Featured Salvation Is By The Interposition And Mercy Of God Alone

As Augustine and Calvin taught it, yes. All of the omni doctrines are overstatements of the biblical truth.

Of course He can be!

Genesis 6:6-7 "And the LORD was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart. So the LORD said, 'I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth, both man and beast, creeping thing and birds of the air, for I am sorry that I have made them.'"

1 Samuel 15:11 "'I greatly regret that I have set up Saul as king, for he has turned back from following Me, and has not performed My commandments.' And it grieved Samuel, and he cried out to the LORD all night."

Jeremiah 19:5 "They have also built the high places of Baal, to burn their sons with fire for burnt offerings to Baal, which I did not command or speak, nor did it come into My mind."

Exodus 32:14 "So the LORD relented from the harm which He said He would do to His people."

Isaiah 5:3-4 "And now, O inhabitants of Jerusalem and men of Judah, judge, please, between Me and My vineyard. What more could have been done to My vineyard that I have not done in it? Why then, when I expected it to bring forth good grapes, did it bring forth wild grapes?"​

First of all, I do not suggest that God can sin, nor have I said anything here about God lying. However....

I Kings 22:19 Then Micaiah said, “Therefore hear the word of the Lord: I saw the Lord sitting on His throne, and all the host of heaven standing by, on His right hand and on His left. 20 And the Lord said, ‘Who will persuade Ahab to go up, that he may fall at Ramoth Gilead?’ So one spoke in this manner, and another spoke in that manner. 21 Then a spirit came forward and stood before the Lord, and said, ‘I will persuade him.’ 22 The Lord said to him, ‘In what way?’ So he said, ‘I will go out and be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets.’ And the Lord said, ‘You shall persuade him, and also prevail. Go out and do so.’ 23 Therefore look! The Lord has put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these prophets of yours, and the Lord has declared disaster against you.”​

I'm quite aware of the passage. The context has to do with God's righteous character, which is quite immutable.

However, the doctrine of immutability isn't merely about God's character but about is existence, His being and every aspect of it. Augustine and Calvin taught and based their doctrine on the premise that every single aspect of God's existence is absolutely immutable and they both believed that if God were to change AT ALL then He would no longer be perfect and therefore no longer be God.

His character is constant but His mercy is contingent and predicated on justice and does not have to be offered at all and has not always been offered in equal measure at all times. Just ask anyone of Noah's neighbors.

This question always takes me by surprise. I just cannot understand it.

Do you have anyone in your life that you trust? Can your children trust you? Why?

Is God not greater than you?

Matthew 7:11 If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask Him!​

What is it about God being able to change His mind that makes it so that you can't trust Him? What is so off putting about acknowledging something as blatantly and obviously true as that God becoming a human being, suffering and dying and then rising from the dead, being real changes that God underwent for our sake? What is it about the incarnation that would imply that God is untrustworthy? He's existed for an infinitely long period of time and we have the testimony of all three members of the Trinity that each has treated the others with love and respect and affection and all other manner of righteousness for all that time but the testimony of those three witnesses is somehow no sufficient to convince you? You can't bring yourself to trust a God who CHOOSES to do rightly but insist that, if he wants your trust, He must be a stone idol who cannot have an emotion, cannot think a new thought, cannot change His mind and cannot be moved by anyone or anything, including love.

By the way, with this verse you quoted, you've now cited all three of the most commonly used proof-texts that Calvinists typically site (whatever translation you're using is less than terrific but it'll do). Notice that none of them teach the doctrine of immutability. They teach that God is good and that He will always be good and cannot be otherwise. This much is both biblical and not in dispute. It also answers your question!

I have no doubt that this is true but the problem is that their comments aren't illogical. That is to say that are logically consistent with their premises. If you accept their premises, which you clearly do, then you don't get to escape their logical consequences just because you don't like them. Ideas have consequences and if it is our goal to have a rationally consistent worldview then we don't get to cherry pick which truth claims we want to accept and which we don't. It's precept upon precept or else your doctrine is no more sound than if you simply made it up out of whole clothe. You just don't get to have your cake and eat it too.

Calvin was wrong but he wasn't stupid. His doctrine (actually it was Augustine's doctrine. Luther was an Augustinian monk and Calvin just wrote down a "reformed" version of the same doctrine.) was very methodically and logically derived from the Aristotelian understanding of immutability, which goes well beyond simply saying that God's character is unchanging. On the contrary, it is ontological immutability that Augustine, Luther and Calvin believed and upon which Calvinism's distinctive doctrines logically flow from.

 

You are a one liner, waste of band width.

BORING!

