If saved…always saved

22,145 Views | 416 Replies | Last: 1 yr ago by TheGreatEscape
TheGreatEscape
How long do you want to ignore this user?
ramblin_ag02 said:

TheGreatEscape said:

Imagine a judge was ruling over a case with his son who committed a crime. That's the sense in which God does not delight in the punishment of the wicked.
More like, imagine an engineer that created a robot, gave it a gun, and programmed it to murder people. Then the engineer has to dismantle the robot and lament the evil it has done.


You don't even believe that God knows the future.
Bob_Ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Zobel said:

Last try with the questions you are carefully avoiding. The rest is window dressing.

We were all dead in sin and trespasses, enemies of God when He died for us. So your idea that Christ died for some group of believers is wrong. Christ died for sinners.

Doesn't He say He takes no pleasure in anyone's death? Doesn't St Peter say He wants everyone to repent? Doesn't St Paul say He wants all mankind to be saved? And that He is the savior of all mankind? Doesn't St John said He was the propitiation for our sins, and not just ours but for the whole world?

So - which sinners did He love and which sinners did He not, and on what basis? Which part of "all mankind" that He expressly desires repentance and salvation for are you going to say He did not die fo

Let's follow the logic of what you are trying to say.

All men are sinners and enemies of God inherently. We are separated from God due to the fall of man. Christ, the High Priest and mediator (as you point out in 2 Timothy), is going to make a once and for all atonement for all people's sin. Then he is going to ascend into heaven and will be an intercessor for all people. And because of this, all people will now have the Holy Spirit. And now all people are going to be saved.

All aboard the universalism train! Everyone's getting saved!

But wait, we know all people aren't going to be saved. Sure, we are all going to be judged as you pointed out, but not saved. And we know not all people receive the Spirit. And we know Christ doesn't intercede for all people, only those who are in Christ. Using your logic now, we have to disconnect these concepts and believe Christ universally died for the sins of all people, even though we know they aren't going to justified to God, or glorified, or sanctified. Even though we know in the Old Testament, The Day of Atonement was not for all people, but for God's people. Your stance is illogical.

The problem is, universalism never stands up to consistency in the Bible. There are loads of examples where the phrase "all people" is used in the Bible and it clearly doesn't mean all people. There are loads of examples where the word "world" is used and its only referencing the near east.

You post Timothy 2:3-4, but then ignore the context of verses 1 and 2.

You post John 3:16, but your interpretation requires us to interpret the verse "For God so loved all people, he sacrificed his Son for believers only" creating contradiction in the Word.

The funny thing is that I address all of the proof texting you provided and you call it window dressing, but when I post clear verses where the Lord himself says to the Father:

16 They are not of the world, just as I am not of the world. 17 Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth. 18 As you sent me into the world, so I have sent them into the world. 19 And for their sake I consecrate myself, that they also may be sanctified in truth. 20 "I do not ask for these only, but also for those who will believe (not just the Apostles, but all believers!) in me through their word

The Holy Bible: English Standard Version (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles, 2016), Jn 17:1520.

You won't address that. Christ is literally talking about intercession, sanctification, and atonement in that passage and he is only referring to believers. How can I apply a universalist application to that verse? You can't. It has no consistency in Scripture.
Bob_Ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
ramblin_ag02 said:

Bob_Ag said:

ramblin_ag02 said:

Bob_Ag said:

ramblin_ag02 said:

Bob_Ag said:

ramblin_ag02 said:

I disagree. According to your theology, people have no free will. God is sovereign and has knowledge and control of all things and people. Therefore, every evil person that exists was created that way by God intentionally. Under my theology, God tolerates evil men because He loves them and wants them to repent and become good. Under your theology, evil men are created and sustained by God to be that way. So why?

To expound on your initial question to my question: in your theology, sin and evil exist because God created and sustains them. There is no other answer. God is the only being in the universe with agency, will, and power. Everything that happens is a direct result of those three things. So God is directly responsible for everything.
God did not create evil men. God created man, and man became evil through their actions. Your premise is flawed.
Men became evil through their actions even though they have no free will? If man has no free will then how did man become evil?
I'm responding to this post. I didn't have to, but I chose to. Seems like I have free will to me.
So God isn't 100% sovereign over you?
Being sovereign means God has to make all my decisions for me?
Yes. If you are making a decision, then He is less sovereign than otherwise. Any free will at all is a reduction in the absolute sovereignty of God. A God that makes all decisions at all times is more sovereign than a God that allows others to make decisions.
Unless, and here's the big one so put on your seat belt, a sovereign god decides its ok if I choose between a ham and cheese sandwich or pepperoni pizza for lunch. Right? He's sovereign, he can decide to let me make that choice and retain his sovereignty.

