Featured God's Children Are Redeemed Because They Are His Children

So your stance is that Calvinist doctrine is sending people to hell, which if extrapolated means you're saying that the several Calvinists on this site are not saved, which is strictly against BB rules.

Dude, you need to tone down the chutzpah.

 

Was this supposed to be some sort of argument or are you just being a jerk.

I spent some considerable amount time writing a rather detailed biblical argument. Either respond directly to it or admit that you cannot.

NO! Not with the real God! The god of Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Augustine, Luther and Calvin, YES!

Well, that's something of a figure of speech actually because no such god actually exists. If the god of Socrates actually existed, then he would most definitely be unrighteous. That's the main point that falsifies Calvinism.

God is just, therefore, Calvinism is false.

This point has already been directly refuted. You repeating the point does not count as a rebuttal.

I did not bring up Romans 9. KenH did that. I simply proved biblically that he and now you have no idea what you're talking about.

If it were a poor argument you'd refute it. The fact that you ignore it proves that you don't have a leg to stand on.

Actually, yes I absolutely have! The entire thread is still here for the whole world to read! The fact that you want to close your heads, bury your head in the sand and pretend like its not there, doesn't make it actually go away.

How about instead of this MINDLESS waste of everyone's time, you just read the post I made and respond to it with some sort of substantive response? Wouldn't that be more interesting than pretending like I've said nothing and hoping that no one will notice otherwise?

 

I DO NOT believe you!

What I've presented is NOT Pelagianism. If you were as familiar with it as you claim, you'd have never even brought it up.

Is wasn't God who did this to you. God is just, therefore Calvinism is false. God is not in the business of sullying His own reputation.

quote]So I am quite aware of what is taught in false gospels about another Jesus other than Jesus Christ, the Son of God, proclaimed in the gospel of Christ proclaimed in God's Word.[/quote]
I've never suggested a syllable of any doctrine that denies that Jesus Christ is God the Son become flesh and Who willingly died for sin that those who believe on Him will be saved. (John 3:36)

What you don't believe in is using your own mind. You prefer to use surrogate brains because you're too lazy to think for yourself.

What do you mean, "might read"?

How do you hold to a doctrine that your every day life contradicts at every turn? You cannnot even speak the language without tacitly contradicting your doctrine.

No you are not the clay, as I have already demonstrated. Israel was the clay in Romans 9. You certainly are not Israel nor are you even a member of the Nation of Israel. (Galatians 3:28)

 

No.

CJP69:
Is there unrighteousness with God?

Holy Spirit through Paul:
God forbid. For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.

 

CJP69:
Why doth he still find fault? For who withstandeth his will?

Holy Spirit through Paul:
Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why didst thou make me thus?

 

No. You totally missed the point completely.

There are millions upon millions of unbelievers who hear Calvinist doctrine and other doctrines like it (i.e. Augustinianism in general whether it be Catholic, Calvinist or even Arminian) and understand intuitively that such a god is simply ridiculous and it can't possibly be real. They then connect Calvinism (or whatever label it has) with the whole of Christianity and actual biblical teaching and reject not just God but Jesus Christ and the whole of the Christian faith as obviously made up nonsense. People, by the billions, have died and gone to Hell because of Calvin's false teaching.

On the other hand, most Calvinists happen to believe just enough of the correct doctrines that they will indeed be saved but as if by the skin of their teeth.

In short, I don't really care what else you happen to get wrong, if you get the following doctrines correct then God's grace is sufficient to cover the erroneous parts of your doctrine....

• God exists and is the Creator of all things and He is perfect, holy, and just.
• We, having willfully done evil things and rebelled against God, who gave us life, deserve death.
• Because God loves us, He provided for Himself a propitiation (an atoning sacrifice) by becoming a man whom we call Jesus Christ.
• Jesus, being the Creator God Himself and therefore innocent of any sin, willingly bore the sins of the world and died on our behalf.
• Jesus rose from the dead.
• If you confess with you mouth, the Lord Jesus Christ (i.e. openly acknowledge your need of a savior and that He is that Savior) and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, YOU WILL BE SAVED.

Those points make up what I refer to as the gospel proper and comprise what seems to me to be the biblical minimum doctrines one must hold to be saved and if you do hold them, you will in fact be saved.

 

You're just repeating yourself. You are quoting scripture not Calvinist doctrine. It is scripture that informs us of God's righteous character and thus disproves doctrines such as the following....

