I just don't understand exactly. The doctrine is really Augustinian. It made it past the Reformation because Luther was an Augustinian monk who had no issue with these teachings and its called Calvinism because Calvin is the one who formalized the Reformation doctrines into a systematic theology. If you're aren't a Calvinist what are you?

Not that it matters. I'm just curious.

Please define the words 'love' & 'justice' and explain how, in your view, the words applies to God.

Also, how would you reconcile the quotes from Calvin with the statements in your signature line?

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Dialogos]

I would love love love for someone to start quoting John Sanders or Greg Boyd in an attempt to undermine Open Theism!

Ok, how about the following?

Some advocates of the wider hope maintain that some of those who never hear the gospel of Christ may nevertheless attain salvation before they die if they respond in faith to the revelation they do have. . . . Inclusivists believe that appropriation of salvific grace is mediated through general revelation and God's providential workings in human history. Briefly, inclusivists affirm the particularity and finality of salvation only in Christ but deny that knowledge of his work is necessary for salvation.​

(http://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/what-about-those-who-havent-heard

Sanders basically says you don't have to believe in Jesus, you don't even have to know about Jesus, in order to be saved, flatly contradicting Acts 4:12 and Romans 10:17 and seriously undermining the the importance of the gospel in salvation.

Is this what you believe Clete? Does someone need to believe on Jesus to be saved or not?

Interestingly, it also calls those who "are even forced to" obey God's "commands" the "whole train of the UNGODLY". How can they be ungodly if they are simply doing what God commands and are entirely incapable of doing otherwise?

True or false time Clete:

True or False?

1. God commanded the whole train of ungodly Babylonians to exact God's judgment on His chosen people, Israel - causing the deaths and destruction of countless men, women and children and enslaving the rest.

Is this statement true or false Clete?

How about the following?

2. God then turns around and punishes Babylon for the death, destruction wrought against His chosen people, Israel.

True or False?

:think:

I'll save you the trouble...

Both are true.

God summoned Babylon to attack, destroy and enslave Judah (Jeremiah 25:8-11)

God also punishes Babylon for their iniquity in doing exactly what God summoned them to do (Jeremiah 25:12-14)

So now, how does that line up with your criticism of the God of "calvinism?"

Your god is an unjust bully who forces others to do evil and then punishes them for it.

Is God a bully for bringing Babylon to destroy Jerusalem, kill countless Israelite men, women and children, enslaving the rest? Is God unjust for punishing Babylon for doing exactly what God brought them to the gates of Jerusalem to do?

Is that how you read the book of Jeremiah, Clete?

Do you read it like a Marcionite heretic?

Murders, according to Calvin, are inflicted on the families of thousands upon thousands of murder victims every year by God via murderers who are "employed by the Lord himself to execute judgments which he has resolved to inflict".

How many Israelites were murdered by Babylonians during the destruction of Jerusalem?

Are you accusing The Lord of Hosts of being an unjust God for employing Babylon to execute judgment which He had resolved to inflict? Are you calling the One True and Holy God a bully for using Babylon as an instrument of judgment?

Your arguments here are just rants from someone claiming the moral high ground. And I'm sure they look good until they are examined in light of the scriptures. Then they fall apart.

Which is probably why you want to talk about what Calvin said and don't want to talk about what the BIBLE says.

 

[Clete]

Ok, how about the following?

Some advocates of the wider hope maintain that some of those who never hear the gospel of Christ may nevertheless attain salvation before they die if they respond in faith to the revelation they do have. . . . Inclusivists believe that appropriation of salvific grace is mediated through general revelation and God's providential workings in human history. Briefly, inclusivists affirm the particularity and finality of salvation only in Christ but deny that knowledge of his work is necessary for salvation.​

(http://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/what-about-those-who-havent-heard

Sanders basically says you don't have to believe in Jesus, you don't even have to know about Jesus, in order to be saved, flatly contradicting Acts 4:12 and Romans 10:17 and seriously undermining the the importance of the gospel in salvation.

Is this what you believe Clete? Does someone need to believe on Jesus to be saved or not?

I KNEW YOU (or someone of you idiot ilk) WOULD DO THIS!!!

:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

Your quote has NOTHING to do with open theism. It isn't a derivative of Open Theism, it isn't even a logical consequence of Open Theism. It is entirely unrelated and totally irrelevant to the issue of Open Theism.

I, on the other hand, have very specifically avoided quoting Calvin on any topic at all other than what is referred to today as Calvinism. None of which you even deny believing and yet respond to with passionate defensiveness to the point of being blatantly snarky and demeaning.

True or false time Clete:

True or False?

1. God commanded the whole train of ungodly Babylonians to exact God's judgment on His chosen people, Israel - causing the deaths and destruction of countless men, women and children and enslaving the rest.

Is this statement true or false Clete?

How about the following?

2. God then turns around and punishes Babylon for the death, destruction wrought against His chosen people, Israel.

True or False?

:think:

I'll save you the trouble...

Both are true.