Your logic falls apart because you assume that just because a sovereign god can do something, he will do it. God can do anything. It doesn't mean he chooses to do everything that's possible to him.

This isn't even a tenet of Reformed Theology.

But since you're such an expert here, answer this question.

What is the meaning of this verse?

18 For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh. For I have the desire to do what is right, but not the ability to carry it out. 19 For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I keep on doing. 20 Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me.

The Holy Bible: English Standard Version (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles, 2016), Ro 7:1820.
Bob_Ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
TheGreatEscape said:

ramblin_ag02 said:

TheGreatEscape said:

Imagine a judge was ruling over a case with his son who committed a crime. That's the sense in which God does not delight in the punishment of the wicked.
More like, imagine an engineer that created a robot, gave it a gun, and programmed it to murder people. Then the engineer has to dismantle the robot and lament the evil it has done.


You don't even believe that God knows the future.
Careful, remember we are not allowed to speculate on God's omniscience although its plainly stated.
TheGreatEscape
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Bob_Ag said:

TheGreatEscape said:

ramblin_ag02 said:

TheGreatEscape said:

Imagine a judge was ruling over a case with his son who committed a crime. That's the sense in which God does not delight in the punishment of the wicked.
More like, imagine an engineer that created a robot, gave it a gun, and programmed it to murder people. Then the engineer has to dismantle the robot and lament the evil it has done.


You don't even believe that God knows the future.
Careful, remember we are not allowed to speculate on God's omniscience although its plainly stated.



The proficiency and clarity of Scripture is kind of a rare
belief around here.
AggieRain
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Quote:

The proficiency and clarity of Scripture is kind of a rare

belief around here.
That is because you all have such unique and varied takes on the subject...
TheGreatEscape
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AggieRain said:

Quote:

The proficiency and clarity of Scripture is kind of a rare

belief around here.
That is because you all have such unique and varied takes on the subject...


Acts 13:48 (ESV)

48 "And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord, and as many as were appointed to eternal life believed."

TheGreatEscape
How long do you want to ignore this user?
This is the Provisionist, semi-Pelagian, and Arminian flower.

"He loves me. He loves me not. He loves me. He loves me
not"
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG

Quote:

All aboard the universalism train! Everyone's getting saved!
it isn't a universalism argument, you've presented a strawman. as the rest of your post is arguing against the strawman you've set up, I don't need to really address it in detail.

there is no limit to who the group may include in John 17. Up to verse 19 He is speaking about the apostles, and then as you point out He is speaking about anyone who will believe. You stopped too soon - why does He ask the Father for unity? "So that the world may know that you sent me and loved them even as you loved me." This is a witness, not a rejection of those. The unity is to be witnesses to the world. Why would it matter to witness to those who were not called? it's nonsense.

there's so much richness you've missed by smooshing together atonement, intercession, salvation.

Quote:

we know Christ doesn't intercede for all people, only those who are in Christ
we know nothing of the sort! the high priest of Israel did not intercede only for Israel. Israel wasn't some insular group, special, and pulled out for their own end. Israel was formed as part of a redemptive plan to save the world, and was God's special portion, a nation created from nothing to save the world. Israel was a nation of priests who allowed God to dwell among men. Israel interceded for all nations every year at the feast of booths - seventy bulls for seventy nations (see the table of nations in Genesis 10).

much the same Christ is the high priest who represents all mankind. a priest has two roles - one is to represent Man to God. you seem to be thinking in this vein. But there is a second role, equally vital, and that is to represent God to Man. And Christ serves both roles perfectly, the perfect high priest, God and Man. He is the express image of the Father, which is why He said "If you have seen Me you have seen the Father". Israel was a light to the nations, as was Christ - "I will make you as a light for the nations, that my salvation may reach to the end of the earth."
Quote:

we know in the Old Testament, The Day of Atonement was not for all people, but for God's people.
the shadow is the type - the revelation is found in the fulfillment. we know that Christ atoned for the whole world because He made the whole world clean.

