Is Salvation really a "free Gift" of God?

[JLB]

I disagree with your opinion about Judas, he was predestinated to be the son of perdition so the scripture may be fulfilled Jn 17:12

12 While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled.

What is " the son of perdition" ? What is perdition ? Paul uses the word in Phil 1:28

And in nothing terrified by your adversaries: which is to them an evident token of perdition, G684 but to you of salvation, and that of God.

That’s like trying to deny that the angel Lucifer was never really an angel or that Adam and Eve were never really given authority to rule in dominion over the earth.


They chose to disobey God and they fell from their place of authority, in which they did not fulfill their God given destiny.


Judas was a disciple and apostle, then “became” a traitor.

Judas the son of James, and Judas Iscariot who also became a traitor. Luke 6:16


He was the one thing, then became the other through his choice.


Saul of tarsus on the other hand was an insolent man, a persecutor of the Church, a blasphemer, the he repented and became the Apostle Paul, and wrote most of the New Testament.

He was the one thing, then became the other.




JLB

 

[GodsGrace]

Well, that why you don't understand Double Predestination from a Reformed perspective.


I included a link.

The Bible has nothing to say about Arminianism, Calvinism, Roman Catholicism, etc. Since the topic at hand is Calvinism and its understanding of the Bible ... one must go to an authority on Calvinism which is not the Bible. This is elementary logic. Example: we talk about the color of your hair... we don't go to the Bible to site evidence ... we goes to an authority like a relative of yours. Same as when you talked about a recipe/food with Oz, you didn't quote the Bible.






Some try to make non-calvinism more palatable....but the truth is that it's a rather horrifying teaching.
Both statements are an empty pejoratives.

Most of the doctrines of Calvinism are the same as other denominations. I just read Henry Thiessen's Lectures in Systematic Theology. Thiessen is an Arminian as best I can tell (prevenient grace, election). 95% (my guess) of the book could have been written by a Calvinist in my opinion.
My point is, your statement, if taken on face value, says the teachings of protestants is "a rather horrifying teaching". Thus, to the degree that Protestant teachings mirror the Bible you are implying that the Bible is "a rather horrifying teaching".
I think you not to consider your thoughts and their implications before writing them down. Your hatred of Calvinism has distorted your perception of it's teachings as many (most?) of your posts on the subject clearly imply.

Aside: I believe Arminians are my brothers in Christ and that I agree with 95% of their doctrines and that in no way would I describe their doctrines as "a rather horrifying teaching". Any Arminian teaching I disagree with I would not describe as "a rather horrifying teaching". For the most part their teachings that deviate from my understanding has some evidence to substantiate it.



Ridiculous.

OK.
I'm not going to answer all of the above....there's too much and I might write more tomorrow.

Just two points:

1. I'm Protestant so I cannot be against protestant teachings or believe they are horrifying
because they are NOT horrifying. Protestantism, more than Catholicism, teaches along biblical lines
and stays closer to the initial teachings.

It's just not the same as calvinism (protestantism) and if you think it is, then so be it.


2. @Hopes is always telling me I misrepresent him. It's been years now.
YOU also are telling me the same...a couple of times now - if not more.

I wrote out a whole paragraph from the Institutes which states, by John Calvin, that God determines
who will be saved and who will be damned. You could go back and check if you've forgotten..in my last post.
Book 3 Chapter 21 Paragraph 5 "By predestination we mean....etc"

Here's my question for you:
If I'm quoting from John Calvin's writings and yet you tell me I don't understand Calvinism...WHERE is the disconnect?

Are you a calvinist or not?
Are you practicing some kind of doctrine that is NOT calvinistic?
Does it go by a different name?
Reformed, BTW, means the same.


IOW....I believe it is YOU that does not understand properly.
I know I'm not supposed to say this to a poster...but it's been said to me many times
and I really am trying to understand you.
Like the positive-positive / positive-negative....
what kind of nonsense is that?
If God picks some for heaven....the rest are going to hell.
Those in hell don't care what some teacher calls is --- they're in the hot place and God PUT THEM THERE
by passing over them. By passing over them... HE CONDEMNS THEM.
You seem like an intelligent fellow - how could you not understand this????

You believe God created EVERYTHING and PREDESTINED EVERYTHING...
yet, somehow (one of those great mysteries) He did NOT create evil....
and we are still responsible for our sins and deserve hell, EVEN THOUGH HE predestined us to sin.
????