“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)

"I admit that in this miserable condition wherein men are now bound, all of Adam's children have fallen by God's will...
...Nor ought it to seem absurd when I say, that God not only foresaw the fall of the first man, and in him the ruin of his posterity; but also at his own pleasure arranged it. (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 23)​

Do you deny believing these things? No, of course you don't! Thus, you give God's righteous character mere lip service while actually teaching that He is unjust while I reject your doctrine outright on the basis of God's righteous character, which the best you can do in response to is to quote the very scripture that testifies against your doctrine!

If it weren't so tragically deplorable, it would be funny!

 

@CJP69 you should seek help for your narcissism. I'm not sure what you think your 'mission' here is on the BB but if it is to 'win' over others to your view you really need to drop the crass antagonistic approach. All your complaints against God's sovereign grace are answered in Ro 9, but you simply cannot accept it, as is the case with all 'anti-Cals'. There's nothing new about you.

 

You should keep reading Ro 9:1-24 over and over until you 'get it'.

 

Says the guy who ignores the completely biblical arguments make to the guy who made them.

There is no antogonism. I responded directly to what KenH said with a completely dispassionate and entirely biblical response that directly refuted the precise point that he and now you are making in regards to Romans 9.

The only antogonism that exists on my part is in response to that work being completely ignored by the both of you. Is completely wasting someone's time what you consider to be a great way to project your winning personality? Is showing up on a nearly anonymous web forum and repeating yourself endlessly while ignoring every word stated in opposition to your position what you think is supposed to and to "'win' over others to your view"?

If I'm so blasé, why don't you just prove me wrong by showing the errors in the argument I've made?
It's because you can't do it! If you could, all the wild stallions in the world couldn't pull you far or fast enough from your keyboard to prevent you from doing it here. You'd give your eye teeth for any chance to show me to be the fool you think I am.

Further, and more importantly, I have made a rather detailed argument that this mindlessly repeated point of yours is false and you have nothing at all to refute that argument with except to simply show up and repeat yourself. Is this what you find convincing? If I emulate you and do nothing at all but proclaim my doctrine and ignore every argument (not that you make actual arguments but for the sake of making this point...) you make and instead of responding to what you've said, simply repeat myself as you do.

Would that, in your view, have a better or worse chance of convincing people?

That's a real question! I'd almost bet my house that you'll never answer it.

 

I have responded to it directly already. Your ignoring it doesn't count as a rebuttal.

 

I see.

Harvard stopped being anything similar to a Christian school over a century ago. You certainly didn't get a "Pelagian" education from that institution.

Okay, so what does that have to do with my argument regarding the content of Romans 9? I am not a member, nor have I ever been a member of a Church of Christ nor is my doctrine in anyway related to the Church of Christ except for where the two doctrines overlap (e.g. the normal Christian doctrines that virtually all Christian accept like the deity of Christ, the death and bodily resurrection of Christ, etc.).
Member of that sect of the Christian faith may or may not agree with what I've said about Romans 9 but whether they do or not, has nothing whatsoever to do with Pelagianism nor the rest of their distinctive doctrines. It would be an accidental agreement if one existed at all.

In other words, why bring it up in the first place?

 

A rose by any other name is still a rose, Ken. It doesn't matter what you call it. The reason the doctrine exists is because of Calvin and because of Augustine before him and because of Plato before him and because of Socrates before him. The history of the doctrine is quite clearly and irrefutably established to the point that is it not in dispute even by the most educated and prolifically published Calvinist theologians. Indeed, they are proud of the history and often repeat the exact same arguments that Aristotle makes in the writings of Plato.

In other words, it's ancient Greek philosophy that is read into scripture! You simply cannot get it out the bible itself - by itself. You have to bring Aristotle's theology proper with you to the reading of the bible to get anything that resembles Calvin's doctrine whether you call it Calvinism or not.

 

Okay, so here's the deal. I'm not really interested in the "rinse and repeat" that this thread is on at the moment. It's less than engaging, it's positively boring. Therefore, what I'm going to do is repost my argument, which I've avoided doing up till now precisely because I hate repeating myself! But since all I'm doing is repeating myself endlessly anyway, I thought it would at least be better to repeat the actual argument.

If someone wants to address the argument, great! I'll respond with enthusiasm and substance. If not, I'll chock it up to just one more instance where the Calvinists I've encountered are paper tigers who don't know what to do when confronted with someone who actually knows what he's talking about.

Alright, here we go....


The ninth chapter of Romans is speaking about the cutting off of Israel. It is quite clear that Paul is making a case that God cut off Israel and turned instead to the gentiles, and that God is justified in having done so. It will become equally clear that this is all that the chapter is about, and that it has nothing to do with predestination at all.