Atonement, which is a made up word to translate a one-off Hebrew word for "cover," was done once a year to remove the residual taint and defilement of sin in the camp. not just the individual sins of the people - they were routinely handled - but for the overall stain. the "covering" of blood "atoned" (covered) the altar, the space, the priest, the people. the sins were placed on the goat and sent out into the wilderness - back to the world, to Azazel, where they came from. That is the goat who takes away sin. The other goat, which had no blemish and was pure, was sacrificed to the Lord. Christ is both goats, and not just for the sins of Israel, but for all mankind. How do I know? Because He removed the barrier between the clean and unclean. This is why the Lord tells St Peter, referring to Gentiles, "What God has cleansed, you do not call unholy." This is why at the council of Jerusalem St Peter testifies - "He made no distinction between us and them, for He cleansed their hearts by faith."

The shadow was effectual only for Israel, for the camp. Christ's once-for-all sacrifice dealt with Sin (make careful note of the difference between Sin and sins in St Paul's writing!) once and for all. As St Paul says - "just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment, so Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for Him." This is why Christ "became the source of eternal salvation to all who obey Him."

He tore down the wall, and all nations were placed under His authority. All of this happened through the atonement, the covering, the cleansing of all sin, all at once, for the whole world. As St Isaac the Syrian said so beautifully, "As a handful of sand thrown into the ocean, so are the sins of all flesh as compared with the mind of God." Again, St John makes this abundantly clear when he says "He is the propitiation for our sins, and not only for ours, but also for those of the whole world." And it is precisely in this that we find His love, "In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us, and sent His Son as a propitiation for our sins." Who's sins? "Not only for ours, but also for those of the whole world." Who is He? "The lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world." Who did God love, then? The world. How do we know? Because He gave His only Son so that ANYONE who has faith in Him might come to eternal life. This is flatly impossible without correctly understanding atonement, the once-for-all sacrifice that dealt with sin once and for all.

He as mercy on whom He will have mercy - and His perfect judgment and justice is to take away the sins of the whole world. And this is exactly why "where sins have been forgiven, an offering for sin is no longer needed."

Anyone who comes to Him can be made perfect for all time because of this single offering. This is the gospel, this is the meaning of "all authority on heaven and earth has been given to me." That is precisely what atonement did.
Quote:

You post John 3:16, but your interpretation requires us to interpret the verse "For God so loved all people, he sacrificed his Son for believers only" creating contradiction in the Word.
Completely misreading this. God so loved all people, that he gave his only Son, that everyone who has faith in Him should not perish but have eternal life. He did it all, unilaterally, and opened the door to each and every human being. This is exactly the same as St Paul - He became the source of salvation for all who obey Him, and everyone who is faithful to Him will have eternal life. As St Paul puts it, the "obedience of faith."
Quote:

How can I apply a universalist application to that verse? You can't. It has no consistency in Scripture.
this isn't universalism at all.

who did Christ save from death? All mankind. "all those in the tombs will hear His voice" "there will be a resurrection of both the righteous and the wicked" "Before him will be gathered all the nations."

what sin did Christ deal with on the cross? All sin. There is no longer sacrifice necessary for sin, because Christ's blood cleansed and covered (the meaning of atonement) the taint of all sin. Ultimate life met death and conquered. As St John Chrysostom said, and we read every Pascha, death took a body, and met God face to face - and it was annihilated.

and yet what is salvation? is that the end? absolutely not. because man is appointed to die once, and after that to face judgment. Salvation from death is universal and final. forgiveness of sins is offered to all, and the victory over sin is absolute and complete. But not all will be saved, because not all will be faithful. "We must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive what is due for what he has done in the body, whether good or evil."

Again, Christ God is the lover of mankind.

"The love of Christ controls us, because we have concluded this: that one has died for all, therefore all have died; and He died for all, that those who live might no longer live for themselves but for Him who for their sake died and was raised...All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to Himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation; that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their trespasses against them."

Christ is the lover of mankind, because He did all this when the all the people of the world were His enemies, forgiving them as they crucified Him, because His sacrifice was voluntary. He came to save sinners, and died for you and me and all men when we were His enemies that through this reconciliation - the ministry entrusted to us now as a kingdom of priests to represent God to Man as witnesses - all might be saved.