Maybe the problem is that you cannot tolerate the truth and are trying to water it down?

As to hating Calvinism:
I don't think I feel hate....
I don't hate persons that have done harm to me, so I doubt I could hate calvinism.
However, yes, I think it's a horrible teaching and Christians should keep away from it.
Basically, because it makes no sense.

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

Well, that why you don't understand Double Predestination from a Reformed perspective.


I included a link.

The Bible has nothing to say about Arminianism, Calvinism, Roman Catholicism, etc. Since the topic at hand is Calvinism and its understanding of the Bible ... one must go to an authority on Calvinism which is not the Bible. This is elementary logic. Example: we talk about the color of your hair... we don't go to the Bible to site evidence ... we goes to an authority like a relative of yours. Same as when you talked about a recipe/food with Oz, you didn't quote the Bible.






Some try to make non-calvinism more palatable....but the truth is that it's a rather horrifying teaching.
Both statements are an empty pejoratives.

Most of the doctrines of Calvinism are the same as other denominations. I just read Henry Thiessen's Lectures in Systematic Theology. Thiessen is an Arminian as best I can tell (prevenient grace, election). 95% (my guess) of the book could have been written by a Calvinist in my opinion.
My point is, your statement, if taken on face value, says the teachings of protestants is "a rather horrifying teaching". Thus, to the degree that Protestant teachings mirror the Bible you are implying that the Bible is "a rather horrifying teaching".
I think you not to consider your thoughts and their implications before writing them down. Your hatred of Calvinism has distorted your perception of it's teachings as many (most?) of your posts on the subject clearly imply.

Aside: I believe Arminians are my brothers in Christ and that I agree with 95% of their doctrines and that in no way would I describe their doctrines as "a rather horrifying teaching". Any Arminian teaching I disagree with I would not describe as "a rather horrifying teaching". For the most part their teachings that deviate from my understanding has some evidence to substantiate it.



Ridiculous.

Double predestination?
Why not triple predestination?
(all these long posts are killing me)

 

[Fastfredy0]

I'm Protestant so I cannot be against protestant teachings or believe they are horrifying
because they are NOT horrifying.

Calvinists are protestants too.
So you are contradicting yourself. Specifically your statements that follow:
I am a protestant and their teaching are not horrifying
Calvinist are protestant and their teaching are is horrifying

It's just not the same as calvinism (protestantism) and if you think it is, then so be it.

Again, your beliefs align with calvinism 95% of the time. I just read a book by Thiessen, someone that is on your side and I agree with him on most everything. So, using logic and assuming my 95% is accurate you have the following argument:
Calvinism's teaching are horrifying
Calvinism's agree with me 95% of the time
Conclusion: Any doctrine that is less than 95% in agreement with you is horrifying.

2. @Hopes is always telling me I misrepresent him. It's been years now.
YOU also are telling me the same...a couple of times now - if not more.

Agreed. You don't see the finer points of arguments in my opinion (not that that is not common amongst us all).
Aside: Hospes, in a private message, told me he quit the forum.

by John Calvin, that God determines
who will be saved and who will be damned.

Here's my question for you:
If I'm quoting from John Calvin's writings and yet you tell me I don't understand Calvinism...WHERE is the disconnect?

I agree with Calvin. God determines all things down to the movement of every atom throughout time.
The disconnect ... I've tried many times. The only time you come close to getting the disconnect is when you said that when sin occurs, God ALLOWS it. This implies that God is not responsible for allowing sin. God determines that sin will exist and God determines the extent of sin and God determines when he will allow sin, yet he does NOT CREATE sin. (Gen. 50:20; Acts 2:23; Acts 4:27-28 being examples .... and the story of Job)
Try this....
Given: You know that 10,000 people are dying from AIDS due to homosexuality (sin). You have enough money to save 100. You determine that you will save 10. Calvinists would say you were merciful to save even 1 let alone ten and that you had no obligation for the other 90. You would say you are a horrible person if you didn't save all 100.
Aside: There all situations in the world today like the one above where you could save lives.

