[quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< So, what you’re saying is that all men are inherently evil.
And, because all men are evil, none, no not one, can do good.
Then you are also saying because Jesus is fully man, and no man, no not one, has done good and every man is evil because all men are inherently evil…that Jesus has not done good and is inherently evil. So…that throws a wrench into the Calvinist engine.[/quote]You didn’t learn much at your “Calvinist” Church Chris. And or they didn’t know much. This is your worst post yet. I am sitting here staring at my screen in utter disbelief at the astounding lack of understanding of absolutely anything the reformation in general and Calvin in particular was about.
Unbelievable. Really. Here, read the Institutes, for your own edification. At least have a paltry microscopic understanding of what you’re rejecting huh? http://gregnmary.gotdns.com:8080/forum1/host/Institutes_of_the_Christian_Religion-John_Calvin.pdf Right after your pitiful answer to my question about whether Adam’s sin was mortal or venial (which I waited like 2 weeks for) you mentioned how terribly I’d misrepresented your religion. I asked for a couple examples and that is still the last post in that thread after a few months now.
You can tell me and these fine people whatever you want. I may be off on something sometimes, but I have an infinitely better understanding of your belief system than you do of mine. Read the institutes Chris. I have no illusions. You will hate every word, but at least you’ll have let Calvin speak for himself instead of putting blasphemous words in his mouth. Read his commentaries on Romans and Ephesians sometime too.
You will come away despising the man more than ever, but you WILL respect him. I promise. In my view Aquinas was the worst thing that EVER happened to Rome OR Christendom in general, but I remove my hat and call him sir when I come into his presence. The man was a truly frightening super massive intellect of the first order and I don’t actually believe he had evil intent.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
The doctrines of grace have been around since before creation Elder Forlife. That’s the point. The lamb was slain from the foundation of the world (Revelation 13:8). Why? Because sin was already certain. Why? Because the Father God decreed it. Why? To set the stage for the display of HIS glory in both the judgment OF sin and the triumph of His Son OVER it. His sovereign might is everywhere from Genesis to Revelation and the mother church had Augustine right there telling her, 1600 years ago, but she buried it until God used the great reformers of the 16th century to shed it abroad once more. Oh it never went away and there were flickerings here and there, but at exactly the perfect time in His providence Luther nailed his 95 these on the door of that Cathedral in Wittenburg questioning what had by then become a monstrous bloated waddling caricature of everything Jesus came to save us from.
I do believe you are right about one thing. I did act the pharisee in that post about Pat and yourself. I handled it poorly. God forgive me and I apologize to you both.[/quote]
Apology accepted.
Proposal that predestination reflects traditional Christianity, not accepted.
Only a small minority of Christians believe in predestination, specifically the double predestination that you preach. It is a fringe doctrine associated with Calvin, but is considered heretical by most Christians.
The early Christian church taught conditional predestination, which acknowledges the omniscience of god, while recognizing that god’s grace is freely offered to all who choose to accept it. That is the earliest interpretation of biblical writings, and continues to be the interpretation of most Christians today.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Because sin was already certain. Why? Because the Father God decreed it.[/quote]
You’re going to have a lot of trouble proving that. Especially, with creation being very good and all that before the fall.[/quote]Hey look Jake’s back!! What it is homes?
Trouble proving it he says LOL! I won’t have trouble proving it. It will be utterly IMPOSSIBLE to prove to folks who have as their preeminent first all governing principle the unshakable notion that their own intellect and will reigns supreme in the universe.
Of course all of God’s creation was good. It hadn’t fallen yet. However, in the unsearchable eternal purpose of almighty God, the Lamb was already slain because sin was already certain. Or else why… pray tell, is John, in a book entitled “The apokalypsis” apocalypse, Revelation of Jesus Christ, before ever a man there was, calling Him the Lamb already slain? The entire purpose is to demonstrate that God is in absolute control of absolutely everything including the origin of evil. Notice I didn’t say problem of evil because it IS NO problem for me.
You of course will not buy this. You will hurry me off to a bunch of passages stating the goodness and holiness of God as if I had never before seen such a thing and stand triumphantly pointing at them as if the horrid dragon of God’s sovereignty has been thereby soundly vanquished. I say to you a hearty NAY. You’ve missed a lot unless U wuz lurkin. I need some sleep, but it’s good ta see ya. I dunno how I’m supposed to answer the endless parade of actually useful posts that are directed at me every day.
[/quote]
Christ was slain from the foundation of the world because, in his omniscience, god knew that men would sin and fall short of his glory. The sacrifice of the Lamb was god’s solution to that problem, whereby all men could freely choose to accept his infinite atonement and receive eternal life.
Sorry, but god isn’t the horrid dragon Calvin painted him to be. The dragon, in biblical terms, is a symbol of Satan, not god.
