Is God Patient With His Decree?

[Silverhair]

@Ben1445 you have to remember that the cal's are saved before they even have faith.

This is a clear example of them trusting in what some man has told them rather than trusting the word of God.

The bible tells us, No faith No salvation.

When you look at scripture you have to wonder why they think they are saved.

 

[Ben1445]

A Calvinist-slayer's work is never done because you'll never succeed in stamping out grace.

We aren’t stamping out grace, we are sharing it with everyone just like we are commanded. Calvinists are the grace slayers limiting who can have it or not.

 

[Silverhair]

A Calvinist-slayer's work is never done because you'll never succeed in stamping out grace.

That's why we keep pointing out your graceless view of salvation.

 

[Ben1445]

I wasn't confusing the terms. I was using both terms to encapsulate both y'all's notions in my argument.

But, if God knows all things before they happen, and still allows them, then a non-deterministic theology is kind of dead theology isn't it? If things happen to you that are not a part of God's will for your life, then trust in God is nothing more than wishful thinking.

Kinduva sad, sorry, little faith you're preaching, don't you think?

It isn’t dead theology. It is the kind that actually shows the longsuffering of God. He knows who will reject Him but he still offers them salvation.
Sad theology is that which forces people into God’s judgment and allows them no repentance. With no opportunity for salvation and resurrection, we would be of all men most miserable.
Sorry faith is one you have no control of. It isn’t faith at all.
Jesus asked the disciples “where is your faith?” If only they had been calvinists. They could have told Jesus that he didn’t give it to them.
.

 

[kyredneck]

I don’t actually find this to be a subject for levity. It’s pretty serious.

How serious? Heaven or hell serious?

 

[Ben1445]

How serious? Heaven of hell serious?

Serious enough to not throw words around as if they don’t mean anything.

 

[Reynolds]

Of course we find fault with a philosophy that comes from pagan roots and tries to pass itself of as Christian. What surprises me is that so many people actually fall for the ruse.

Synergism is what came from pagan roots. Monergism is uniquely Biblical.

 

[Reynolds]

Out of context as always.

Very much in context. You just don’t like what they say.

 

[Silverhair]

Synergism is what came from pagan roots. Monergism is uniquely Biblical.

You need to do more study.

Before Augustine of Hippo (354–430), synergism was almost universally endorsed.

 

[Silverhair]

Very much in context. You just don’t like what they say.

Context does not support the C/R view.

I have no problem with the word of God as I do not have to change the meaning of words or twist scripture to fit a man-made philosophy.

 

[canadyjd]

I have no problem with what the text says. Where we may disagree is the Calvinist's interpretation that the vessels of wrath and mercy were prepared before the they were born.

But the passage says they were.

I wouldn't agree with the Calvinist's interpretation that "longsuffering" is just a figure of speech. God is perfectly capable of demonstrating his glory to the vessels of mercy while having patience with the vessels of wrath, that they may too become vessels of mercy.

But the passage never says the vessels of wrath can because me vessels of mercy or versa vice.

I find no fault in God deciding to elect one nation over another, to bring about spiritual blessings and the coming of the Messiah.

But the passage isn’t talking about electing nations for mercy, it’s speaks of electing individuals for mercy.

The whole purpose of pointing out the “children of Abraham are the children of the promise” is to demonstrate the promises are to individuals not nations.

Peace to you

 

[canadyjd]

. To that, I would answer yes. The Gospel was preached to me and I chose to accept it. That was my experience and it was real.

What was the difference between you, who accepted, and the person who hears and rejects?

Please don’t say, “I accepted and they didn’t”.

Why did you accept and why did they reject?

Edit to Add:

The answer why one accepted and another rejected in found in John 10.

Jess says My sheep hear My voice, I call them by name, and they follow Me.

Notice. “My sheep”. They are His sheep BEFORE He calls them.

Notice. “I call them by name”. This is a specific call to specific sheep.

Notice. “They follow Me”. It’s NOT, some follow Me or many follow Me. Every single sheep that is called follows our Lord.So, according to Jesus, the reason one believes is they already belong to Jesus (My Sheep) and resound to His calling them “by name”.

Jesus tells others, in John 10, why they do not believe.

He says, “You do not believe because you are not of My sheep”

Notice. Jesus does NOT say they are not His sheep because the don’t believe. He says, very plainly, they do not believe because they are not His sheep.

Peace to you

 

[Reynolds]

Context does not support the C/R view.

I have no problem with the word of God as I do not have to change the meaning of words or twist scripture to fit a man-made philosophy.

You keep saying that, but You change many meanings.

 

[Baptizo]

What was the difference between you, who accepted, and the person who hears and rejects?

Please don’t say, “I accepted and they didn’t”.

Why did you accept and why did they reject?

Since Jesus draws all men to Himself through the Gospel message, the only difference is that I did not resist and the other person did.

 

[Silverhair]

You keep saying that, but You change many meanings.

I do not have to change the meaning of the words of God or twist the verses to fit a philosophy as you have to do.

 

[kyredneck]

Please don’t say, “I accepted and they didn’t”.

Lol, well, that's exactly his opinion.

the only difference is that I did not resist and the other person did

 

[Ben1445]

Lol, well, that's exactly his opinion.

Very often, the simple answer is the right one. I know you won’t accept it from me either but, it is the right one.

 

[Silverhair]

Lol, well, that's exactly his opinion.

Strange that you would not know that KY. The bible is clear about it.

Joh 3:18 Whoever believes in Him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe has already been condemned, because he has not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.

 

[kyredneck]

1st Corinthians Chapter 1

26​	For behold your calling, brethren, that not many wise after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:
27​	but God chose the foolish things of the world, that he might put to shame them that are wise; and God chose the weak things of the world, that he might put to shame the things that are strong;
28​	and the base things of the world, and the things that are despised, did God choose, yea and the things that are not, that he might bring to nought the things that are:
29​	that no flesh should glory before God.
30​	But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who was made unto us wisdom from God, and righteousness and sanctification, and redemption:
31​	that, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord. 1 Cor 1

Very often, the simple answer is the right one. I know you won’t accept it from me either but, it is the right one.

The simple answer is of him are ye in Christ Jesus.

...and this is definitely not 'glorying in the Lord'.

I did not resist and the other person did.

A simple question was asked:

Why did you accept and why did they reject?

Are any of you free-willer types going to give credit where credit is due?

 

[Silverhair]

1st Corinthians Chapter 1

26​	For behold your calling, brethren, that not many wise after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:
27​	but God chose the foolish things of the world, that he might put to shame them that are wise; and God chose the weak things of the world, that he might put to shame the things that are strong;
28​	and the base things of the world, and the things that are despised, did God choose, yea and the things that are not, that he might bring to nought the things that are:
29​	that no flesh should glory before God.
30​	But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who was made unto us wisdom from God, and righteousness and sanctification, and redemption:
31​	that, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord. 1 Cor 1

The simple answer is of him are ye in Christ Jesus.

...and this is definitely not 'glorying in the Lord'.


A simple question was asked:



Are any of you free-willer types going to give credit where credit is due?

God chose, the foolish things, the weak things, the lowly and despised things. So what is your point.

Even the foolish, weak, lowly and despised things still had to freely trust in God as He did not force them to did He?

God saves but He only saves those that trust in Him which is clearly shown in scripture.