But, rather being on defense I will go on offense. You believe that God looks into the future and knows if a person will choose to BELIEVE salvifically or not. You believe babies go to heaven. You believe God could have all people who will not believe salvifically die in infancy. Since you believe all this you logically believe that God purposely determined that these people go to hell for eternity as he had a choice to save them or not. Thus your theology is horrible for the same reason you believe Calvinism is horrible, that reason being that God determined people would go to in hell.

Are you a calvinist or not?
Are you practicing some kind of doctrine that is NOT calvinistic?
Does it go by a different name?
Reformed, BTW, means the same.

Yes, I am reformed (calvinist). As Hospes said, you don't understand Calvinism. You jumped to conclusions that contradict Calvinism. The Westminster Confession and Baptist Confession of faith both state the God is not the author of sin, yet you say Reformed teaches the God is the author of sin. Either you don't understand Calvinism or millions of Calvinist's are liars or confused. The tendency of a group to understand itself better than someone outside the group suggests strongly that you are mistaken.

By passing over them... HE CONDEMNS THEM.

By the same logic, anyone that is dying that you haven't help you murdered. (starving people, people that need medical treatment to save them) Your logic condemns you of murder. You could save many people, yet you don't. You, for whatever reason, determined many to die that you could have saved.

By passing over them... HE CONDEMNS THEM.
You seem like an intelligent fellow - how could you not understand this????

God is not obligated to save those that are guilty. If he were, then either he is not all-powerful or he would do so.
Again, God knows who will not believe so he could easily save them by having them die before the age of accountability like he does with millions of other .... or, knowing the person will not believe he simply could ensure the sperm never fertilized the egg. He knowingly let's the fertilization take place and knowing, as you say, CONDEMNS them and there is 'horrible'. He is also horrible for not saving the 1232 N.A. indian, but you have a non-protestant doctrine to cover up that error in your theology.

Like the positive-positive / positive-negative....
what kind of nonsense is that?

You can lead a horse to water but you can not make him drink. I've explained it many times and ways.

You believe God created EVERYTHING and PREDESTINED EVERYTHING...
yet, somehow (one of those great mysteries) He did NOT create evil....

You don't understand what evil is. God allows it to exist, to this we are agreed. Tell me, where did evil come from based on your theology.

Maybe the problem is that you cannot tolerate the truth and are trying to water it down?

Well, that is a possibility. More likely, you don't understand reformed theology. I know many that do understand and some are Arminians. When I give quotes from Reformed creeds that contradict your assertions you still insist you are right and the 100s of people that put the documents don't know what they believe. Ridiculous

However, yes, I think it's a horrible teaching and Christians should keep away from it.
Basically, because it makes no sense.

Well, you are confused. Again, Calvinism agrees with you 95% of the time so you hate that which is in agreement with yourself for the most part.

 

[brightfame52]

jlb

By saying Judas was lost, it’s clear he once belonged.

I dont see that. He was the son of perdition, prophesied as such from OT scripture. Did you look up what it means to be the son of perdition ?

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

Calvinists are protestants too.
So you are contradicting yourself. Specifically your statements that follow:
I am a protestant and their teaching are not horrifying
Calvinist are protestant and their teaching are is horrifying



Again, your beliefs align with calvinism 95% of the time. I just read a book by Thiessen, someone that is on your side and I agree with him on most everything. So, using logic and assuming my 95% is accurate you have the following argument:
Calvinism's teaching are horrifying
Calvinism's agree with me 95% of the time
Conclusion: Any doctrine that is less than 95% in agreement with you is horrifying.


Agreed. You don't see the finer points of arguments in my opinion (not that that is not common amongst us all).
Aside: Hospes, in a private message, told me he quit the forum.


I agree with Calvin. God determines all things down to the movement of every atom throughout time.
The disconnect ... I've tried many times. The only time you come close to getting the disconnect is when you said that when sin occurs, God ALLOWS it. This implies that God is not responsible for allowing sin. God determines that sin will exist and God determines the extent of sin and God determines when he will allow sin, yet he does NOT CREATE sin. (Gen. 50:20; Acts 2:23; Acts 4:27-28 being examples .... and the story of Job)
Try this....
Given: You know that 10,000 people are dying from AIDS due to homosexuality (sin). You have enough money to save 100. You determine that you will save 10. Calvinists would say you were merciful to save even 1 let alone ten and that you had no obligation for the other 90. You would say you are a horrible person if you didn't save all 100.
Aside: There all situations in the world today like the one above where you could save lives.