It helps to see it if one looks at the introduction and summation of the chapter. In the first few verses it is clear that Paul is speaking of Israel and that he is upset by their condition of unbelief...

Romans 9:1 I tell the truth in Christ, I am not lying, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Spirit, 2 that I have great sorrow and continual grief in my heart. 3 For I could wish that I myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my countrymen according to the flesh, 4 who are Israelites, to whom pertain the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the service of God, and the promises; 5 of whom are the fathers and from whom, according to the flesh, Christ came, who is over all, the eternally blessed God. Amen.​

And then in the last few verses Paul sums up the point of what he's just been saying in the previous several verses...

Romans 9:30 What shall we say then? That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness of faith; 31 but Israel, pursuing the law of righteousness, has not attained to the law of righteousness. 32 Why? Because they did not seek it by faith, but as it were, by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumbling stone. 33 As it is written:
"Behold, I lay in Zion a stumbling stone and rock of offense,
And whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame."​

Now, that by itself is probably enough to make it clear what Paul is talking about but what really nails it down is his reference in the body of the chapter to a couple of Old Testament passages, those being Jacob and Esau and then the Potter and the clay story.

It's always a good idea to read any Old Testament passage that is quoted or made reference to in the New, in order to maintain the context of what's being said. (Remember the whole "Bible interpreting the Bible" thing.) So let's take a look at them so that we can be on the same page that Paul was on when he made these references. Doing so will undoubtedly shed additional light on the point he was making.

Romans 9:13 As it is written, "Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated."​

This is a direct quote from Malachi 1:2-3 but even the Malachi passage is not referencing the two boys themselves but the nations which came from them. I won't bother quoting it here but even a surface reading of Malachi 1 will confirm that it is talking about a nation not a person.
Likewise, Paul is talking also about a nation. We can tell this for certain because of what is quoted just before in verse 12...

Romans 9:12 "it was said to her, "The older shall serve the younger.""​

This is a direct quote from Genesis chapter 25 where it says explicitly that there are two nations in Rebecca's womb...

Genesis 25:23 "And the LORD said to her: "Two nations are in your womb, Two peoples shall be separated from your body; One people shall be stronger than the other, And the older shall serve the younger."​

Additionally, even if it didn't explicitly state that it's talking about two nations we could still know for certain that it is anyway because Esau (the older) never served Jacob (the younger). That did not happen, ever.

This passage is very clearly talking about nations and about how God deals with nations not about individuals or how God deals with individuals and Paul by referencing this material was making the exact same point. That's the reason why he referenced it.

Now let's move on to the Potter and the clay story. It is on the same topic and is found in Jeremiah chapter 18...

Jeremiah 18:1The word which came to Jeremiah from the LORD, saying: 2 "Arise and go down to the potter's house, and there I will cause you to hear My words." 3 Then I went down to the potter's house, and there he was, making something at the wheel. 4 And the vessel that he made of clay was marred in the hand of the potter; so he made it again into another vessel, as it seemed good to the potter to make.
5 Then the word of the LORD came to me, saying: 6 "O house of Israel, can I not do with you as this potter?" says the LORD. "Look, as the clay is in the potter's hand, so are you in My hand, O house of Israel! 7 The instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, to pull down, and to destroy it, 8 if that nation against whom I have spoken turns from its evil, I will relent of the disaster that I thought to bring upon it. 9 And the instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it, 10 if it does evil in My sight so that it does not obey My voice, then I will relent concerning the good with which I said I would benefit it.​

Okay, that couldn't be any clearer! Jeremiah was making the very point that Paul is making! No wonder Paul referenced this passage, it applies directly to the subject he was dealing with! It IS the subject he was dealing with! Romans 9 and Jeremiah 18 are making the exact same point; they both use the same analogy for the same reasons. For all intent and purposes Romans 9 and Jeremiah 18 are the exact same chapter! The only difference is that in Romans 9 Paul is saying that the principle described in Jeremiah 18 has been carried out by God on the nation of Israel.

Romans 9 is not about predestination at all. Paul didn't start talking about Israel and then suddenly change the subject to predestination and then just as suddenly change the subject back again to Israel. The whole chapter is on one issue and one issue only. That issue being God's absolute right to change His mind concerning His blessing of a nation that had done evil in His sight.

It's no more complicated than that. In a nutshell, Paul was simply saying that Israel's promised kingdom wasn't coming because they had rejected the King and Romans 9 is all about how God was justified in having changed His mind about giving them that kingdom. That's all it's about; nothing more, nothing less.