Featured Two Thoughts

Original thread.

I get a kick out of some of these threads. Don't you realize that you came at this with a preconceived theology of your own? You started a thread that began with the premise that the "unforgivable sin" has to be simple unbelief - all the while ignoring clear scriptures that indicate it to be something far more. You tried to dovetail that into your theology of a universal atonement, "Jesus left no sin unpaid when he died for all people's sins". And now you have judged the reformers and apparently they have come up short. This from a guy who has another current thread where you changed your theology. I keep forgetting that we do live in the age of self-esteem.

 

Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is not the same as simple unbelief. And "the reformers" takes in a huge range of people, some of which were not Calvinists. You can even find articles asking if Calvin was a Calvinist. A large part of theology involves people trying to take the teachings of scripture and fit them into a "system" of belief that they can grasp. It won't be perfect. I agree that the reformers were flawed, sometimes deeply, but I tell you, you will miss out on some of the best writing on things pertaining to God and living a Christian life if you dismiss them out of hand.

 

Yes. That should be a clue.

 

See. This is what I mean. So you reject a whole system of theology - when theologians from that very system from old times to modern times could have helped you greatly. Would it help if I told you that John Owen, the Puritan, Tom Schreiner, a modern reformed theologian, and Calvin himself all say or said that your being afraid that you committed the unpardonable sin was the best indication that you have NOT done so? Yet your answer is to reject a whole system.

 

Clemens Romanus. A.D. 69.
Clement of Rome, lived in the times of the apostles, and is, by Clement of Alexandria, called an apostle. He is thought by someto be the same Clement the apostle Paul speaks of, in Philippians4:3, as one of his fellow-laborers. He wrote an epistle in the name
of the church at Rome to the church at Corinth, about the year 69,
which is the earliest piece of antiquity next to the writings of the apostles extant, being written when some of them were living,
even before the apostle John wrote his Epistles, and the book of the Revelation, and while the temple at Jerusalem was yet standing. In this epistle are several things relating to the doctrine of election, and which greatly serve to confirm it.

For,
1. Agreeable to the apostolic doctrine, that God worketh all things after the council of his own will (Eph. 1:11), that his purposes shall stand, and that whatsoever he has determined shall come to
pass, Clement affirms, that "when he wills, and as he wills, he does all things;" kai ouden mh tarelqh twn dedogmatwmenwn up
autou, and that "none of those things which are decreed by him, shall pass away," or be unaccomplished: which shows his sense
of the dependency of all things upon the will of God, and of the immutability of his decrees in general.

2. He not only frequently makes mention of persons under the character of the elect of God, but also intimates, that there is a certain, special, and peculiar number of them fixed by him.

Speaking of the schism and sedition in the church at Corinth, he represents it as what was "very unbecoming, and should be far from toiv eklektoiv tou Qeou, the elect of God."

And elsewhere having cited Psalm 18:26, he says, "Let us therefore join ourselves to the innocent and righteous, for eisin outoi eklektoi
tou Qeou, they are the elect of God;" that is, they appear to be so,

 

The sheep and goats, wheat and tares are the final states. Tares don't turn to wheat and the goats don't turn into sheep.

 

Well, in the video there, Schreiner uses scripture constantly. The article in an earlier post from Calvin's Institutes uses scripture constantly. Puritan writings never go more than 2 sentences without presenting scripture. I find it strange, the theme that runs through this forum that some of the non Calvinists take. Namely; that Calvinist's rely on theology instead of scripture. What I have found in reality is that there is very little written at all by non Calvinists. That is because there are hardly any non Calvinist theologians and hardly any non Calvinists in the pews who want to talk about such things. The reason I lean toward Calvinism (I am not totally convinced of all aspects of it), is that all of the good literature that has helped me for real in my actual Christian life, has been written by Calvinists. I don't think there are many exceptions except for Richard Baxter and Wesley and Thomas Kempis.

 

No; they've been in the 'torments' area of HADES. They won't be in gehenna (hell) til after the Great White Throne judgment.

 

These descriptions are of Saved people, who were once, "ungodly", "sinners", "without strength", "Totally Depraved", dead in trespasses and sins.

 

The "theological box" that I am in is called the Bible, the Word of God. By God's grace I will stay in that "theological box".

 

My comprehension skills have nothing to do with your unbelief of the gospel of Christ.

 

They are that way in this life as well.

 

All works are already ordained by God. We cannot take any credit for them whatsoever.

Ephesians 2:10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

Philippians 2:13 For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure. (emphasis mine)

"Our choices and actions remain under God's control after regeneration. Therefore, although a person is conscious of his efforts and struggles in sanctification, in the end God receives the honor, and the Christian still has no basis to boast of his achievements." - Vincent Cheung, Systematic Theology