But, rather being on defense I will go on offense. You believe that God looks into the future and knows if a person will choose to BELIEVE salvifically or not. You believe babies go to heaven. You believe God could have all people who will not believe salvifically die in infancy. Since you believe all this you logically believe that God purposely determined that these people go to hell for eternity as he had a choice to save them or not. Thus your theology is horrible for the same reason you believe Calvinism is horrible, that reason being that God determined people would go to in hell.




Yes, I am reformed (calvinist). As Hospes said, you don't understand Calvinism. You jumped to conclusions that contradict Calvinism. The Westminster Confession and Baptist Confession of faith both state the God is not the author of sin, yet you say Reformed teaches the God is the author of sin. Either you don't understand Calvinism or millions of Calvinist's are liars or confused. The tendency of a group to understand itself better than someone outside the group suggests strongly that you are mistaken.



By the same logic, anyone that is dying that you haven't help you murdered. (starving people, people that need medical treatment to save them) Your logic condemns you of murder. You could save many people, yet you don't. You, for whatever reason, determined many to die that you could have saved.


God is not obligated to save those that are guilty. If he were, then either he is not all-powerful or he would do so.
Again, God knows who will not believe so he could easily save them by having them die before the age of accountability like he does with millions of other .... or, knowing the person will not believe he simply could ensure the sperm never fertilized the egg. He knowingly let's the fertilization take place and knowing, as you say, CONDEMNS them and there is 'horrible'. He is also horrible for not saving the 1232 N.A. indian, but you have a non-protestant doctrine to cover up that error in your theology.


You can lead a horse to water but you can not make him drink. I've explained it many times and ways.


You don't understand what evil is. God allows it to exist, to this we are agreed. Tell me, where did evil come from based on your theology.


Well, that is a possibility. More likely, you don't understand reformed theology. I know many that do understand and some are Arminians. When I give quotes from Reformed creeds that contradict your assertions you still insist you are right and the 100s of people that put the documents don't know what they believe. Ridiculous



Well, you are confused. Again, Calvinism agrees with you 95% of the time so you hate that which is in agreement with yourself for the most part.

I don't know what Calvinists do today (though I did attend a Methodist church until recently) but there was a time when is was common practice for Calvinists to look after each other and help them to repent of their sins every evening.
Don't go to bed without repenting every night.
A good practice I may add.

 

[brightfame52]

That’s like trying to deny that the angel Lucifer was never really an angel or that Adam and Eve were never really given authority to rule in dominion over the earth.


They chose to disobey God and they fell from their place of authority, in which they did not fulfill their God given destiny.


Judas was a disciple and apostle, then “became” a traitor.

Judas the son of James, and Judas Iscariot who also became a traitor. Luke 6:16


He was the one thing, then became the other through his choice.


Saul of tarsus on the other hand was an insolent man, a persecutor of the Church, a blasphemer, the he repented and became the Apostle Paul, and wrote most of the New Testament.

He was the one thing, then became the other.




JLB

I guess you paid no attention to judas being the son of perdition, prophesied in the OT. He was specifically born for eternal destruction, so much so, Jesus said it would have been better for him to not have been born Matt 26:24

The Son of man goeth as it is written of him: but woe unto that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! it had been good for that man if he had not been born.

Mark uses the word woe for judas Mk 14:21


The Son of man indeed goeth, as it is written of him: but woe to that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! good were it for that man if he had never been born.

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

jlb



I dont see that. He was the son of perdition, prophesied as such from OT scripture. Did you look up what it means to be the son of perdition ?

I would say Judas belonged (that is the key word here) but was never saved.
When Jesus sent out the twelve (Matthew 10), he was one of them.
So he did the good works, but that was it.
But he did belong.

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

I guess you paid no attention to judas being the son of perdition, prophesied in the OT. He was specifically born for eternal destruction, so much so, Jesus said it would have been better for him to not have been born Matt 26:24

The Son of man goeth as it is written of him: but woe unto that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! it had been good for that man if he had not been born.

Mark uses the word woe for judas Mk 14:21


The Son of man indeed goeth, as it is written of him: but woe to that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! good were it for that man if he had never been born.

Saying that it would have been good if he was never born indicates he had a choice, just like the rest of us.