God summoned Babylon to attack, destroy and enslave Judah (Jeremiah 25:8-11)

God also punishes Babylon for their iniquity in doing exactly what God summoned them to do (Jeremiah 25:12-14)

So now, how does that line up with your criticism of the God of "calvinism?"


Is God a bully for bringing Babylon to destroy Jerusalem, kill countless Israelite men, women and children, enslaving the rest? Is God unjust for punishing Babylon for doing exactly what God brought them to the gates of Jerusalem to do?

Is that how you read the book of Jeremiah, Clete?

Do you read it like a Marcionite heretic?


How many Israelites were murdered by Babylonians during the destruction of Jerusalem?

Are you accusing The Lord of Hosts of being an unjust God for employing Babylon to execute judgment which He had resolved to inflict? Are you calling the One True and Holy God a bully for using Babylon as an instrument of judgment?

Your arguments here are just rants from someone claiming the moral high ground. And I'm sure they look good until they are examined in light of the scriptures. Then they fall apart.

Which is probably why you want to talk about what Calvin said and don't want to talk about what the BIBLE says.

The entire rest of your post is blasphemy!

Do you think I'm stupid? You must really think I'm a damned idiot! Did you think I wouldn't read Jeremiah 25? It's a chapter which just happens to be included in every bible ever published!

The entire point of this post is to use God's own word to convict Him of being unjust!

That is ALL you need to know to understand that the error here is on YOUR part, not mine and certainly not on God's! You don't even have to read the passage!

Your whole snarky argument isn't that I'm wrong to call Calvin's god unjust, it to say that Calvin was right, God is unjust and that I'd better get on board or else I'm choosing God the Unjust as an enemy!

Did you think you'd call me a heretic and I'd run away? This sort of crap is a big part of why I make a practice of not engaging you. It's better if you think you've won! WAY BETTER!

You're a fool! You're not clever enough to come up with this on your own. Who was the fool that brought this tidbit of stupidity to you to present to me? Did you pick this up in your sixth grade Sunday School class or did you have to ask an adult for a "good" argument? Was it in some fool book you read? Perhaps an article in Christianity Today? They're fond of calling Open Theist's heretics too, you know. Although, they'd never have likened me or anyone remotely associated with Bob Enyart with a heresy that taught the "mean" God of the Old Testament is incompatible with the all forgiving God of the New, as Marcionism taught.

Regardless of which vacuous mind this blasphemy came from, the rebuttal of it (beyond the mere fact that your argument presents God as being unjust) is simple.

Read the 25th chapter of Jeremiah!

It does not say what vapor brains here says it does. The only way to get that out of it is to bring that to it. Which, by the way, is why I've said, perhaps a million times, that it does no good to proof-text with a Calvinist. Their minds do not work! They cannot think, they cannot read and when they try, the words get turned into something other than what they are to everyone else who isn't a Calvinist.

If you think he's made a good argument after reading Jeremiah 25 then there is no hope for you! Your brain has ceased to function. The whole chapter is about God wanting one thing and getting quite another. It talks about God wanting Israel to obey but they don't; about how God is going to making nations "drink a cup of His wrath" and discusses what God will do if they refuse to drink it. The theme of the chapter has to do with nations making choices and the consequences of those choices and how many of those choices make God angry (i.e. the polar opposite of Calvinism).

READ IT!

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

Clete just imploded.

Yuh reckon it's a sin to laugh at his derision.

:shut:

 

[GuySmiley]

Ok, how about the following?

God summoned Babylon to attack, destroy and enslave Judah (Jeremiah 25:8-11)

God also punishes Babylon for their iniquity in doing exactly what God summoned them to do (Jeremiah 25:12-14)

You think the only way God can get this done is by mind control. You have a very little opinion of God. Not to mention that you believe God caused it all in the first place, setting up Israel, then punishing them.

 

[Clete]

Clete just imploded.

Yuh reckon it's a sin to laugh at his derision.

:shut:

Refute my argument then, fool!

Or did you miss the fact that I actually made one?

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

Refute my argument then, fool!

Or did you miss the fact that I actually made one?

LOL, Yer imagination does not constitute fact.

 

[Clete]

You think the only way God can get this done is by mind control. You have a very little opinion of God. Not to mention that you believe God caused it all in the first place, setting up Israel, then punishing them.

Your arguemnt here is well taken but don't concede the point!

God did not do as he suggests in that post! The chapter specifically states that "I [God] will repay them according to their deeds and according to the works of their own hands.)’”

It does not say that God is going to punish them for obeying Him!

IT DOES NOT SAY THAT!!! Please don't respond to this fool as though it does!

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

You think the only way God can get this done is by mind control. You have a very little opinion of God. Not to mention that you believe God caused it all in the first place, setting up Israel, then punishing them.

What is yer explanation of how God got Gentiles to do His will?

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

Your arguemnt here is well taken but don't concede the point!

God did not do as he suggests in that post! The chapter specifically states that "I [God] will repay them according to their deeds and according to the works of their own hands.)’”

It does not say that God is going to punish them for obeying Him!

IT DOES NOT SAY THAT!!! Please don't respond to this fool as though it does!

Easy boy, yer gonna blow a gasket!!!

:BillyBob: