And I could care less that historic Protestant confessional beliefs have diminished for now.

Look at the church and our culture after the 19th Century. It's terrible and has gotten worse. Before the 19th Century all the way to the 16th Century….Calvinism was the majority view.

TheGreatEscape said:

---

And I could care less that historic Protestant confessional beliefs have diminished for now.

Look at the church and our culture after the 19th Century. It's terrible and has gotten worse. Before the 19th Century all the way to the 16th Century….Calvinism was the majority view.

---

I would not say strict five point Calvinism was the majority view except in New England.
The Calvinists were instrumental in opposing the tyranny of the British and enforced hard work, thriftiness, and morality.
They unfortunately also like to burn or hang folks sometimes for differences in theology. And of course the Salem witch trials come to mind.
But I understand that was a different time. My main beef with Calvinism is the theology itself.
I do not see how anyone reading the. Bike with an open mind and not pre conceived ideas come believe in limited atonement and double pre destination.
I can not reconcile that theology with the revelation of God via Jesus.
But that is just me. As I have stated, I will read theology do not agree with to test my own. Most Calvinists I know refuse.

Cool. That's absolutely untrue of New England.
You have no historical argument based upon facts.
The Dutch Reformed formed New York. It was called New Amsterdam. The Congregationalist Puritans found Massachusetts and that spread all over the founding of New England colonies which became states. Look up the founding of Harvard, Yale, Princeton, and Brown (Reformed Baptists).

Tons of other examples and facts based upon history. But I have to go to work.

Please answer my previous questions. Thanks in advance.

I said New England was majority Calvinist. Maybe you misunderstood me.
I said I did not believe five points t Calvinism was the majority theology outside of New England during the colonial times. Maybe I am wrong. I am okay with that if I am.
And what question did you ask? Thanks

Oh and I believe 2 people committed suicide after Edward's preached "Sinners in the hands of an angry God".

dermdoc said:

---

Oh and I believe 2 people committed suicide after Edward's preached "Sinners in the hands of an angry God".

---

That sermon was definitely an anomaly from his usual preaching style and content, but truly is one of the greatest sermons ever preached. The Puritans were definitely instrumental to the Great Awakening that forged this great nation.

Rusty Aha said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Oh and I believe 2 people committed suicide after Edward's preached "Sinners in the hands of an angry God".

---

That sermon was definitely an anomaly from his usual preaching style and content, but truly is one of the greatest sermons ever preached. The Puritans were definitely instrumental to the Great Awakening that forged this great nation.

---

So you are okay with two people committing suicide after hearing Edward's sermon?

Wow.

And I am conservative and love America.

dermdoc said:

---

I said New England was majority Calvinist. Maybe you misunderstood me.
I said I did not believe five points t Calvinism was the majority theology outside of New England during the colonial times. Maybe I am wrong. I am okay with that if I am.
And what question did you ask? Thanks

---

You would be fine. There is nothing wrong with explaining the atonement for all but is limited to those who believe by sovereign election.

dermdoc said:

---

Oh and I believe 2 people committed suicide after Edward's preached "Sinners in the hands of an angry God".

---

So did Judas when the conviction of the truth convicted him so badly that instead of submitting to gain forgiveness, he was inflamed with pride. Oh that we should preach the Gospel again in such a way that it brings revival and reformation across the land.

You are a political conservative. But you following a 19th Century EOC professor is not my idea of theological conservatism.

Your doctrine of God is way off. It's far from classical theology proper, which is also called the doctrine of God.
God didn't create out of need.

God creates like an eternal fountain that is with unlimited resources and overflows into his creation.

TheGreatEscape said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Oh and I believe 2 people committed suicide after Edward's preached "Sinners in the hands of an angry God".

---

So did Judas when the conviction of the truth convicted him so badly that instead of submitting to gain forgiveness, he was inflamed with pride. Oh that we should preach the Gospel again in such a way that it brings revival and reformation across the land.

---

So you are equating Judas with Jonathan Edwards and 2 suicides.

Wow

Calvinism is as strong a drug as liberalism

dermdoc said:

---

Rusty Aha said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Oh and I believe 2 people committed suicide after Edward's preached "Sinners in the hands of an angry God".

---

That sermon was definitely an anomaly from his usual preaching style and content, but truly is one of the greatest sermons ever preached. The Puritans were definitely instrumental to the Great Awakening that forged this great nation.

---

So you are okay with two people committing suicide after hearing Edward's sermon?

Wow.

And I am conservative and love America.

---

It's tragic someone would hear such preaching and choose to take their own life. This sermon sparked a revival on the East Coast that lasted 15 years. Thousands were genuinely converted and countless other believers were revived in their faith.

dermdoc said:

---

TheGreatEscape said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Oh and I believe 2 people committed suicide after Edward's preached "Sinners in the hands of an angry God".

---

So did Judas when the conviction of the truth convicted him so badly that instead of submitting to gain forgiveness, he was inflamed with pride. Oh that we should preach the Gospel again in such a way that it brings revival and reformation across the land.

---

So you are equating Judas with Jonathan Edwards and 2 suicides.

Wow

Calvinism is as strong a drug as liberalism

---

It was tragic. Sorry that I in between stuff. Let God be glorified, even if it has side effects…that we don't understand.

ananias and sapphira were struck down and killed by God for a little lie to the Holy Spirit about not giving over all of their property to the church.

Tragic as well.

And no one knows the eternal status of the two suicides. And no one knows the eternal status of Ananias and Sapphira either.

So was Calvin burning Cervantes at the stake with greenwood tragic as well?

Different form of government of which was a mistake.
Calvin risked his own life trying to reach out to Cerv.
The Inquisition was trying to take Cerv out for entering Catholic territory. Calvin went after him anyway in order to convince Cerv to denounce Cerv's dismissal of the Trinity and the deity of Christ.

Cerv would leave and kept coming back against direct orders for disturbing the peace. He was unrepentant. He was warned over and over.
Calvin urged the elders to at least hang Cerv. But the elder ruled church and state would not allow for it. Thanks be to God that a future Calvinists like Rodger Williams in the colonies would lay the foundation of the doctrine of separation of church and state.

Jesus went to the Sanhedrin who convicted him unto death on the basis of breaking the first table of the Ten Commandments. So..in the future we should be very careful to never try someone for breaking the first table of the Law.

Perhaps something influenced Geneva to demonstrate to the Roman Catholics that they were not push overs and wouldn't allow such things to go on.

We repent.

TheGreatEscape said:

---

ananias and sapphira were struck down and killed by God for a little lie to the Holy Spirit about not giving over all of their property to the church.

Tragic as well.

And no one knows the eternal status of the two suicides. And no one knows the eternal status of Ananias and Sapphira either.

---

So if we are doing inerrant Scripture, where does it say who killed them?

dermdoc said:

---

TheGreatEscape said:

---

ananias and sapphira were struck down and killed by God for a little lie to the Holy Spirit about not giving over all of their property to the church.

Tragic as well.

And no one knows the eternal status of the two suicides. And no one knows the eternal status of Ananias and Sapphira either.

---

So if we are doing inerrant Scripture, where does it say who killed them?

---

I think the text in Acts chapter 5 implies that God ultimately killed them.

Acts 5 verse six states that great fear fell upon them (the church).

Why is that a bad thing? It's all over the Bible.

Remember the story of the ground opening up and swallowing people for their disobedience? Same God.

Jabin said:

---

Quote:

---

He was talking to an audience of Jews. There was no concept of hell in the OT, only Sheol. I think it is a huge jump to go to ECT hell from Gehenna.

---

But Christ did not use the word Sheol, he used Gehenna. And that obviously meant something to his audience. What that meaning was, we're not completely sure, but his description of Gehenna as flames, eternal torment, etc. apparently didn't cause any reaction from his audience. So, by the time of Christ, the Jews were apparently familiar with Gehenna as a term for a post-death place of flames and eternal torment.

I'm not sure, though, that Christ necessarily meant a literal place. He may have or he may not have. But just because we're uncomfortable with Christ's teachings does not mean that we should reinterpret them to make them meaningless or non-literal. We have to take the hard with the easy.

And you say that you're going to bow out, but you bring this topic (and the topic of double-predestination) up constantly on these threads.

---

You are correct. Because those two topics are key to what the character of God is.