 

[JLB]

I guess you paid no attention to judas being the son of perdition,

I paid attention to it, as well as the reference to him being called a devil.


I also studied the other passages that refer to Peter as Satan, as well as Judas being predestined to reign with Christ and the other Apostles in the age to come.


So Jesus said to them, “Assuredly I say to you, that in the regeneration, when the Son of Man sits on the throne of His glory, you who have followed Me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
Matthew 19:28


After looking at all the scriptures that pertain to this subject, its clear that.... he always had a choice.


Peter chose to repent, Judas hung himself and died in his sins.


Because God foresaw before time begin, and wrote about them in the bible, doesn't mean Judas or Peter or anyone else doesn't have the ability to choose good or evil.


People can indeed be in Christ for a while, in which they have eternal life, then they can be removed from Him.

Jesus plainly admonished us that we must remain in Him.

• “I am the true vine, and My Father is the vinedresser. Every branch in Me that does not bear fruit He takes away;.. John 15:1-2

• If anyone does not abide in Me, he is cast out as a branch and is withered; and they gather them and throw them into the fire, and they are burned. John 15:6

Here is how we are commanded to remain in Christ --


Now he who keeps His commandments abides in Him, and He in him. And by this we know that He abides in us, by the Spirit whom He has given us. 1 John 3:24





JLB

 

[Randy]

Oh the depth of love and grace of God to those that love Him!

“Simon, Simon, Satan has asked to sift all of you as wheat. 32But I have prayed for you, Simon, that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned back, strengthen your brothers.”

33But he replied, “Lord, I am ready to go with you to prison and to death.”

34Jesus answered, “I tell you, Peter, before the rooster crows today, you will deny three times that you know me.”

In the same way, the Spirit helps us in our weakness. We do not know what we ought to pray for, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us through wordless groans. 27 And he who searches our hearts knows the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for God’s people in accordance with the will of God

 

[brightfame52]

I would say Judas belonged (that is the key word here) but was never saved.
When Jesus sent out the twelve (Matthew 10), he was one of them.
So he did the good works, but that was it.
But he did belong.

He belonged to the apostleship, thats it. And that for a distinct purpose.

 

[brightfame52]

Saying that it would have been good if he was never born indicates he had a choice, just like the rest of us.

I disagree with that.

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

I disagree with that.

If he had never been born, he would have no choice.
Being born, he has a choice.

 

[GodsGrace]

Calvinists are protestants too.
So you are contradicting yourself. Specifically your statements that follow:
I am a protestant and their teaching are not horrifying
Calvinist are protestant and their teaching are is horrifying

I know they are.
Calvin taught horrible doctrine.

Here's one:

"Sometimes, however, He (God) communicates it (illumination of the spirit) also to those whom He enlightens only
for a time, and whom afterwards, in just punishment for their ingratitude, he abandons and smites with greater blindness".

source: The Institutes Book 3 Chapter 24 Paragraph 8

IOW, God makes believe to save some, but after a time, He abandons them and punishes them with even greater blindness.

Again, your beliefs align with calvinism 95% of the time. I just read a book by Thiessen, someone that is on your side and I agree with him on most everything. So, using logic and assuming my 95% is accurate you have the following argument:
Calvinism's teaching are horrifying
Calvinism's agree with me 95% of the time
Conclusion: Any doctrine that is less than 95% in agreement with you is horrifying.

I don't know Thiessen.
I don't agree with calvinism at all.
Your conclusion is not valid.

Agreed. You don't see the finer points of arguments in my opinion (not that that is not common amongst us all).
Aside: Hospes, in a private message, told me he quit the forum.

Finer points?
We don't seem to agree on major points.

As far as Hospes: He's been on this forum for years.
He disappears for a time and then returns for a time and so forth.
I think he gets frustrated because he feels no one understands him.
Most here understand...we just don't agree.

I agree with Calvin. God determines all things down to the movement of every atom throughout time.
The disconnect ... I've tried many times. The only time you come close to getting the disconnect is when you said that when sin occurs, God ALLOWS it.

What do you mean GOD ALLOWS IT?? In your above statement you say that God determines all things down to the movement of every atom
throughout time. This is not God ALLOWING...This is God CAUSING. There IS a difference.
Every Christian believes God allows....He allows because He does not interfere with the natural sequence of things at every moment of the day.
This is because He has given us free will.