You can keep ignoring it, but the point remains. He wants all mankind to repent, He wants all mankind to be saved, He is the savior of all mankind, and He is the propitiation for the sins of the whole world, He died for all, because He was reconciling the world to Himself. And in the end, He is going to come and count talents. This is the gospel.
Bob_Ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Just in case someone stumbles into this thread, I'll offer some clarification to AggieRain and ramblin_ag's confusion concerning free will and Calvinism.

They assert that Calvinists think man has no ability to make a decision voluntarily and that if we sin, its because God makes us sin.

Ramblin makes that assertion here:
Quote:

I disagree. According to your theology, people have no free will. God is sovereign and has knowledge and control of all things and people. Therefore, every evil person that exists was created that way by God intentionally.

In the words of John Calvin himself:
"...we allow that man has choice and that it is self-determined, so that if he does anything evil, it should be imputed to him and to his own voluntary choosing. We do away with coercion and force, because this contradicts the nature of the will and cannot coexist with it.

The point being, that God does not make people sin and then judge them for it.

However, we know two things that are stated plainly in the Bible.
We are slaves to sin (Romans 7) and God does predestine things according to His sovereign decrees (Acts 2 and 4).

So, when we sin, its because as Paul says in Romans, we may want to do what is good but we are incapable of not sinning. Its in our very own nature.

God's plan of redemption that is clearly foreknown due to the abundance of prophecy in the Bible is what he decrees. So that means while I can decide what is for lunch voluntarily and without coercion, everything that happens in this world must fit within the sovereign decree of God. That's true whether you're a Calvinist or not.

Unlike the assertions being made in this thread, we are not mindless robots who have no ability to make conscious decisions. But we are slaves to sin and all things must conform to God's will.

So what do Calvinists or Reformed Theologians really assert?

That God elects to save those helplessly enslaved to sin that love him.

28 And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose. 29 For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. 30 And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.
The Holy Bible: English Standard Version (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles, 2016), Ro 8:2830.

And that's true going all the way back Noah and Abraham. Yet nobody on this thread has a problem with God choosing Noah and his family or choosing Abraham and his seed. Or when God chooses to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah and save Lot. Or when God commands Saul to destroy every last remaining Amalekite. But if you bring that concept into the New Testament, that God is still choosing his people, people call God a monster.
TheGreatEscape
How long do you want to ignore this user?
John 6:65 (ESV)

65 And he said, "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father."

"No man" is a universal negative proposition. It describes everyone in the class of mankind.

And "can" implies ability. Everyone should know the difference between may and can.

And when we are talking about being slaves to sin. We aren't stating that we don't make choices. But when it comes to choosing the spiritual good towards Christ, it is by the will of the father that all who come to him was because of God alone and to his glory alone.

John 6:65 (ESV)

65 And he said, "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father."

"Unless"
Bob_Ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
You make this way harder than it needs to be.

God is righteous and holy. We are unholy and unrighteous. The only way for us to be reconciled to God is a righteous and holy perfect sacrifice, that is also of the flesh. But this is where you fall off. Reconciliation to God only happens for those in Christ. Its that simple. If the only people who are reconciled to God are in Christ, or believers, then only the sins of believers are atoned for. Every non-believer is at enmity with God. Your whole position is arguing those with enmity towards God are reconciled to God. If you can't understand the logical fallacy in that, I don't know what to say.

Agilaw
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Noisy gongs and clanging symbols on this thread? As Christ urged, I "choose" to share the gospel ("Good News") to people and encourage them to repent. Others can "choose" to think this is fruitless and a waste of time as they believe people have no opportunity to "choose" Christ. I will hope and pray that more people are added to the kingdom every day as in Acts "They devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and to fellowship....and the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved".
ramblin_ag02
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Quote:

In the words of John Calvin himself:
"...we allow that man has choice and that it is self-determined, so that if he does anything evil, it should be imputed to him and to his own voluntary choosing. We do away with coercion and force, because this contradicts the nature of the will and cannot coexist with it.

The point being, that God does not make people sin and then judge them for it.
It's all well and good to just go and assert this, but it is inconsistent with your beliefs. If God made me, and I can only do evil, then God made me evil and bears all responsibility. It's nonsensical to say that I don't have the power to do good but can choose to do evil. The only way I can be held responsible is if I can either do good or do evil by my "own voluntary choosing". If I can only do good, then I deserve no kudos for doing good. If I can only do evil, then I deserve no condemnation for doing evil.