 

A

Amen

 

Your own theology has people saved prior to creation. For someone to be saved by Gods' grace would mean that they have met His stated requirement faith in Him. So while I can say I was saved by the grace of God I am not sure how you can claim such considering your theology.

 

So you say but you continue to put forward their talking points.

 

You write a lot to say very little. I do not care what Augustine or Calvin said. The bible shows me all I need to know about God. God regretting something is not Him changing. He has a plan for His creation and it will be carried out through means.

I have seen from some of your posts that you do have a rather high view of yourself.

You can continue to have your low view of God but why would you think others would follow your errant view.

 

You were.

I have actually studied the text and I have presented my authentic interpretation. Rather than rebuttal by snide aside, try challenging the basis of each point upon which you disagree. Then we will see just who is reading into the text!

1) I have posted a thread on the actual contextual meaning of foreknowledge. It actually addresses information acquired or formulated in the past, but being utilized in the present. God had a plan to redeem believers, thus His target group was foreknown (known beforehand) and He had implemented His plan in the present, taking the actions stated.

2) I have posted a thread on the errant translation of "pas" as "all things" as that rips the word out of context and applies to it the "everything imaginable" meaning. Utter nonsense.

I could go on, but what would be the point?

 

Paul said, "Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers" (II Corinthians 6:14a). "Be not carried about with divers and strange doctrines. For it is a good thing that the heart be established with grace...

So I have no desire to interact with erroneous man made doctrine that relies on things not based on grace…of that I’m quite serious.

 

You must have a different bible than I have as I do not see John Gill listed in mine. You should get your theology from scripture not what some man tells you scripture says.

 

I say very little that you care to respond to, you mean.

I didn't say you did. What I said is that those are who your doctrine came from and I also told you where they got it from and it wasn't the bible. Do you care about that?

Every Christian says this and yet they believe that God is arbitrary and that He knows things that even He said He didn't know.

Meaningless.

The Calvinist doctrine of regeneration is the opposite of biblical. They load meaning into the word that the bible doesn't teach and that no one would believe if not for Augustine importing pagan Greek philosophy into the church in the 4th century.

Not myself, per se, just in my own ability to defend what I believe with sound reason and the plain reading of the text of scripture. A skill I have learned over decades of study and practice.

Is it errant because you say so?

What have I claimed that I have not provided biblical evidence for; evidence that you ignore and then show up here to slander and insult me, one single sentence after chiding me about having a high view of myself.

The history of Calvinistic doctrine as I have presented it isn't even in dispute, nor could it be because it's super easy for even a total novice to look up. Calvinists themselves will tell you the history of their doctrine and they're proud to do so. They do not care that the arguments they use proceeded first from the mouth of homosexual Greek philosophers. You don't seem to care about it either and want to stick your head in the sand concerning this undeniably factual history and then talk to me about how all you need is the bible when major aspects of your doctrine do not come from the bible and make God into a stone idol that would break if He so much as lifted a finger because that would be a change and that change would mean that God either hadn't been or now is no longer perfect, as Socrates, Aristotle and Plato taught - NOT THE BIBLE!!!

 

Funny how they think that if they show up and quote someone else stating their doctrine that it counts as some sort of actual argument when its just them finding a way to repeat themselves.

 

Why do you continue to go back to calvinism? Is it the bogeyman that you can not deal with? If you have read many of my posts you will see that I have pointed out the pagan foundation calvinism many times.

What you think re the bible is your choice but it does not impact what I think. You have read the bible to find the view that you hold but that is just your opinion.

You say God is not immutable and I say that He is so we disagree. Here is a quote that I think sums it up quite well:

"The plans of God never change; and all the hope which we can have of heaven is founded on the fact that his purpose is immutable. {does not change}
If He changed his plans; if He was controlled by caprice; if He willed one thing today and another thing tomorrow, who could confide in Him, or who would have any hope of heaven?
No one would know what to expect; and no one could put confidence in Him." Barnes

Yes I know that Barnes was a calvinist but he does express the biblical truth quite well and I think better than I would have.

Gods' plan was always to provide a means for man to be saved Genesis 3:15 and we see this brought to completion in Christ 1 John 2:2 so that the desire of God could be fulfilled 1 Timothy 2:4. Now you may not agree with me and that is your choice but I have no problem in trusting in our unchanging sovereign God.

So I have to ask, why do you question the attributes of God? Which ones do you not agree with?

If I did not think your view was in error then we would be in agreement and thus we would not be having this exchange now would we.

FYI my biblical view did not come from either calvinism or arminianism as I had not heard of them until just a few years ago. They are just mans' way of trying to systematize how God deals with His creation and why / how they are saved.