This implies that God is not responsible for allowing sin. God determines that sin will exist and God determines the extent of sin and God determines when he will allow sin, yet he does NOT CREATE sin. (Gen. 50:20; Acts 2:23; Acts 4:27-28 being examples .... and the story of Job)

????????
You said God determines all things down to every atom....
He determines that sin will exist and even the extent of sin...
yet He does not create sin.

I agree that God does not create sin --- in God there is no darkness.
But I also don't hold Him responsible for sin....
THIS makes sense...

what you believe makes no sense.
I'm sorry to keep repeating this, but it's the truth.

Try this....
Given: You know that 10,000 people are dying from AIDS due to homosexuality (sin). You have enough money to save 100. You determine that you will save 10. Calvinists would say you were merciful to save even 1 let alone ten and that you had no obligation for the other 90. You would say you are a horrible person if you didn't save all 100.
Aside: There all situations in the world today like the one above where you could save lives.

I understand what your saying...you don't have to use examples.
God is God....HE could do whatever HE WANTS TO...we cannot.
So your example is not even acceptable.

Here's what is JUST from a just God:
He is not a respecter of persons....(Romans, Acts)
He gives to everyone the same opportunity to be saved and not go to hell.
In order to do this...He inspires the bible to be written and lets us KNOW HOW we can be saved.
Those that are in hell are there because THEY chose not to worship God.
THIS is justice from a just God.

But, rather being on defense I will go on offense. You believe that God looks into the future and knows if a person will choose to BELIEVE salvifically or not. You believe babies go to heaven.

Agreed.

You believe God could have all people who will not believe salvifically die in infancy.

Huh?
This is incorrect.

Since you believe all this you logically believe that God purposely determined that these people go to hell for eternity as he had a choice to save them or not. Thus your theology is horrible for the same reason you believe Calvinism is horrible, that reason being that God determined people would go to in hell.

This is all incorrect and I've explained it just above re God's conditions for salvation.

Yes, I am reformed (calvinist). As Hospes said, you don't understand Calvinism.

One thing is for sure...
Either I don't understand calvinism
or you don't.
I say YOU don't understand it and refuse to listen to what it really is.
As I've stated: Some churches are trying to make it more palatable for it to be accepted.

You jumped to conclusions that contradict Calvinism. The Westminster Confession and Baptist Confession of faith both state the God is not the author of sin, yet you say Reformed teaches the God is the author of sin.

This is tiring. Confessions say God is not the author of sin.
If He determines everything down to the atom...
HOW is He NOT the author of sin.
Also, if God is the author of evil (according to calvinism)
then that makes Him the author of sin too.
Sin is evil.

Here's an honest calvinist that is not afraid to speak up.
I might have posted this already, but you never reply to it.
Point 10.0 about....

page 1 of 2

 

[GodsGrace]

Fastfredy0

page 2 of 2

Either you don't understand Calvinism or millions of Calvinist's are liars or confused. The tendency of a group to understand itself better than someone outside the group suggests strongly that you are mistaken.

I'd say that many calvinists are confused.
This is because they adhere to the teachings of MEN, instead of coming to an understanding
of God by reading the bible or praying to God for understanding.

Did you hear John Piper explain how God loves the whole world?
You've told me God does NOT love everyone.
This is confusion being caused by a MAN.

By the same logic, anyone that is dying that you haven't help you murdered. (starving people, people that need medical treatment to save them) Your logic condemns you of murder. You could save many people, yet you don't. You, for whatever reason, determined many to die that you could have saved.

Well, I don't get to allow anyone to starve or offer medical treatment.
Again, I'm not God.
He's Sovereign, remember?
He can do whatever He wants to...I cannot.

God is not obligated to save those that are guilty. If he were, then either he is not all-powerful or he would do so.

There are conditions, remember?
He has been merciful and allowed us to know those conditions.

Again, God knows who will not believe so he could easily save them by having them die before the age of accountability like he does with millions of other .... or, knowing the person will not believe he simply could ensure the sperm never fertilized the egg. He knowingly let's the fertilization take place and knowing, as you say, CONDEMNS them and there is 'horrible'. He is also horrible for not saving the 1232 N.A. indian, but you have a non-protestant doctrine to cover up that error in your theology.