Quote:

Your logic falls apart because you assume that just because a sovereign god can do something, he will do it. God can do anything. It doesn't mean he chooses to do everything that's possible to him.
Responding to this earlier point. It doesn't matter if God does it or I do it. An absolutely, maximally sovereign God is responsible for everything. Everything that happens is because He directly Wills it or He doesn't prevent it. If something evil is about to happen, an absolutely sovereign God could stop it. If an evil person continues to live and do evil, then it's because an absolutely sovereign God allows that person to live and do evil. That doesn't even count the fact that God created the evil person in the first place, and He could have easily chosen not to do so. None of this is even a criticism of your theology. It's just basic theology that applies to any monotheistic religion. The problem is that Calvinism has no answer for it.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
It's not hard. All means all, everyone means everyone. It is much more difficult, I think, to ignore the very clear and explicit passages from every author of the NT.
Quote:

Reconciliation to God only happens for those in Christ.
This is not correct. St Paul says it explicitly:
"in Christ God was reconciling the world to Himself."
The rejection of the Jews "is the reconciliation of the world."
"when we were enemies of God, we were reconciled to Him through the death of His Son"
Quote:

Every non-believer is at enmity with God.
I don't dispute this at all. Yet everyone was at enmity with God at some point. He reconciled Himself to the world. We have the ministry of reconciliation to continue His work.
Quote:

Your whole position is arguing those with enmity towards God are reconciled to God.
Yes, exactly. He moved unilaterally to save the world, while we were at enmity with Him. He reconciled the world to Himself, He reconciled us. He does not count man's trespasses against them, and therefore He can plead - through us - Be reconciled to God.

As far as God is concerned, all are reconciled. Sin has been dealt with. People need only to come to Him and be faithful. "For if, when we were enemies of God, we were reconciled to Him through the death of His Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through His life!" Do you see the pivot? Saved from something, unilaterally, saved toward something through the obedience of faith.

And again, "So then, just as one trespass brought condemnation for all men, so also one act of righteousness brought justification and life for all men."


And again, "For God has bound up all in disobedience, that He may show mercy to all."


All means all, everyone means everyone.

In the end, your problem isn't with me, it is with the explicit promises of scripture.
ramblin_ag02
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
TheGreatEscape said:

ramblin_ag02 said:

TheGreatEscape said:

Imagine a judge was ruling over a case with his son who committed a crime. That's the sense in which God does not delight in the punishment of the wicked.
More like, imagine an engineer that created a robot, gave it a gun, and programmed it to murder people. Then the engineer has to dismantle the robot and lament the evil it has done.


You don't even believe that God knows the future.
Happy to go over this yet again on another thread if you don't want to look up the dozen or so that already contain my essays on the subject
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
HWY6_RunsBothWays
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Indeed, Bob_Ag, what a thread to stumble across.

Modern-day Arminius vs. Calvin.

I wonder if these types of discussions have, in some small part, contributed to the decrease in church attendance nationwide. That is, we seem to be more focused on being scholars than good neighbors.

Mark 12 (ESV)
28 And one of the scribes came up and heard them disputing with one another, and seeing that he answered them well, asked him, "Which commandment is the most important of all?" 29 Jesus answered, "The most important is, 'Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. 30 And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.' 31 The second is this: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no other commandment greater than these." 32 And the scribe said to him, "You are right, Teacher. You have truly said that he is one, and there is no other besides him. 33 And to love him with all the heart and with all the understanding and with all the strength, and to love one's neighbor as oneself, is much more than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices." 34 And when Jesus saw that he answered wisely, he said to him, "You are not far from the kingdom of God." And after that no one dared to ask him any more questions.
Bob_Ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
ramblin_ag02 said:

Quote:

In the words of John Calvin himself:
"...we allow that man has choice and that it is self-determined, so that if he does anything evil, it should be imputed to him and to his own voluntary choosing. We do away with coercion and force, because this contradicts the nature of the will and cannot coexist with it.

