Quick-and-Dirty Calvinism

[rc]

Bob,

Don't use a "reformed" slogan that was made for the refutation or Arminianism "Sola Scriptura", it shows you don't know your history.

 

[johnp.]

Hello Bob.

I assume you also know that "election by genetics" was never a principle of Calvinism.

I suppose that's why Calvin baptised babies, because he didn't think they were safe? Yea! Cause this comes just before your, "Ahhhh - the old "Calvinist SHELL GAME"!!" You only fool yourself that you know what you are talking about.

Calvin believed baptism was the replacement for circumcision did he not? Yes or no will do not war and peace dear sir.

You are representing Heaven as some eternal wake! Mourning in Heaven is ... what? ... what? HaHa! And this is the best the Old Boy could cobble together is it? A miserable universe forever! Black will be in I take it?
What happened to strawberries and cream and happy ever after don't you like the concept Bob?
I echo here now, "Doesn't sound like Heaven to me Bob." You sure?

Eze 37:25 They will live in the land I gave to my servant Jacob, the land where your fathers lived. They and their children and their children's children will live there forever, and David my servant will be their prince forever.
My children and theirs are promised to me by God. That's Calvinism I think but it's definitely scripture.

There were some notable exceptions to this though. In one of those cases the father's reply to God when he heard the news that his sons were going to Hell was, "1 Sam 3:18 ... "He is the LORD; let him do what is good in his eyes."
Cold heartless Calvinist as he was that Eli. Might be he can take night classes to learn how to wring his hands while his sons grind their teeth!

I accept the Bible saying we are ever WITH Christ and that means really IN His presence.

A bit of an odd picture came to me of millions upon millions of Christians piling in on top of Jesus! He is a man you know. He can only ever be in one place at one time. We are in His presence now.


john.

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by rc:
Bob,
Your theology and exegesis misleads your understanding of Rev. 14
The End of the Wicked Contemplated

In your link we find this quote

SECTION 1.
(When the saints in glory shall see the wrath of God executed on ungodly men, it will be no occasion of grief to them, but of rejoicing.)

It is not only the sight of God's wrath executed on those wicked men who are of the antichristian church, which will be occasion of rejoicing to the saints in glory; but also the sight of the destruction of all God's enemies: whether they have been the followers of antichrist or not, that alters not the case, if they have been the enemies of God, and of Jesus Christ. All wicked men will at last be destroyed together, as being united in the same cause and interest, as being all of Satan's army. They will all stand together at the day of judgment, as being all of the same company.

Hardsheller and I both AGREED that saintly parents OBSERVING what Edwards is SAYING they observe (and what the DETAILS of Bible texts SHOW they observe) -- would be in horrible shock!

So I am being condemned by Hardsheller NOT for saying that OBSERVING that scene - the parents are in shock - rather I am being condemned for saying that the parents OBSERVE what Edwards SAYS they observe and what the Bible shows them to observe!!

(That is Hardsheller's objection to my post. And he claims that I AM THE ONLY ONE saying that the saints SEE the wicked tormented IN the presence of the LAMB!!!!)

He also seems to object to the idea that the saints become MORE LIKE the god they worship - but rather "supposes" that God is zapping parent's brains and then "doing this to the children behind their backs". I have no idea where he gets that from
---------------------------


You on the other hand make my point in triplicate as I point out that Calvinism NEEDS the luxury of cold heartless disconcern (in fact even DEMANDS it as you point out!)

Posts well appreciated sir.

Your point above objecting to 1Cor 13 stating that the SAINTS HERE on earth are to love everyone and Love MORE -- and then in Heaven to CONTINUE to LOVE even MORE... is perfectly understandable given the cold heartless disconcern that is needed. As you point out - you doubt the parents will love their children AT ALL in heaven let alone MORE if their child is not one of those arbitrarily selected as "ELECT".

(And hence my roaster scenario is published).

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by johnp.:
Hello Bob.
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />I assume you also know that "election by genetics" was never a principle of Calvinism.

I suppose that's why Calvin baptised babies,
</font>[/QUOTE]Is this where you actually QUOTE some Calvinist here or John Calvin himself as saying "ELECTION is determined by genetics"????

Because if it is - you will finally have "a point" to go with your argument.

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by rc:
Bob,

Don't use a "reformed" slogan that was made for the refutation or Arminianism "Sola Scriptura", it shows you don't know your history.

Huh?? You NOW object to Sola Scriptura being used to insist on paying ATTENTION to the Bible rather than glossing over the details of texts??!!!

I think I have seen it all now.

Calvnists have a defend-calvinism-at-all-costs policy that truly holds nothing sacred!!