 

I am not responding to your previous posts. I am responding to what you've written and "The doctrines of Grace" is specifically and explicitly a Calvinist term. If you quack like a duck then don't get offended when someone responds to you as though you've got feathers and webbed feet.

Besides, whether you call yourself a Calvinist or not, the term "Calvinism" is an excellent word to use in reference to the doctrines which you are defending. It is precisely because of silly reactions such as you are displaying here that I often include the term "Augustinian" which covers every single variant of the doctrines, including those held by Catholics, Lutherans, Episcopalians, Baptists and whatever other flavor of the doctrine you care to name. The point is that it doesn't matter what you call it so long as what we're talking about is being communicated.

Is that really what you believe; that everyone's doctrine is nothing more than a collection of their own personal opinions?

That must surely include your own, which is a stunning admission on your part.

First of all, there is no need to alter the font color when posting a link. It changes on it own and when you do it, if forces the person responding to you to go in and undo your change or else their response looks like this.

Barnes was a fool and so are you if you agree with that pathetic line of stupidity. It's nothing at all but a glaring display of the opposite of faith. He is saying that if God had a choice, He'd betray everyone and the only reason He can be trusted is precisely because He has no choice.

Question: What does this mean in regards to God's moral character?

Answer: Blank out.

And so what's your problem with me using the term "Calvinist"?

More importantly, how is it that the pagan foundation of that utterly unbiblical and even blasphemous nonsense doesn't cause you to reject it? Which should be the bigger motivation to reject that doctrine? The pagan origins that you yourself concede and claim to have pointed out to others, or the fact the it removes all meaning of the word "righteous" when applied to God's character? I mean, either one is more than enough! Pick one and run with it!

This argument makes no sense. God does not have to be immutable to have a plan and to succeed in getting it done. On the contrary! If God is immutable then He the arsonist who showed up to put out the fire that He started and then demands a hero's praise for have saved a tiny percentage of the people that He set of fire! What sort of plan is that?

If God is an "unchanging sovereign" God, then He wins the chess game because He predestined all the moves, not because He more clever, more wise or mightier than His enemies but because He's rigged it! Such a god is like the marionette that puts on a scene where the "good guy" wins and then declares to the audience "See what a great god I am! You think that's awesome? Watch this! I can become one of My own puppets and pull my own strings along with everyone else's! Wow! I'm am I the G.O.A.T. or what?!"

It's just completely asinine from start to finish!

The biblical ones!

First and foremost God is living, personal, rational, relational, loving and righteous ('righteous' includes a whole list of other things like faithfulness, patience, justice, etc.) and all perfectly so. These are what I refer to as the qualitative attributes of God, in that they deal with the quality of God's nature. These qualitative attribute do take precedence over what I refer to as the quantitative attributes of God which deal with how big God is, how much power He has, how much God knows, etc. These are where the omni-doctrines come in, and while I have no objection to the use of those terms in general use, their use in regards to debating doctrine lends strongly toward creating a lot of confusion because they are so loaded with meaning that goes well beyond what the bible actually teaches. With that in mind....

God knows everything that is knowable but is not required to know every detail of all existence.
God can do anything that is doable. (i.e. God cannot do the absurd. He cannot make spheres with flat sides, He cannot go to or be in a place does not exist, He cannot justly punish a non-volitional act, etc.)
God is everywhere He wants to be at once.

God is also sovereign but not in the sense you use the word which is a religious (specifically an Augustinian) modification of the word's meaning. God is the highest authority that exists but He has delegated real authority to others and has given them the ability to exercise that authority to make real decisions that have real consequences that God Himself can and does deal with as they happen. Being sovereign, He is, of course, able to recall any delegated authority at His sole discretion.

Psalm 89:14 Righteousness and justice are the foundation of your throne...​

There are volumes more that could be stated in answer to your question but that'll do for now. If you can refute a syllable of it, I'll hear it gladly!

Shall I start calling you Capt. Obvious?

This is just such a pathetic thing that Calvinists constantly say to me! It is almost always a lie and when it isn't, it just displays the weakest ability to think that I can imagine. It doesn't matter whether you believe in Calvinism because you read Calvin. The fact is that whoever taught it to you got it from Calvin or whoever taught to that person got it from Calvin. The source is still Calvin (and Augustine before him and Aristotle before him) regardless of how many generations of theologians it to took to get it to your ears.

Your argument is like standing in my yard while I'm watering the grass and then denying you got wet with tap water because the water that got you wet fell from 30 feet in the air. Never mind the fact that it was up there because it had been sprayed from my lawn sprinkler that was attached to a hose which was in turn attached to plumbing in my house.

It isn't the motive that's the problem, it's the premises from which they proceed to take on that task. Their premise is a false pagan Greek philosophical idea, not a biblical one.

