Jerry Walls wicked and profane question about God

what the hell do you think i mean! How do you expect someone who is brain damaged to respond.....they are entombed in inability. Unless you know something that I dont know.

 

is that Scandlion?

Yes it would be......would save me allot of sleepless nights. But I cant ignore it, I have loved ones who's eternity rests on the answer. And that was one of the reasons Im not an Orthodox Presbyterian today.

so let me get this straight, you would prefer that god did not intervene with your desire to go to hell? Is that correct? Do you believe in Total depravity?

 

Yes, I do think it is.

He drifted some years ago and continues to do so, (imo).

It is unfortunate, and yet not such an uncommon occurrence.

That he embraces a person such as Jerry Walls is further evidence that the downward spiral into ultimate ruin has begun, and sadly he doesn't even know it is happening.

Again, this is merely my opinion, and though it may change in the evidence of further investigation, I don't expect such to occur any more than I expect Leighton Flowers to recant.

Popularity is and has been his god for some time, and he didn't deal with it when he fellowshipped with the "big boys" in Calvinism, and continues to refuse to deal with it in the realms he is currently frothing and floundering.

Popularity must also exist with ultimate personal control over destiny, significance gained by recognition and achievements, and the building of a power base to maintain both the popularity and the control.

He has been from decades ago, caught up in such trappings and snares, and yet has never come to realize the plight and will not until he is devoured.

Again, merely my own opinion, and I would rejoice if such appointments are found to be erroneous.

I remain unable to post further.

 

I would not refer, nor do I look upon, all of God’s creatures as His “children” in order to avoid getting into "issues" (semantic ambiguity distractions) which only serve to deter from the legitimate question of how a Calvinist logically holds to God's unquestionable justice, while I hold to maintaining His Omniscience against rhetorical Calvinist’ arguments of God being a hater and the creator of evil in the common arguments between that of Determinism vs Free Will as it applies to His true judgment, justice and Omniscience along with the logical necessity of holding to His genuine offer of grace to all His creatures in order to avoid Theological Fatalism, which Calvinist often find themselves falling into on this subject.

 

You might want to consider that the logic of Calvinist philosophy always leads into Theology Fatalism despite their futile attempts of injecting compatibility upon logically mutually exclusive principles such as Determinism and Free Will. But good luck with that…

 

You don’t show the conversation I was having with Willis so your interpretation is faulty right from the beginning. Willis believes that the gospel must be taught to anyone prior to salvation as a prerequisite to salvation and I asked him how he would do that to a already dead infant or a brain damaged person. So you are saying an elect child does not have to have the gospel preached to them. I am fine with that. Also then the Presbyterians are doctrinally wrong, right? You don’t have to be a member of their church or jump the Pedo Baptist sacrament garbage right! I’m cool with that. Thanks for the schooling.

Define Calvinism? Presbyterian Calvinism, Dutch Reformed, Reformed?

 

It doesn't matter the learning ability of anyone, whether they be Albert Einstein, Adolf Hitler, Pope Francis, Sigmund Freud, &c. It takes God to enable them to come to Him to begin with.

 

Iconoclast wrote:


“bluejx,


“Hello BX, thanks for your response and clarification.
Most who attempt to object to Calvinism...actually object to a caricature of the teaching most times found on misguided anti cal websites.”


Actually, I don't recall ever visiting an anti cal website. My perception of Calvinism is derived from discussions with Calvinists of varying stripes, hypers, non-hypers, infra & supralapsarian and diehard determinist. Which of these describes your persuasion?


“Here is what we believe the bible teaches...in part-
Chapter 3: Of God's Decree


1. God, from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel
of his own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes
to pass:a yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin,b nor is
violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or con-
tingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.c

Thank for posting the excerpt from the WCF. Although, I think this one partial excerpt suffices for the topic at hand. I personally find it problematic from a logical perspective. But I must admit that has to do with the definitions of the words “decree” and “ordain” along with the concept and extent of the word “predestination”. Perhaps you’d like to take a stab at clarifying their meanings.

From my puely logical perspective if God ordained (in my mind predestined by decree) whatsoever (in my mind all) that comes to pass then the clause, "yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, b nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures;" is incongruous; meaning: if the first clause is true (that He ordained whatsoever comes to pass) the second clause can't be also true.

No justification that I can find is given for the second clause.



Sent from my SM-T580 using Tapatalk

 

But that's where I am uneasy. We see that the saved are saved via the gospel. Now, I agree that babies and those incapable of answering for themselves are still fallen in Adam. So, I am not saying they'll end up in hell, but I am also not swinging the pendulum to the other side and giving them an automatic passage into heaven, either.

I understand the message the 1689 is conveying, but I am not sure that explains it either.

 

[Edited]

 

I’m afraid you fail to recognize that the 1689 LBC you continually reference is merely a philosophical construct involving theories of compatibilism which try to logically justify Deterministic views of the scriptures. And your close and blindly faithful adherence to these writer's philosophical interpretations of the scriptures typically tends to to lead you to beg the question of their, and Calvinisms', accuracy in so far as it seems you put these men's philosophy on an equal footing with scriptural revelation.

 

That is another issue and one that has some validity.

 

Just to point out that they are reformed from catholic dogma and doctrine. If you follow Willis, he could very well be introducing Limbo and Perogation into the discussion and isn’t that a catholic doctrine?

Also the Reformers claim that the they are spinoffs of the Catholic Church thus they are Protestants. They have even written several lovely Confessions of Faith to explain their beliefs in large detail... but I don’t see it following Popes and magistrates although Presbyterians and other Reformed churches have adopted infant baptisms and Covenant theology which I find disturbing on a few levels.