Do the Calvinists on here believe God loves everybody?

And do they believe God sends people to eternal conscious torment hell?

TheGreatEscape said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Oh and I believe 2 people committed suicide after Edward's preached "Sinners in the hands of an angry God".

---

So did Judas when the conviction of the truth convicted him so badly that instead of submitting to gain forgiveness, he was inflamed with pride. Oh that we should preach the Gospel again in such a way that it brings revival and reformation across the land.

You are a political conservative. But you following a 19th Century EOC professor is not my idea of theological conservatism.

Your doctrine of God is way off. It's far from classical theology proper, which is also called the doctrine of God.
God didn't create out of need.

God creates like an eternal fountain that is with unlimited resources and overflows into his creation.

---

So clarify what you mean by classical theology? Because classical theology is certainly not Calvinism in my opinion.

From my readings a lot of classical theologians consider the Calvinist doctrines of limited atonement and double pre destination as heresies.

And fwiw, I think your doctrine of God is way off.
There are many other theologians than Augustine.

But we are brothers in Christ with different theologies. We can still be friends and love each other.

Yes…we do love each other. And thank you for bringing that up for this in-house discussion is between brothers in the Lord. It's messy sometimes. But that's just part of the historical process. I actually inboxed you before I read this when I woke up this morning. Love you very much and I am happy to discuss these things.

I'm going to respond further.

Thanks, Doc.

About Calvinism, I've been told that many of today's Calvinists have gone so far in that direction that they might not consider Calvin himself to be a Calvinist. There are lots of variation within "Calvinism" so when discussing it one needs to first define how each person in the discussion defines Calvinism.

And I'm very uncomfortable with following any person other than Jesus Christ and defining my beliefs by some other person's name. It seems to defy the entire point of the Reformation. The Reformation restored the Word of God to its rightful place as our supreme authority, but many Calvinists seem to put John Calvin himself a notch higher. Calvinists seem to study and quote Calvin and church confessions as much or more than they do Scripture itself.

dermdoc said:

---

Jabin said:

---

Quote:

---

He was talking to an audience of Jews. There was no concept of hell in the OT, only Sheol. I think it is a huge jump to go to ECT hell from Gehenna.

---

But Christ did not use the word Sheol, he used Gehenna. And that obviously meant something to his audience. What that meaning was, we're not completely sure, but his description of Gehenna as flames, eternal torment, etc. apparently didn't cause any reaction from his audience. So, by the time of Christ, the Jews were apparently familiar with Gehenna as a term for a post-death place of flames and eternal torment.

I'm not sure, though, that Christ necessarily meant a literal place. He may have or he may not have. But just because we're uncomfortable with Christ's teachings does not mean that we should reinterpret them to make them meaningless or non-literal. We have to take the hard with the easy.

And you say that you're going to bow out, but you bring this topic (and the topic of double-predestination) up constantly on these threads.

---

You are correct. Because those two topics are key to what the character of God is.

Do the Calvinists on here believe God loves everybody?

And do they believe God sends people to eternal conscious torment hell?

---

I'm sorry, Jabin. I think i am going to intercept this message. Feel free to add or take away or further qualify your own statements. We all are in this process. And if I break board pseudo-rules as church father's are often quoted and such; then I truly don't care. For there are folks on many topics who are much more eloquent than myself.

"Does God love everyone?"

"The Bible teaches that "God is love" (1 John 4:8).


{DR. DEREK THOMAS: Well, yes and no. There is a sense in which God loves all of His creatures. We can think of it in terms of John 3:16, "For God so loved the world." What does "world" mean? It doesn't mean that God loves every single individual in exactly the same way. In the Reformed faith, we talk about common grace, that blessing that was part of the covenant with Noah in Genesis 9 that relates to all of creation, that there is a beneficent love of God that provides food and shelter and a happy marriage to those who are not Christians. So, there is a sense in which God loves everyone.

But God doesn't love everyone in the same way. There are those whom He loves. We believe in the doctrine of election, that God chose from before the foundation of the world, that Christ died for particularly, that He shed His blood and provided atonement, that He rendered propitiation to appease and satisfy divine justice, that Christ died in the place of as a substitute and sin bearer for the elect.

Now, I don't know who the elect are. There's not a mark on their forehead that tells me who they are. As a preacher, I preach the saving love of Christ to everybody, that to whosoever will come to Christ and repent of their sins and believe on Him. If they do that, then in retrospect, you can look back and say, "Well, they were obviously elect." But as a preacher, I do want to proclaim the universal love of God for all of mankind in the sense of common grace. But that particular love of God for salvation is, in the end, only for the elect.}

https://www.ligonier.org/podcasts/ask-ligonier/does-god-love-everybody

Ephesians 1:3-9 (ESV) a circulated letter to both Jew and Gentile believers

{3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, 4 even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love 5 he predestined us for adoption to himself as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, 6 to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved. 7 In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace, 8 which he lavished upon us, in all wisdom and insight 9 making known to us the mystery of his will, according to his purpose, which he set forth in Christ}

If you will notice that the above text is all in one sentence.
It reaches back and forth to describe that in an unconditional love God has elected or chosen we believers in him before the foundations of the world. If you only see the bad news and not the good news of the Gospel here, then I will simply have to keep discussing and keep praying that a seed is planted for a future day.

If God loved his elect based upon his foreknowledge of a future choice, then what kind of unconditional love is that?

The views of prevenient grace or future foreknowledge of future works based love places God too far back from his interaction between space and time is in the Scripture.

In these two views just mentioned, God has his arms folded and is just waiting if one is lovable enough to lavish his conditional love upon. May it never be! Read Ephesians 1 again and again. For God's love never fails for those who trust in him by grace alone to the glory of God alone.

The other aspect that you can see that this often causes in our view of God, if it obtains the false presumption that God is obligated to love all creatures in the same way, is that Christ is biting his finger nails at the right hand of the Father just hoping that the devil doesn't win this war.

Jabin said:

---

Thanks, Doc.

About Calvinism, I've been told that many of today's Calvinists have gone so far in that direction that they might not consider Calvin himself to be a Calvinist. There are lots of variation within "Calvinism" so when discussing it one needs to first define how each person in the discussion defines Calvinism.

And I'm very uncomfortable with following any person other than Jesus Christ and defining my beliefs by some other person's name. It seems to defy the entire point of the Reformation. The Reformation restored the Word of God to its rightful place as our supreme authority, but many Calvinists seem to put John Calvin himself a notch higher. Calvinists seem to study and quote Calvin and church confessions as much or more than they do Scripture itself.

---

Have you read the "Institutes?" Calvin estimates that a good theologian may get about 80% correct.

And no we don't follow Calvin. Lutherans don't follow Luther. Wesleyans don't follow Wesley. Augustinians don't follow Augustine.

But Calvin was most definitely onto what I am communicating.

Thank you for your question.

dermdoc said:

---

TheGreatEscape said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Oh and I believe 2 people committed suicide after Edward's preached "Sinners in the hands of an angry God".

---

So did Judas when the conviction of the truth convicted him so badly that instead of submitting to gain forgiveness, he was inflamed with pride. Oh that we should preach the Gospel again in such a way that it brings revival and reformation across the land.

You are a political conservative. But you following a 19th Century EOC professor is not my idea of theological conservatism.

Your doctrine of God is way off. It's far from classical theology proper, which is also called the doctrine of God.
God didn't create out of need.

God creates like an eternal fountain that is with unlimited resources and overflows into his creation.

---

So clarify what you mean by classical theology? Because classical theology is certainly not Calvinism in my opinion.

From my readings a lot of classical theologians consider the Calvinist doctrines of limited atonement and double pre destination as heresies.

And fwiw, I think your doctrine of God is way off.
There are many other theologians than Augustine.

But we are brothers in Christ with different theologies. We can still be friends and love each other.

---

As I have previously stated, there are different ways of explaining how the atonement relates to the other 4 points of Calvinism. Bullinger took over after Zwingli in Zurich. He helped us more in his study of the covenant. Bull explained the atonement a different way but firmly held to the other 4 points.

For the reader who may not know…The 5 points of Calvinism were made as a reaction to the 5 points of Arminius of the minority position. This was after Calvin's death in the Netherlands to honor Calvin who was buried in an unmarked grave and lived in a cottage. Calvin may have preferred them to not to have named such holy doctrine after him at the council of Dort? But Arminius' followers were calling themselves Arminians. So…

On theology proper or the doctrine of God

This is what I clearly was revealing that our belief that God is not bound to his creation, nor did God create the world/universe out of need as if to in some way complete him as Triune. This is the orthodox position.

I'm stating that there is an historical development which connects the noetic effects of universalism to insecure theism. I'm just vehemently rejecting the 19th Century Russian "Orthodox" professor.

I think it is a difficult task for the Western Eastern Orthodox Christians to communicate their language into the developed of Western terms and definitions.

I appreciate reading Zobel, for instance. But there is all kinds of philosophical developments upon developments in the idioms and nuances of Eastern theology that is difficult to fit within Western theology.


Moreover, universalism clearly belittles and lessens the role of the atonement. And I'm the one who believes in limited atonement? Actually, limited atonement means effective atonement.

TheGreatEscape said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

TheGreatEscape said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Oh and I believe 2 people committed suicide after Edward's preached "Sinners in the hands of an angry God".

---

So did Judas when the conviction of the truth convicted him so badly that instead of submitting to gain forgiveness, he was inflamed with pride. Oh that we should preach the Gospel again in such a way that it brings revival and reformation across the land.

You are a political conservative. But you following a 19th Century EOC professor is not my idea of theological conservatism.

Your doctrine of God is way off. It's far from classical theology proper, which is also called the doctrine of God.
God didn't create out of need.

God creates like an eternal fountain that is with unlimited resources and overflows into his creation.

---

So clarify what you mean by classical theology? Because classical theology is certainly not Calvinism in my opinion.

From my readings a lot of classical theologians consider the Calvinist doctrines of limited atonement and double pre destination as heresies.

And fwiw, I think your doctrine of God is way off.
There are many other theologians than Augustine.

But we are brothers in Christ with different theologies. We can still be friends and love each other.

---

As I have previously stated, there are different ways of explaining how the atonement relates to the other 4 points of Calvinism. Bullinger took over after Zwingli in Zurich. He helped us more in his study of the covenant. Bull explained the atonement a different way but firmly held to the other 4 points.

For the reader who may not know…The 5 points of Calvinism were made as a reaction to the 5 points of Arminius of the minority position. This was after Calvin's death in the Netherlands to honor Calvin who was buried in an unmarked grave and lived in a cottage. Calvin may have preferred them to not to have named such holy doctrine after him at the council of Dort? But Arminius' followers were calling themselves Arminians. So…

On theology proper or the doctrine of God

This is what I clearly was revealing that our belief that God is not bound to his creation, nor did God create the world/universe out of need as if to in some way complete him as Triune. This is the orthodox position.

I'm stating that there is an historical development which connects the noetic effects of universalism to insecure theism. I'm just vehemently rejecting the 19th Century Russian "Orthodox" professor.

I think it is a difficult task for the Western Eastern Orthodox Christians to communicate their language into the developed of Western terms and definitions.

I appreciate reading Zobel, for instance. But there is all kinds of philosophical developments upon developments in the idioms and nuances of Eastern theology that is difficult to fit within Western theology.


Moreover, universalism clearly belittles and lessens the role of the atonement. And I'm the one who believes in limited atonement? Actually, limited atonement means effective atonement.

---

If the atonement is universal it makes God and the cross even more powerful in my opinion. Means God can and will redeem everybody and everything.

And not without punishment and the fire of purification. I think God is bigger than limited anything.

Like I said, we reformed explain the atonement in different ways.

Purification from what? Purification is essentially what Sanctification is and is a work ultimately of God in Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit alone.

Here St. Paul connects the relationship of sanctification to justification and predestination. For being confirmed to the image of God's only Son is sanctification. And Predestination means grace.

Romans 8:29-30 (ESV)


{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.}

TheGreatEscape said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Jabin said:

---

Quote:

---

He was talking to an audience of Jews. There was no concept of hell in the OT, only Sheol. I think it is a huge jump to go to ECT hell from Gehenna.