<<<At least have a paltry microscopic understanding of what you’re rejecting huh?>>>
Patent, grotesque lies and falsehoods? I get it.
<<>>
[/quote]
LOL! My ass. You don’t know jack monkey about Catholicism. The truth eludes you. Even when corrected, you persist in believing things not true.
Calvin created his baloney out of thin air… I can make the Bible say what I want it to, too. But that doesn’t mean that’s what the bible is saying. Calvin was pissed at the bible because it didn’t say what he wanted it too, so he just changed it…
[quote]forlife wrote:<<< Don’t tell me what I care about. I care about the truth, period. There may be a god, and that god may even be Jesus, but if he is, the traditional Christians have it right, and Calvin is way off base. Telling people that they are scum and will always be scum, and that no matter what they desire or choose, god will decide their fate, sounds like a bag of lies straight from Satan himself.[/quote]Calvinist ARE the traditional Christians LOL!!! Yer not gittin it. What I believe was the prevailing Christian view in the colonies. Take a peek if you dare, and see what glorious works of the doctrines of grace (TULIP) emanated from the true children of the reformation dwelling therein. LOL!!! I’m not sayin the country itself was Calvinistic, but a very large percentage of the Christians in it certainly were and they had tremendous influence. Even over that thoroughgoing Calvin hating political genius ol Tom Jefferson, who felt compelled to include the very VERY Calvinistic doctrine of PROVIDENCE in the D.O.I… Make no mistake my dear Elder Forlife, that doctrine came straight outta the Westminster Confession of Faith of 1646 wherein the God I have been here proclaiming lo these many months was most exultingly, majestically and ACCURATELY represented and honored for all to see.
Hate if you must, I’d be disappointed if you didn’t, but face the truth. Calvin wasn’t alone either ya know. Luther was first and there was also Farel, Beza, Bullinger and oh yes, my dear brother John Knox among others. Unstoppable warriors in the army of the most high God sent from heaven to free men from that abomination in Rome. Calvin was the most capable and prolific, but definitely not alone.
[/quote]
Jefferson’s idea of providence was definitely not the same as your idea of providence.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Because sin was already certain. Why? Because the Father God decreed it.[/quote]
You’re going to have a lot of trouble proving that. Especially, with creation being very good and all that before the fall.[/quote]Hey look Jake’s back!! What it is homes?
Trouble proving it he says LOL! I won’t have trouble proving it. It will be utterly IMPOSSIBLE to prove to folks who have as their preeminent first all governing principle the unshakable notion that their own intellect and will reigns supreme in the universe.[/quote]
I am not of these folks you describe.
[quote]
Of course all of God’s creation was good. It hadn’t fallen yet. [/quote]
True story.
[quote]
However, in the unsearchable eternal purpose of almighty God, the Lamb was already slain because sin was already certain. Or else why… pray tell, is John, in a book entitled “The apokalypsis” apocalypse, Revelation of Jesus Christ, before ever a man there was, calling Him the Lamb already slain? The entire purpose is to demonstrate that God is in absolute control of absolutely everything including the origin of evil. Notice I didn’t say problem of evil because it IS NO problem for me.[/quote]
I don’t deny the sovreignty of God, but I do deny that He decreed that evil/sin exist. He allowed free will of creatures which did tragically allow sin to exist, but did not write it into existence. Perhaps it is semantics, but it matters to me.
[quote]
You of course will not buy this. You will hurry me off to a bunch of passages stating the goodness and holiness of God as if I had never before seen such a thing and stand triumphantly pointing at them as if the horrid dragon of God’s sovereignty has been thereby soundly vanquished. [/quote]
I will do no such thing.
Not lurkin’ Dissertatin’
But you raise something that I find interesting… About the Lamb already slain… I have no qualms about this and it is interesting to me that you would recognize that Christ’s sacrifice was both in time and outside time. Very Catholic. Does this mean that you don’t think the sacrifice of the mass is a re-sacrifice?
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< So, what you’re saying is that all men are inherently evil.
And, because all men are evil, none, no not one, can do good.
Then you are also saying because Jesus is fully man, and no man, no not one, has done good and every man is evil because all men are inherently evil…that Jesus has not done good and is inherently evil. So…that throws a wrench into the Calvinist engine.[/quote]You didn’t learn much at your “Calvinist” Church Chris. And or they didn’t know much. This is your worst post yet. I am sitting here staring at my screen in utter disbelief at the astounding lack of understanding of absolutely anything the reformation in general and Calvin in particular was about. [/quote]
No, they taught me. But, that’s not what I am showing here, I am trying to figure out your logic and the conclusion of your logic.
So, neglect is defeat? And, I already answered your question about OS.