 

I only had to read the first few lines to see that you are so misinformed that it is beyond belief. The doctrines that I am defending are not calvinist but they are biblical. You do not seem to understand the difference. You should spend more time in bible study since you do not understand what Gods' attributes are.

You continue to give your opinion and that is your right but we do not have to accept your views.

I am surprised that you would condemn me for reading calvin since you must also read him if you say I do. Further to that do you not think it is a good idea to understand what the other person thinks if you are going to argue with them. I have also read some of the Quarn, does that make me a muslim? What about the NWT does that make me a JW or the doctrine & covenants and pearl of great price am I now a mormon?

Your logic is flawed.

 

I'd bet my house that you won't event make any attempt whatsoever to prove this nonsense. I've only been debating this specific issue since the 1990s.

I have little doubt that you believe this but it isn't true. Their origin is neither biblical nor rational. In fact, so much so that the history of these doctrines are not even in dispute. Even those who, unlike yourself, aren't scared of the label "Calvinist" and, in fact, wear that label proudly, do not dispute their clear and well documented history. In fact, many go beyond not disputing it, they embrace it; they're proud of it.

I have answered your direct questions with direct answers. This idiotic website has limits on the length of each post to the point that I had to split what I did write into to posts just to get it onto the forum. There is neither time, space, necessity nor even a rational desire for me establish every point I bring up as I bring them up. If there is a particular point you feel like I need to prove then ask me to do it and, unlike you, I will not squirm out of it or shy away from it or pretend like I've already done or merely restate my doctrine as thought that counts as an argument as is almost universally the case around here.

You can't refute a single syllable of what I've already presented, nor will you even try to do so! Instead, you'll just continue to show up to tell me that I don't know what I'm talking about and go away feeling like you've proven your case.

I dare you to prove me wrong.

When did I ever condemn you for reading Calvin? That doesn't even make any sense!

Of course! I've read nearly every word Calvin ever wrote! (Drudgery in the extreme, by the way.) I've read book after book and listened (and read) probably hundreds of sermons, debated hundreds of Calvinists on I don't know how many web forums. I've kicked out of two Sunday school class for quoting bible verses that the teacher couldn't give an answer to, etc, etc, etc. All without a single syllable of my doctrine ever one time being presented with even a descent counter argument, never mind an actual refutation. The vast majority do not even make any attempt to refute it because they know they cannot do it. You will be no different.

It isn't my logic that is flawed, it is your reading comprehension. I never even suggested that you're a Calvinist for having read Calvin, much less condemned you for having done so. You're a Calvinist because you believe in doctrines that distinguish Calvinism from other systems of theology.

 

You are funny. You have denied scripture and continue to do so. You said you have been kicked out of studies, I can understand why.

I believe doctrines because they are biblical. You just cannot or rather will not accept the truth. If you will not accept what the bible says then that is on you.

 

Saying it doesn't make it so. Your doctrine is not the equivalent of scripture by virtue of the fact that you believe it.

You'd be one of the first to do it!

I dare you to actually make an actual argument Silverhair!

Yeah, so do I. You make that claim, I make that claim, David Koresh and Jim Jones made that claim. Paul Crouch makes that claim and so do all the dozens of idiots that all teach contradictory nonsense on his "christian" television network.

Guess what?

Saying it doesn't make it so!

Taking the bible to mean what it plainly states is a major hallmark of my doctrinal system. It is the scripture plainly read and sound reason and NOTHING else.

If you can refute a single syllable of my doctrine, I'll hear it gladly!

You won't even try though, will you? You're content to sit there and post three sentences at a time making completely baseless accusations and pretending like you've said something substantive. What would make anyone want to spend their time doing such a thing, I'll never understand.

I said it once, I'll say it again....

I dare you to make an actual argument. If my doctrine is so poor, then prove it. Make an argument rather than an accusation. One thing I can guarantee you is that, so long as you're honest, it won't be boring, whether either of us is convinced of anything or not.

 

If you took the scriptures as they are plainly written then we would not be having this discussion. You talk a big game but you have yet to prove any of your claims. All I have to do is tell you to trust what the bible actually says not what you want it to say.

 

That's my line!

I have directly responded to your own questions. You, on the other hand have offered nothing at all of any substance whatsoever. Guess what, Silverhair, I am not wrong just because you showed up here to say so!

I do not have time to prove every point I make as I make it and no one, including you, would read it if I did! You've not told me any specific thing that you are claiming is unbiblical and I'm not going to start trying to read your mind and begin a guessing game trying to figure out just what it is you want me to prove.

Why don't you do something that's actually interesting and challenge something SPECIFIC?