---

But Christ did not use the word Sheol, he used Gehenna. And that obviously meant something to his audience. What that meaning was, we're not completely sure, but his description of Gehenna as flames, eternal torment, etc. apparently didn't cause any reaction from his audience. So, by the time of Christ, the Jews were apparently familiar with Gehenna as a term for a post-death place of flames and eternal torment.

I'm not sure, though, that Christ necessarily meant a literal place. He may have or he may not have. But just because we're uncomfortable with Christ's teachings does not mean that we should reinterpret them to make them meaningless or non-literal. We have to take the hard with the easy.

And you say that you're going to bow out, but you bring this topic (and the topic of double-predestination) up constantly on these threads.

---

You are correct. Because those two topics are key to what the character of God is.

Do the Calvinists on here believe God loves everybody?

And do they believe God sends people to eternal conscious torment hell?

---

I'm sorry, Jabin. I think i am going to intercept this message. Feel free to add or take away or further qualify your own statements. We all are in this process. And if I break board pseudo-rules as church father's are often quoted and such; then I truly don't care. For there are folks on many topics who are much more eloquent than myself.

"Does God love everyone?"

"The Bible teaches that "God is love" (1 John 4:8).


{DR. DEREK THOMAS: Well, yes and no. There is a sense in which God loves all of His creatures. We can think of it in terms of John 3:16, "For God so loved the world." What does "world" mean? It doesn't mean that God loves every single individual in exactly the same way. In the Reformed faith, we talk about common grace, that blessing that was part of the covenant with Noah in Genesis 9 that relates to all of creation, that there is a beneficent love of God that provides food and shelter and a happy marriage to those who are not Christians. So, there is a sense in which God loves everyone.

But God doesn't love everyone in the same way. There are those whom He loves. We believe in the doctrine of election, that God chose from before the foundation of the world, that Christ died for particularly, that He shed His blood and provided atonement, that He rendered propitiation to appease and satisfy divine justice, that Christ died in the place of as a substitute and sin bearer for the elect.

Now, I don't know who the elect are. There's not a mark on their forehead that tells me who they are. As a preacher, I preach the saving love of Christ to everybody, that to whosoever will come to Christ and repent of their sins and believe on Him. If they do that, then in retrospect, you can look back and say, "Well, they were obviously elect." But as a preacher, I do want to proclaim the universal love of God for all of mankind in the sense of common grace. But that particular love of God for salvation is, in the end, only for the elect.}

https://www.ligonier.org/podcasts/ask-ligonier/does-god-love-everybody

Ephesians 1:3-9 (ESV) a circulated letter to both Jew and Gentile believers

{3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, 4 even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love 5 he predestined us for adoption to himself as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, 6 to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved. 7 In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace, 8 which he lavished upon us, in all wisdom and insight 9 making known to us the mystery of his will, according to his purpose, which he set forth in Christ}

If you will notice that the above text is all in one sentence.
It reaches back and forth to describe that in an unconditional love God has elected or chosen we believers in him before the foundations of the world. If you only see the bad news and not the good news of the Gospel here, then I will simply have to keep discussing and keep praying that a seed is planted for a future day.

If God loved his elect based upon his foreknowledge of a future choice, then what kind of unconditional love is that?

The views of prevenient grace or future foreknowledge of future works based love places God too far back from his interaction between space and time is in the Scripture.

In these two views just mentioned, God has his arms folded and is just waiting if one is lovable enough to lavish his conditional love upon. May it never be! Read Ephesians 1 again and again. For God's love never fails for those who trust in him by grace alone to the glory of God alone.

The other aspect that you can see that this often causes in our view of God, if it obtains the false presumption that God is obligated to love all creatures in the same way, is that Christ is biting his finger nails at the right hand of the Father just hoping that the devil doesn't win this war.

---

I'm not sure what you're saying or to what you are responding. Could you summarize that a bit, please?

I sense that you're trying to describe election, a doctrine with which I am familiar. The problem with Calvinists is that you focus exclusively on election and ignore all of the verses on free will. Both can be true.

Another problem with what you've written is that you are using your words to describe the doctrine, rather than God's. I'd prefer t rely on God's words.

Quote:

---

Thank you for your question.

---

I don't believe that I asked a question in my post that you quoted and were responding to.

And, yes, years ago I read the Institutes or as much as I could get through. Calvin, like all men who are not inspired, is clear step down from the Bible itself.