The point being, that God does not make people sin and then judge them for it.
It's all well and good to just go and assert this, but it is inconsistent with your beliefs. If God made me, and I can only do evil, then God made me evil and bears all responsibility. It's nonsensical to say that I don't have the power to do good but can choose to do evil. The only way I can be held responsible is if I can either do good or do evil by my "own voluntary choosing". If I can only do good, then I deserve no kudos for doing good. If I can only do evil, then I deserve no condemnation for doing evil.

Quote:

Your logic falls apart because you assume that just because a sovereign god can do something, he will do it. God can do anything. It doesn't mean he chooses to do everything that's possible to him.
Responding to this earlier point. It doesn't matter if God does it or I do it. An absolutely, maximally sovereign God is responsible for everything. Everything that happens is because He directly Wills it or He doesn't prevent it. If something evil is about to happen, an absolutely sovereign God could stop it. If an evil person continues to live and do evil, then it's because an absolutely sovereign God allows that person to live and do evil. That doesn't even count the fact that God created the evil person in the first place, and He could have easily chosen not to do so. None of this is even a criticism of your theology. It's just basic theology that applies to any monotheistic religion. The problem is that Calvinism has no answer for it.
Sure it does, and its quite simple.

Adam and Eve were not slaves to sin. They could do good, and chose not to. They unleashed sin into the world.
You can say that God could have prevented it, but nothing will change the fact that they, and their actions alone, did it while not being slaves to sin. It is your opinion that puts culpability on God, it is my opinion that puts culpability on man.
The problem you have in the first paragraph is that you don't believe mankind is slave to sin.
Bob_Ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
HWY6_RunsBothWays said:

Indeed, Bob_Ag, what a thread to stumble across.

Modern-day Arminius vs. Calvin.

I wonder if these types of discussions have, in some small part, contributed to the decrease in church attendance nationwide. That is, we seem to be more focused on being scholars than good neighbors.

Mark 12 (ESV)
28 And one of the scribes came up and heard them disputing with one another, and seeing that he answered them well, asked him, "Which commandment is the most important of all?" 29 Jesus answered, "The most important is, 'Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. 30 And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.' 31 The second is this: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no other commandment greater than these." 32 And the scribe said to him, "You are right, Teacher. You have truly said that he is one, and there is no other besides him. 33 And to love him with all the heart and with all the understanding and with all the strength, and to love one's neighbor as oneself, is much more than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices." 34 And when Jesus saw that he answered wisely, he said to him, "You are not far from the kingdom of God." And after that no one dared to ask him any more questions.
Yeah, can't disagree. I've said my piece in this. These points have been argued for centuries now and will continue till the end of times.

I'm bowing out. Peace and love to all of you.
dermdoc
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Interestingly enough that my daily Bible verse today was

Psalm 133:1

How good and pleasant it is when God's people live in unity.

And since I am a Christian, do I need to convert to Calvinism?

Seems that way
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
To be clear, the view I am putting forward predates any dispute between followers of Arminius or Calvin by about fifteen centuries. As I said earlier, quoting St John Cassian, asserting either side of the understanding of the will puts forward all sorts of opposite errors.

I think there is a premise inherent in the Calvin vs Armenius debate that takes a kind of punitive or justice approach to salvation - in the mold or pattern of Anselm. It is more individualized and juridical in its examination of the question. The East seems to spend much more time on the idea of nature, and how the Incarnation affected man's nature, which lends itself to a much broader understanding from the get-go.

Edit to add. I think these kind of discussions are important, not to win arguments but to hope for reconciliation. As St Mark of Ephesus said:

There is truly a need for much investigation and conversation in matters of theological disputation (lit. "questionable dogmas"), so that compelling and conspicuous arguments might be considered. There is profound benefit to be gained from such conversation if the objective is not altercation but truth, and if the intention is not solely to triumph over others...Inspired by the same spirit [as the apostles at the council of Jerusalem] and bound to one another by love, the goal should be to discover the truth, and we should never miss the purpose that lies before us; even when its pursuit is prolonged, we should still always listen carefully to and address one another amicably so that our loving (agapitikos) exchange might contribute towards consensus (omonoian - same+understanding).
dermdoc
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Zobel said:

To be clear, the view I am putting forward predates any dispute between followers of Arminius or Calvin by about fifteen centuries. As I said earlier, quoting St John Cassian, asserting either side of the understanding of the will puts forward all sorts of opposite errors.