Never tried to put words in his mouth. I put a conclusion to your statements.
[quote]You will come away despising the man more than ever, but you WILL respect him. I promise. In my view Aquinas was the worst thing that EVER happened to Rome OR Christendom in general, but I remove my hat and call him sir when I come into his presence. The man was a truly frightening super massive intellect of the first order and I don’t actually believe he had evil intent.
[/quote]
Okay. I’ll re-read the Institutes. And, thanks for a link to the institutes.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
The doctrines of grace have been around since before creation Elder Forlife. That’s the point. The lamb was slain from the foundation of the world (Revelation 13:8). Why? Because sin was already certain. Why? Because the Father God decreed it. Why? To set the stage for the display of HIS glory in both the judgment OF sin and the triumph of His Son OVER it. His sovereign might is everywhere from Genesis to Revelation and the mother church had Augustine right there telling her, 1600 years ago, but she buried it until God used the great reformers of the 16th century to shed it abroad once more. Oh it never went away and there were flickerings here and there, but at exactly the perfect time in His providence Luther nailed his 95 these on the door of that Cathedral in Wittenburg questioning what had by then become a monstrous bloated waddling caricature of everything Jesus came to save us from.
I do believe you are right about one thing. I did act the pharisee in that post about Pat and yourself. I handled it poorly. God forgive me and I apologize to you both.[/quote]
Apology accepted.
Proposal that predestination reflects traditional Christianity, not accepted.
Only a small minority of Christians believe in predestination, specifically the double predestination that you preach. It is a fringe doctrine associated with Calvin, but is considered heretical by most Christians.
The early Christian church taught conditional predestination, which acknowledges the omniscience of god, while recognizing that god’s grace is freely offered to all who choose to accept it. That is the earliest interpretation of biblical writings, and continues to be the interpretation of most Christians today.[/quote]
Just so everyone knows, the Catholic Church allows for the belief of Predestination, but not double Predestination as everyone has sufficient grace to be saved.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
The doctrines of grace have been around since before creation Elder Forlife. That’s the point. The lamb was slain from the foundation of the world (Revelation 13:8). Why? Because sin was already certain. Why? Because the Father God decreed it. Why? To set the stage for the display of HIS glory in both the judgment OF sin and the triumph of His Son OVER it. His sovereign might is everywhere from Genesis to Revelation and the mother church had Augustine right there telling her, 1600 years ago, but she buried it until God used the great reformers of the 16th century to shed it abroad once more. Oh it never went away and there were flickerings here and there, but at exactly the perfect time in His providence Luther nailed his 95 these on the door of that Cathedral in Wittenburg questioning what had by then become a monstrous bloated waddling caricature of everything Jesus came to save us from.
I do believe you are right about one thing. I did act the pharisee in that post about Pat and yourself. I handled it poorly. God forgive me and I apologize to you both.[/quote]
Apology accepted.
Proposal that predestination reflects traditional Christianity, not accepted.
Only a small minority of Christians believe in predestination, specifically the double predestination that you preach. It is a fringe doctrine associated with Calvin, but is considered heretical by most Christians.
The early Christian church taught conditional predestination, which acknowledges the omniscience of god, while recognizing that god’s grace is freely offered to all who choose to accept it. That is the earliest interpretation of biblical writings, and continues to be the interpretation of most Christians today.[/quote]
Just so everyone knows, the Catholic Church allows for the belief of Predestination, but not double Predestination as everyone has sufficient grace to be saved.[/quote]
As much as Tiribulus talks about limiting the sovereignty and power of god, you’d think he would realize that double predestination does just that. As if god doesn’t have the power to extend his saving grave to all.
[quote]forlife wrote:<<< As if god doesn’t have the power to extend his saving grave to all.
[/quote]Extending His saving grace to all would have defeated a large component of the purpose of His decreeing sin AND creating at all for that matter. The angels, the demons, all the hosts of heaven and the elect themselves would never appreciate the awesome magnitude of His grace if they were not witnesses to the permanent and unthinkable terror of His wrath.
Listen closely now for the 10,000th time. One drop of the precious blood of the spotless Lamb of God slain from the foundation of the world is sufficient to save trillions of earths populated with sinners. The Father COULD HAVE SAVED EVERYTHING AND EVERYBODY IN THE UNIVERSE TEN TIMES OVER ON THE PAYMENT MADE BY HIS SON. Did ya hear that now? HE CHOSE BY THE EXERCISE OF HIS OWN UTTERLY NON CONTINGENT FREE WILL, THE ONLY BEING WHO HAS ONE, TO SAVE SOME WHEN ALL COULD HAVE BEEN JUSTLY DAMNED. OHHH HALLELUJAH TO THE MERCIFUL GRACIOUS LORD GOD ALMIGHTY!!!. I have bible study now. Be back later. I did not skip anybody on purpose.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
The angels, the demons, all the hosts of heaven and the elect themselves would never appreciate the awesome magnitude of His grace if they were not witnesses to the permanent and unthinkable terror of His wrath.