No comment.
But I have no non-protestant doctrine.
Everything I state is biblical.
Because you don't agree does not make ME wrong.

You can lead a horse to water but you can not make him drink. I've explained it many times and ways.

Of course you could make a horse drink the water.
God could predetermine it, remember?

You don't understand what evil is. God allows it to exist, to this we are agreed. Tell me, where did evil come from based on your theology.

No one knows where evil comes from....
Calvinists believe it comes from God.
Then the bible clearly conflicts with Calvin because the bible teaches that God is all good.

Well, that is a possibility. More likely, you don't understand reformed theology. I know many that do understand and some are Arminians. When I give quotes from Reformed creeds that contradict your assertions you still insist you are right and the 100s of people that put the documents don't know what they believe. Ridiculous

You've never quoted Reformed Creed.
You just post what some men believe.
If you posted the WCF it would be helpful in showing how you believe as you do.

Well, you are confused. Again, Calvinism agrees with you 95% of the time so you hate that which is in agreement with yourself for the most part.

John Calvin was not confused and that is who I post.
I do not agree with calvinism AT ALL.

Maybe you'd like to explain how God tricks some into believing they are saved?
The Institutes Book 3 Chapter 24 Paragraph 8
(you'll find it right at the beginning of the paragraph).

Was Calvin wrong?

 

[brightfame52]

I paid attention to it, as well as the reference to him being called a devil.


I also studied the other passages that refer to Peter as Satan, as well as Judas being predestined to reign with Christ and the other Apostles in the age to come.


So Jesus said to them, “Assuredly I say to you, that in the regeneration, when the Son of Man sits on the throne of His glory, you who have followed Me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
Matthew 19:28


After looking at all the scriptures that pertain to this subject, its clear that.... he always had a choice.


Peter chose to repent, Judas hung himself and died in his sins.


Because God foresaw before time begin, and wrote about them in the bible, doesn't mean Judas or Peter or anyone else doesn't have the ability to choose good or evil.


People can indeed be in Christ for a while, in which they have eternal life, then they can be removed from Him.

Jesus plainly admonished us that we must remain in Him.

• “I am the true vine, and My Father is the vinedresser. Every branch in Me that does not bear fruit He takes away;.. John 15:1-2

• If anyone does not abide in Me, he is cast out as a branch and is withered; and they gather them and throw them into the fire, and they are burned. John 15:6

Here is how we are commanded to remain in Christ --


Now he who keeps His commandments abides in Him, and He in him. And by this we know that He abides in us, by the Spirit whom He has given us. 1 John 3:24





JLB

Jesus said, you that have followed me will sit on twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes. Nothing about judas being predestinated to do that. Judas was predestinated to be the son of perdition, it was prophesied of hi before he ever born. He had no choice not to be born the son of perdition.

 

[brightfame52]

If he had never been born, he would have no choice.
Being born, he has a choice.

I still disagree with you.

 

[Fastfredy0]

Calvin taught horrible doctrine.

Calvin's doctrine is the same as your 95% of the time. Therefore, your statement indicates your doctrine is horrible. Maybe you should change.

God makes believe to save some, but after a time, He abandons them and punishes them with even greater blindness.

another misunderstanding of Reformed doctrine.

I don't know Thiessen.
I don't agree with calvinism at all.
Your conclusion is not valid.

Lacks foundation.

We don't seem to agree on major points.

You don't agree with me that Christ is God???
You don't agree with me that Christ died and rose from the dead?
You don't agree with me that Christ was both man and God?
You don't agree with me that God is in three persons?
You don't agree with me that your at saved by faith?
WOW

Every Christian believes God allows....He allows because He does not interfere with the natural sequence of things at every moment of the day.

Your saying He does not interfere with the natural sequence of things is duelism (the division of something conceptually into two opposed or contrasted aspects); that God does not control the natural sequence of things is saying some unknown force controls the natural sequence of things. This contradicts Col. 1:16-17

This is because He has given us free will.

There is not scripture in the bible to support this contention. It is a vain attempt by liberals to defend God using anthropocentric ideals.

You said God determines all things down to every atom....
He determines that sin will exist and even the extent of sin...
yet He does not create sin.

Agreed ...
whereas you contend that God allows sin but does not control it.
I contend God allows sin but does control it.
whereas you contend that God controls us completely
you contend that we control God, though incompletely

I agree that God does not create sin --- in God there is no darkness.
But I also don't hold Him responsible for sin....