Amazing!!

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

RC said --
We are to love the wicked NOW, but things will be different in heaven.

OK so a parent READS 1 Cor 13 and LOVES their precious little girl NOW... But 1 Cor 13 is predicting "The END OF THAT LOVE" once we get to heaven because THEN (as you have argued) we will be even MORE LIKE GOD than we are now!!

(BTW - I never saw you vote in favor of "Election determined by Genetics" - )

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

RC said --
As for seeing our own ... it DOES NOT SAY that, so where scripture is silent so should we.

We will GLORY in the judgement of God over those He hates Rev 19 Rev 16:5-7 . Our spirit will not be contrary to God's. We will be rejoicing in Him for ALL that He is, holy. The love for the loved and the hate for the hated.

Truly a conflicted post arguing we APPROVE and even ENJOY their torment but of course "not allowed to see certain people in hell" JUST everybody else for whom we CAN afford the luxury of heartless cold disconcern for their writhing in torment and agony??

WHy so reluctant RC - you yourself said "I doubt we will even love them at all" once we get to heaven and they are in hell. You are truly "conflicted" in your positions.

Notice that in your OWN link there is NO such family EXCLUSION -- JUST Joy "Like God" in watching your precious one being tormented.

SECTION 1.
(When the saints in glory shall see the wrath of God executed on ungodly men, it will be no occasion of grief to them, but of rejoicing.)
It is not only the sight of God's wrath executed on those wicked men who are of the antichristian church, which will be occasion of rejoicing to the saints in glory; but also the sight of the destruction of all God's enemies: whether they have been the followers of antichrist or not, that alters not the case, if they have been the enemies of God, and of Jesus Christ. All wicked men will at last be destroyed together, as being united in the same cause and interest, as being all of Satan's army. They will all stand together at the day of judgment, as being all of the same company.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[rc]

You did not read the whole post did you Bob.
You continually misapply what is being said and you pick and choose to what agrees with your confused understanding.

Jonathan Edwards said much more on WHY we do not LOVE the hated in heaven, you misconstrue this and inappropriately interject your misplaced understanding of love where it does not apply.

You are so centered on man... Look at your posts! Cry, cry, cry ..l. poor man! Oh those precious innocent, loving people! ...

Your improper theology has you soooo centered on man.... get it on God.

Noticed you didn't have anything to say about God HATING the evildoer? ....
We will love those who God loves and HATE those whom He HATES. Where's that in your "scenario"?

 

[johnp.]

Hello Bob.

Is this where you actually QUOTE some Calvinist here or John Calvin himself as saying "ELECTION is determined by genetics"????

Did Calvin believe in baptising children? Yes he did. Why did he baptise babies? Because he believed the children of the elect are elect themselves and baptism includes into our nation as circumcision did for the Jew is what he believed, I don't but he did, you seem to suggest that he did not.
What was it, genetics with the Jew?

john.

 

[BobRyan]

he (Calvin) believed the children of the elect are elect

Fine then you should be able to show a quote from Calvin saying that he believed that all the children and grandchildren of the elect are saved.

(BTW - was that true of David? Solomon? Samuel? Eli? Agam?) IS there ANY NT saint where you can show this to be the case?

Is there ANY Calvinist here who believes "Election is DETERMINED by genetics"?

Is there any Calivnist here who believes Spurgeon was WRONG when he rejected that wild notion as a basis for election??

OR is it just "you"?

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Having debunked JohnP's "election by Genetics" fantasy for the umpty-third time I do have to grant him one small credit.

IF his "new" and "other gospel" HAD been true (lets say starting with Adam or even with Noah) then ALL mankind today would be saved!!

So I don't mean to say that I don't "WISH IT WERE TRUE" just like John P wishes it were true.

And a "fall back" would be -- if John P were also a 4 point Calvinst -- then you could have ALL The wicked being "elect from birth" BUT STILL have all the wicked deeds of mankind making it LOOK like some people are among the saints "Who keep the commandments of God and have the faith of Jesus" while some are the self-deceived wicked of 1Cor 6!

come on!! What is not to like??

In Christ,

Bob

 

[johnp.]

Hello Bob.

Fine then you should be able to show a quote from Calvin saying that he believed that all the children and grandchildren of the elect are saved.

Find it yourself or stay in your error. I don't care I'm a Calvinist.

(BTW - was that true of David? Solomon? Samuel? Eli? Agam?) IS there ANY NT saint where you can show this to be the case?

What? I have shown a passage from Ezekiel that's enough.

Is there ANY Calvinist here who believes "Election is DETERMINED by genetics"?