I think there is a premise inherent in the Calvin vs Armenius debate that takes a kind of punitive or justice approach to salvation - in the mold or pattern of Anselm. It is more individualized and juridical in its examination of the question. The East seems to spend much more time on the idea of nature, and how the Incarnation affected man's nature, which lends itself to a much broader understanding from the get-go.

Edit to add. I think these kind of discussions are important, not to win arguments but to hope for reconciliation. As St Mark of Ephesus said:

There is truly a need for much investigation and conversation in matters of theological disputation (lit. "questionable dogmas"), so that compelling and conspicuous arguments might be considered. There is profound benefit to be gained from such conversation if the objective is not altercation but truth, and if the intention is not solely to triumph over others...Inspired by the same spirit [as the apostles at the council of Jerusalem] and bound to one another by love, the goal should be to discover the truth, and we should never miss the purpose that lies before us; even when its pursuit is prolonged, we should still always listen carefully to and address one another amicably so that our loving (agapitikos) exchange might contribute towards consensus (omonoian - same+understanding).

Amen.

We are all brother and sisters in Christ.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
dermdoc
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Calvin would have burned me at the stake for my views. With green wood.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
TheGreatEscape
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Amen. We are all brothers and sisters in Christ. Ditto
dermdoc
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
https://soteriology101.com/2016/07/25/why-servetus-is-a-valid-argument-against-calvinism/
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
TheGreatEscape
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dermdoc said:

https://soteriology101.com/2016/07/25/why-servetus-is-a-valid-argument-against-calvinism/


Rome was likely going to burn the man alive
for Unitarianism. But it's one hiccup.
TheGreatEscape
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dermdoc said:

Calvin would have burned me at the stake for my views. With green wood.

No he wouldn't have. Only elders have to agree with these things. You're not anti-Trinity. So you're good to go.
dermdoc
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
TheGreatEscape said:

dermdoc said:

https://soteriology101.com/2016/07/25/why-servetus-is-a-valid-argument-against-calvinism/


Rome was going to burn the man alive
for Unitarianism.
So Calvin is the same as Rome?

Sorry but this is the idolatry you guys always claim about Catholics.

I do not get it.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
dermdoc
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
TheGreatEscape said:

dermdoc said:

Calvin would have burned me at the stake for my views. With green wood.

No he wouldn't have. Only elders have to agree with these things. You're not anti-Trinity. So you're good to go.
Great I guess. How Christ like!
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
TheGreatEscape
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dermdoc said:

TheGreatEscape said:

dermdoc said:

Calvin would have burned me at the stake for my views. With green wood.

No he wouldn't have. Only elders have to agree with these things. You're not anti-Trinity. So you're good to go.
Great I guess. How Christ like!


In all fairness, Calvin did want a hanging instead of a burning. But his elders rejected that idea. Those were different times.
TheGreatEscape
How long do you want to ignore this user?
All traditions have errors.
TheGreatEscape
How long do you want to ignore this user?
About all of these things we've discussed, why didn't Christ just say that he was God incarnate? He did using other words just like predestination.
HWY6_RunsBothWays
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Ecclesiastes 1 (ESV)
16 I said in my heart, "I have acquired great wisdom, surpassing all who were over Jerusalem before me, and my heart has had great experience of wisdom and knowledge." 17 And I applied my heart to know wisdom and to know madness and folly. I perceived that this also is but a striving after wind.

18 For in much wisdom is much vexation,
and he who increases knowledge increases sorrow.
dermdoc
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
HWY6_RunsBothWays said:

Ecclesiastes 1 (ESV)
16 I said in my heart, "I have acquired great wisdom, surpassing all who were over Jerusalem before me, and my heart has had great experience of wisdom and knowledge." 17 And I applied my heart to know wisdom and to know madness and folly. I perceived that this also is but a striving after wind.

18 For in much wisdom is much vexation,
and he who increases knowledge increases sorrow.
Very true.

I am most joyful when I allow my faith to be child like and simple.

I call it resting in the Lord or shalom. And it is wonderful.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
dermdoc
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Also for the record, I agree with a lot of Calvinist theology.

The sovereignty of God, ultimate predestination, election, the omniscience of God, etc.

I can not agree with double predestination or limited atonement. And have a hard time with unconditional election or irresistible grace as I think we have free will to accept or reject the Gospel.

I also think we have to make an effort to follow Christ. And we must persevere.

Now back to child like faith and joy.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.