I agree that God does not create sin and is not responsible for sin.
I contend in God there is no darkness means God cannot love (favor) sin (those who will not be saved)
You contend in God there is no darkness means God can love (favor) sin (those who will not be saved)

what you believe makes no sense.
I'm sorry to keep repeating this, but it's the truth.

You contend what I say makes no sense
I contend what I say you cannot make sense of (As Hospes I am sure would agree)

I understand what your saying...you don't have to use examples.
God is God....HE could do whatever HE WANTS TO...we cannot.
So your example is not even acceptable.

This is a false statement. Although you are not as capable as God, you have the ability to find and save some people that would, without your intervention, physically die earlier. Thus, your stance is hypocritical as you ascribe it to be an incorrect doctrine to think God takes not action to save some people, but when you when you take not action to save some people physically ...well, that's different. How convenient.
In simply terms, God lets some people die and you let some people die. When God does it you say that not right, when you do it ... well, that's O.K.

Here's what is JUST from a just God:

LOL ... a just God is defined by whatever God decides to do. He defines justice. He would be just to let everyone go to hell without exception. You define God's justice in human terms ...He has to be fair and give everyone a equal chance to be saved or God is not just. Poppy-cock (excuse bad language ... giggles)

He gives to everyone the same opportunity to be saved and not go to hell.
In order to do this...He inspires the bible to be written and lets us KNOW HOW we can be saved.

The 1232 N.A. Indian does not KNOW HOW we can be saved ... this empirical evidence shows your logic is faulty. The fact that you are a Christian with access to God's word and yet you can't tell us the content of faith for a 1232 N.A. Indian should be is further proof.


I said, "You believe God could have all people who will not believe salvifically die in infancy. "

Huh?
This is incorrect.

So, what part of my statement is incorrect ???
1. That God does not know who will have faith ?????
or 2. God could save those whom he knows will not have faith in adulthood by having them die in infancy
or 3. Infants don't go to heaven?

One thing is for sure...
Either I don't understand calvinism
or you don't.

Agreed.
You don't even understand that the Westminster Confession of Faith says God control all things yet is not the author
of sin. In plain English is says God is not the author of sin and yet you say Reform theology says God is the author of sin. This is not a matter of understanding reformed theology, it is a matter of understanding English.
Example:
I say 1 + 1 = 2
you would say, well Fred never said 1 + 1 = 2

Reformed theology says God is not the author of sin (Westminster Confession, Baptist Confession)
You say Reformed theology says God is the author of sin
This is not rational

I say God allows evil and controls evil and this is not sinful
You say God allows evil and does not control evil as that would be sinful
I say Genesis 50:20, Acts 2:23 and Acts 4:27-28 show how God control evil for good
You say IMO, there is not verse in the bible to substantiate my claim that God does not control evil

 

[Fastfredy0]

I'd say that many calvinists are confused.

I'd say many Christians are confused. Calvinists are less confused as their doctrine is more systematic.

This is because they adhere to the teachings of MEN, instead of coming to an understanding
of God by reading the bible or praying to God for understanding.

Ridiculous, Calvinists and non-calvinists understanding comes from the same Bible. Both get some things wrong.

Everything I state is biblical.
Because you don't agree does not make ME wrong.

Biblical 'true' from your perspective. I agree that you are not necessarily wrong because I think you are.

If you posted the WCF it would be helpful in showing how you believe as you do.

http://vor.org/truth/1689/1689bc00.html ...it's the Baptist confession which came from the WCF and is almost the same. I don't agree with the baptism of babies so I favor the Baptist confession (not a big thing)
WCF: https://bpc.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/D-ConfessionOfFaith.pdf

John Calvin was not confused and that is who I post.
I do not agree with calvinism AT ALL.

Ridiculous ...
Calvinism believes Christ died and rose again. I don't think you mean to say "I do not agree with Calvinism AT ALL."

Maybe you'd like to explain how God tricks some into believing they are saved?

The question is based on a false premise, possibly indicating again that you don't understand Reformed Theology. Reformed Theology believes in compatibilism, not "TRICKING" people. I've never heard to the doctrine of TRICKING PEOPLE. You don't understand Reformed Theology.