[/quote]
Are you saying that God committed moral evil so he could show his wrath?
And, I guess Calvin thought he was a direct extension of God’s wrath when it came to Servetus?
[quote]forlife wrote:<<< As if god doesn’t have the power to extend his saving grave to all.
[/quote]Extending His saving grace to all would have defeated a large component of the purpose of His decreeing sin AND creating at all for that matter. The angels, the demons, all the hosts of heaven and the elect themselves would never appreciate the awesome magnitude of His grace if they were not witnesses to the permanent and unthinkable terror of His wrath.
Listen closely now for the 10,000th time. One drop of the precious blood of the spotless Lamb of God slain from the foundation of the world is sufficient to save trillions of earths populated with sinners. The Father COULD HAVE SAVED EVERYTHING AND EVERYBODY IN THE UNIVERSE TEN TIMES OVER ON THE PAYMENT MADE BY HIS SON. Did ya hear that now? HE CHOSE BY THE EXERCISE OF HIS OWN UTTERLY NON CONTINGENT FREE WILL, THE ONLY BEING WHO HAS ONE, TO SAVE SOME WHEN ALL COULD HAVE BEEN JUSTLY DAMNED. OHHH HALLELUJAH TO THE MERCIFUL GRACIOUS LORD GOD ALMIGHTY!!!. I have bible study now. Be back later. I did not skip anybody on purpose.
[/quote]
How are they “justly damned” if God predestined them to be damned?
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< Are you saying that God committed moral evil so he could show his wrath? >>>[/quote]God is incapable of evil because He’s God Chris. HE decides what’s evil. Not Aquinas. [quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< And, I guess Calvin thought he was a direct extension of God’s wrath when it came to Servetus?[/quote] WE HAVE A WINNER BOYS N GIRLS!!! Oh how looooong I’ve been waiting for this one. I even mentioned in a post early last year how there was an apparent prime weapon against Calvin sitting there in front of everybody. This was it. Go ahead n study some more Chris before I comment. If you really want to get into who was burning who at the stake LOL! Articles Archives - Banner of Truth USA
[quote]jakerz96 wrote:<<< But you raise something that I find interesting… About the Lamb already slain… I have no qualms about this and it is interesting to me that you would recognize that Christ’s sacrifice was both in time and outside time. >>> [/quote]EVERYTHING happens both inside and outside of time Jake. By the eternal decree and foreordination of the God who works all things according the purpose of His will (Ephesians 1) [quote]jakerz96 wrote:Very Catholic. [/quote]Very Christian. [quote]jakerz96 wrote:<<< Does this mean that you don’t think the sacrifice of the mass is a re-sacrifice? [/quote]It means I think the mass is an abhorrent act of Satanic worship. I wish I could say it nicer. Protestants once almost universally understood this and went to their deaths in flames for declaring it, among other truths.
Also, it is a plain contradiction to say you believe man ultimately determines his own fate AND you believe in the sovereignty of God. If God REALLY wants somebody in heaven and they go to hell, that person’s will is more sovereign than God’s. No sir, all that the Father gives Him WILL come and of those He will lose none, but will raise them up on the last day.
[quote]super saiyan wrote:<<< How are they “justly damned” if God predestined them to be damned? [/quote]Romans 9:19-23 [quote]19-You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” 20-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 one 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 >>>[/quote]It is actually painful to me watching people “interpret” something this unmistakably clear. No interpretation needed. Paul anticipated your question and His answer is? “Nunna yer bizzniss. Who are you to answer back to God who made you just as He pleased.” Go ahead n butcher… errr I mean read that whole chapter.
I don’t much care that Calvin did what he did, the fact is that Calvinist make a claim that the man that gave them the interpretation didn’t follow. Calvin wanted to be ‘Pope’ he wanted his own Rome, he fiend power. He was disobedient to his Mother, the Church. Moreover, he kept up what his Mother, the Catholic Church, did.
From his actions is seems not as if he thought the Catholic Church was wrong, but Calvin wished that his will be followed instead. Disobedience of the highest order, schism and heresy. There maybe those who are disobedient in the Church, but the Church doesn’t rest on those individuals. Calvin was disobedient, yet Calvinist rest upon Calvin. Big difference.
Keep trying what? Showing that your religion is heretical, illogical, without reason, and deficient in faith? Don’t worry, it’s not hard and pretty easy.
I will be away for a few days fishing, I’ll leave this gem here by an orthodoxy teacher talking on ecumenism.