I think you misunderstand our view of free will.

St. Paul has the authority to say that the unregenerate are slaves to sin.

St. Paul also has the authority to say that the regenerate are now a slave to righteousness. And that we may experience sin, of course, but we are no longer under the dominion of sin.

We are both sinner and saint at the same time. Our wills now can glorify God from the Spirit's work and the bearing of his fruit when we serve the Lord with gladness and thanksgiving in our hearts for both what God has done and is still moving.
The Holy Spirit only works in a heart of gratitude for what Christ has accomplished.

When St. Augustine writes to Christians that they now have a free will, he is not contradicting everything he previously taught, nor does he ever retract it in his retractions.

Augustine in the 4th Century letter to Pelagius is a good one to read on the Christian view of free will.

"The Bondage of the Will" by Martin Luther is another good one to read. Lots of reformation history in it.

"The Freedom of the Will" by Jonathan Edwards is probably the best book for you to read on the subject.

This book will greatly help you communicate how exactly we both have free will and what that means as our inclinations are prone to wonder in the battle against the world, the flesh, and the devil.

Weird. I haven't noticed one scripture verse quoted against the Reformed view, nor has anyone to yet interact with texts that I've both alluded to and have referenced.

Please do. Be like the Bereans in the book of Acts.
For they were praised for searching the Scriptures to discover and and most likely discuss if these things were true or not.

I find it fascinating and revealing that in all the words Calvin wrote in his basic Institutes that the word "love" never appears.

There is a new translation for the 21st Century out and it uses the word love.

Calvin was translated many years ago with a lot of King James language. Calvin used the word charity instead of love.

ARCHAIC
love of humankind, typically in a Christian context.
"faith, hope, and charity"

And Calvin also explains how we are to care for our fellow man.

TheGreatEscape said:

---

Weird. I haven't noticed one scripture verse quoted against the Reformed view, nor has anyone to yet interact with texts that I've both alluded to and have referenced.

Please do. Be like the Bereans in the book of Acts.
For they were praised for searching the Scriptures to discover and and most likely discuss if these things were true or not.

---

Actually I have posted several like Luke 2:10, 1 Timothy 2 3-4, 2 Peter 3:9, etc.

I discovered it was a futile endeavor because you would add words to fit Calvinist theology. You see everything through a Calvinist lens so it is inconceivable to you that "all men" means ALL men. I mean, you went to a Reformed seminary so that is what you were taught.

Which I understand because every theology does that sometimes.

TheGreatEscape said:

---

There is a new translation for the 21st Century out and it uses the word love.

Calvin was translated many years ago with a lot of King James language. Calvin used the word charity instead of love.

ARCHAIC
love of humankind, typically in a Christian context.
"faith, hope, and charity"

And Calvin also explains how we are to care for our fellow man.

---

Just curious, how often did he use the word charity?

We have gone over the Timothy verse in its context in the Book of Common Prayer and 39 Articles thread. It's still waiting for you. Been waiting for weeks.

Let's go over 2 Peter 3:9 in its context. Who is the audience? Context means everything to establishing a doctrine, which means teaching. Which is what you are trying to do.



2 Peter 1:1-2 (ESV)

{Simeon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ,

To those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ:

2 May grace and peace be multiplied to you in the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord.}

St. Peter is specifically addressing this letter containing doctrine for those to whom have obtained faith. Obtained faith. Obtained faith.

Let's look at the beginning of the chapter which Peter addresses those whom have obtained faith as beloved.

1 Peter 3:1 (ESV)

"This is now the second letter that I am writing to you, beloved.."

Then let us focus on the previous verse 8 in order to see the logical flow into verse 9.

2 Peter 3:8-9 (ESV)

{8 But do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. 9 The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance.}

Notice the pronoun "us" in verse 9 and how that connects to beloved in verse 8. Do they not teach what an antecedent is anymore in understanding and interpreting grammar?

This is another verse which gives great assurance of salvation to the beloved believer.


Otherwise, it makes the atonement lessened in its solidification in a wet cement foundation. For we cling to Christ alone for the hope of salvation. A hope that is an anchor and not trusting in our own free wills.

What does Paul state? "I take no confidence in the flesh."