Unity

[Andy T.]

Sorta what I expected. There is a doctrinal rigidity to Calvinism that truly allows no other belief than that God causes sin and actually creates men who can do no other! So lest, upon learning otherwise, the whole affair shoud fail, I guess "bailing" is to be expected.

skypair

Skypair, I am no more "rigid" in my beliefs than you are of yours. Kettle calling the pot black.

You know, the direction of this whole thread is a perfect example of your dishonesty. You post under the guise of discussing "unity", but your real goal is to misrepresent Calvinists, and so you steer the direction of the thread to once again falsely accuse us of making God the author of sin. If you want to discuss that topic, I suggest you start a new thread, instead of trying to make yourself look pious by discussing "unity" and then switching gears to lie against your brothers. But all of this makes me wonder if you even consider us as brothers.

 

[johnp.]

There is a doctrinal rigidity to Calvinism that truly allows no other belief than that God causes sin and actually creates men who can do no other!

I agree with him Andy but he does misrepresent the views of most Calvinistic thinkers here. He needs you lot to change your minds so that his understanding matches your beliefs. What I say I say to all Calvinistic thinkers, make a free willer happy today. Their logical conclusions are logical conclusions.

As to unity, birds of a feather flock together.

john.

 

[skypair]

Skypair, I am no more "rigid" in my beliefs than you are of yours. Kettle calling the pot black.

You know, the direction of this whole thread is a perfect example of your dishonesty. You post under the guise of discussing "unity", but your real goal is to misrepresent Calvinists, and so you steer the direction of the thread to once again falsely accuse us of making God the author of sin. If you want to discuss that topic, I suggest you start a new thread, instead of trying to make yourself look pious by discussing "unity" and then switching gears to lie against your brothers. But all of this makes me wonder if you even consider us as brothers.

I would appreciate you responding to the issue of whether God causes sin and whether Calvinists are left with that belief or not. Please don't bore the readers with personal opinions on my motives -- which you don't know -- and with mere speculations.

Same for you, johnp. Your negative opinoins clearly are not helpful in the cause of unity. I, at least, am trying to get to a better understanding that we all can and should -- whether mine or yours -- share as Christians.

skypair

 

[Andy T.]

I would appreciate you responding to the issue of whether God causes sin and whether Calvinists are left with that belief or not.

God does not "cause" sin in the same way he causes good. He does not work evil into the heart of man or the devil or demons. Such wicked desires come from themselves and not from God.

I don't believe Calvinists are left with the logical conclusion that God authors sin anymore than non-Calvinists who believe in the omniscience and omnipotence of God are left with that same logical conclusion. Both Cals and non-Cals affirm God as the First Cause of all creation, having full knowledge beforehand that sin would occur, along with the power to stop sin from happening if He so willed.

Unless one is an Open Theist or believes God is less than omnipotent, one must grapple with the problem of evil.

 

[johnp.]

skypair.

Same for you, johnp.
I would appreciate you responding to the issue of whether God causes sin and whether Calvinists are left with that belief or not.

God causes sin but mainstream Calvinism is not left with that belief. They do not believe God causes sin.

Your negative opinoins...

My positive opinions you mean.

Your negative opinoins clearly are not helpful in the cause of unity.

Nor was Luther's so I'm in good company.

I, at least, am trying to get to a better understanding that we all can and should -- whether mine or yours -- share as Christians.

I always try to answer points made do I not? I share my beliefs freely with no regard for the regard my opinions and myself are held in. What more is there to do, I will not give the right hand of fellowship to a person who rejects the doctrines of grace, (except those in my own Church)?

john.

 

[johnp.]

skypair.

Babies are not men...

That's what they say at the abortion clinics.

Babies are not men nor are the defiant of the truth nor are they bound over to unbelief as those who will be damned if they don't repent.

PS 58:3 Even from birth the wicked go astray; from the womb they are wayward and speak lies.

Are babies innocent? JOB 9:15 Though I were innocent, I could not answer him; I could only plead with my Judge for mercy.
Then they still need mercy and God says ..."I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." Rom 9:15.

Some try this emotive subject to make Calvinism look bad but the bible is silent on the destiny of reprobate's children, anyone who says they know don't know as they should and might be giving a false hope.

This goes into the issue of "sin nature" as opposed to "sin guilt," john.

JOB 9:20 Even if I were innocent, my mouth would condemn me; if I were blameless, it would pronounce me guilty.

Separating the sin nature from the guilt doesn't work very well for you does it? PS 51:5 Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me. RO 5:18 Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men...

Sin is there to heap up wrath not for condemnation, condemnation was Adam's legacy to man.

That is plain from your question about babies, is it not? Babies are not 'bound over to unbelief' because they can't believe anything nor disbelieve it.

Is that because they are not men? How is it that John the Baptist knew his Master had arrived? Luke 1:44 As soon as the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the baby in my womb leaped for joy.
How is it then that scripture says, PS 58:3 Even from birth the wicked go astray; from the womb they are wayward and speak lies.

Might be you don't know what babies know.

Now the point of "so that He could have mercy on them" is that they will never realze they need a Savior until they realize they are unbelievers and sinners.

If God hadn't made us sinners we wouldn't need a Saviour would we? For God compels us to sin. You don't come to grips with the "so that" though I see.

It's pretty much as Paul said it in Rom 7 -- "I was alive once before the commandment entered..." At that point, Paul was "bound over to unbelief or, as you would have it, "bound over to disobedience."

RO 2:12 All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law...
It is not the law that makes one a sinner nor is it the way to Hell. The law increases sin in sinners that's all. Anyway, the consensus on this is, a rare unity on BB if my memory serves me right, that Paul was speaking personally. He thought he was alive but when the law came it killed him.

Then and only then can God "have mercy"...

Is this the same point as before? He can only have mercy if someone is guilty of a crime? This is a false notion as Job points out more than once. JOB 9:20 Even if I were innocent, my mouth would condemn me; if I were blameless, it would pronounce me guilty.

We need mercy whether a sin is committed or not.

john.