I have shown a passage from Ezekiel that's enough.

Is there any Calivnist here who believes Spurgeon was WRONG when he rejected that wild notion as a basis for election??

It's you twisting it into this genetics thing and well you know but I shall go along with it it seems ok. Why did Calvin baptise children? You don't know? You ask me to prove it to you yet you are such an authority I fear I am not equal to the task cause I can't be bothered. Why did Calvin baptise children?

OR is it just "you"?

You should not ask me I will be the last to know

john.

 

[rc]

Spurgeon DID believe there was a basis for election....

GOD.

What about God HATING the wicked Bob... are we going to HATE them also? Still haven't answered that...

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by rc:
Spurgeon DID believe there was a basis for election....

Is this simply a rabbit trail or do you intend to mislead?

Here is what Spurgeon said when ADDRESSING the fact that FAMILY connection has NOTHING TO DO with election and even arguing that there is NO difference between the Elect and those who are not.

HERE is a direct quote from Charles Haden Spurgeon “Showing” that the arbitrary selection of the elect by God is NOT based on the family status of the lost.
http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/35/1148.html#000000

Now, suppose I should put the following question to any converted man in this hall. Side by side with you there sits an ungodly person; you two have been brought up together, you have lived in the same house, you have enjoyed the same means of grace, you are converted, he is not; will you please to tell me what has made the difference? Without a solitary exception the answer would be this—"If I am a Christian and he is not, unto God be the honor." Do you suppose for a moment that there is any injustice in God in having given you grace which he did not give to another? I suppose you say, "Injustice, no; God has a right to do as he wills with his own; I could not claim grace, nor could my companions, God chose to give it to me, the other has rejected grace willfully to his own fault, and I should have done the same, but that he gave 'more grace,' whereby my will was constrained." Now, sir, if it is not wrong for God to do the thing, how can it be wrong for God to purpose to do the thing? and what is election, but God's purpose to do what he does do? It is a fact which any man must be a fool who would dare to deny that God does give to one man more grace shall to another; we cannot account for the salvation of one and the non-salvation of another but by believing, that God has worked more effectually in one man's heart than another's—

 

[BobRyan]

quote:
JohnP Fallaciously imagines --
Calvin believed election is determined by genetics...

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bob said
Fine then you should be able to show a quote from Calvin saying that he believed that all the children and grandchildren of the elect are saved.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

John P responds innexplicably --
Find it yourself

Amazing!

John at some point you should be embarrassed! You don't "have" to post when you have nothing to say you know.

I can wait until you actually find something to make your case.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[rc]

You don't "have" to post when you have nothing to say you know.

Take your own advice Bob.

 

[BobRyan]

Still waiting on the response to Spurgeon's statements.

Still waiting on the response to the Bible texts posted SHOWING that the saints are WITH Christ and so also the wicked tormented IN The presence of Christ.

Still waiting on a response to 1Cor 13 saying LOVE CONTINUES rather than dying out in heaven.

Still waiting for EVEN ONE Calvinist to post on here that they "ADMIT" to the wild notion of JohnP that "election is determined by genetics"!!!

Getting a lot of silly posts out there - but where is the substantive response to all of this??

Come on you guys - you can do better than this.

Where are the bright Calvinists??

In Christ,

Bob

 

[johnp.]

HaHa!

john.

 

[johnp.]

Hello Bob.

IF his "new" and "other gospel" HAD been true (lets say starting with Adam or even with Noah) then ALL mankind today would be saved!!

GE 3:15 And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel."
Two tribes came from Adam and Eve.

So I don't mean to say that I don't "WISH IT WERE TRUE" just like John P wishes it were true.

If wishes were horses beggers would ride. Heaven would not be Heaven without my children. Yet Eli managed so grace will be given if there is a need and even though He slay me yet I will put my trust in Him.

And a "fall back" would be -- if John P were also a 4 point Calvinst...

And you accuse me of fantasy? HaHa! But the rest of that maskes no sense to me.

john.

 

[Hardsheller]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />RC said --
We are to love the wicked NOW, but things will be different in heaven.

OK so a parent READS 1 Cor 13 and LOVES their precious little girl NOW... But 1 Cor 13 is predicting "The END OF THAT LOVE" once we get to heaven because THEN (as you have argued) we will be even MORE LIKE GOD than we are now!!

(BTW - I never saw you vote in favor of "Election determined by Genetics" - )

In Christ,

Bob </font>[/QUOTE]Bob, I have already point out to you that the most precious love between two people on earth is that of a Man and his Wife. Jesus Said that will not exist in Heaven. Why do you insist on a lesser love in heaven?