Amazing Grace - The History & Theology of Calvinism

[b1foschiefs]

@NiceneCouncilcom I am confused here. My comment was directed toward Jim, who denied that the "gospel evangelists" were among the ones who saw the resurrected Christ. I didn't believe that the 15th chapter of Corinthians needed any exegesis to refute his statement, because in those verses(5-8), Paul is pretty clear about those who had seen Him. I am fully prepared to give an exegesis on the whole chapter, but the part I was referring to needed none.

[NiceneCouncilcom]

@b1foschiefs I apologize. Jim has not continued in the conversation. I saw your comment and his name there, not yours. I misread and apologize.

[b1foschiefs]

@NiceneCouncilcom Oh no problem. I appreciate your videos, I wish your documentary were free though. God bless.

[motibi]

To ARMINIANS -Romans 11:32 "for God has shut up all to unbelief, that he might have mercy on all".

To CALVINISTS -1 Timothy 4:10"for for this we both labour and are reproached, because we hope on the living God, who is Saviour of ALL MEN ESPECIALLY y of those believing."

DOUBTERS I Cor. 15:23-28"But every man in his own order:..For He must reign until He has put all enemies under His feet..last enemy...destroyed is DEATH... Son also Himself be subject unto Him..that God may be ALL IN ALL"

[Michaelrwright92]

The entire DVD is well worth the watch. Sadly I don't own it, but borrowed it from a friend. However it is a great four-hour presentation of the Doctrines of Grace and the history behind them.

[jimtrueblue99]

Why does a person have to believe anything in Calvinism? Either you are one of the elect or you are not. If you are not, belief is irrelevant. If you are, you are saved irrespective of what you believe because God has chosen you for salvation before the world was created. Calvin's theology cancels itself. The elect don't need it because they are elect and destined for heaven; the non-elect don't need it because it won't do them any good.

[NiceneCouncilcom]

@jimtrueblue99 hi the reason it is important for believers is because it is the revealed teaching of the living God. To be saved by mercy because the one, true, living God FREELY chose to save you and then to shug off HOW He would communicate your salvation so that you understood it was TOTALLY of Him and not of yourself, is to demonstrate an unthankfulness for His grace, just as you may eat a wonderful meal and when the chef wants to tell you how he prepared it, you spurn him for doing so.

[jimtrueblue99]

@NiceneCouncilcom The elect go to heaven simply because they are the elect and God's will cannot be thwarted. The non-elect go to hell for the same reason. Evangelism is superfluous for the elect and pointless for the non-elect. Ditto churches and theology. The elect can never lose their election; the non-elect can never gain election. To be both logical and candid a Calvinist preacher should begin each sermon thus: What I am about to say will make no difference to your eternal destiny.

[NiceneCouncilcom]

@jimtrueblue99 No Jim you are just wrong. that is not the Reformed position. Yes all those who go to heaven are the elect and they are there BECAUSE of God's free grace, a grace which raises them to spiritual life, opens their eyes, grants them saving faith and repentance towards God. Again, you do not understand man as truly DEAD in his trespasses and sins and unable to do anything pleasing to God which would also include faith. what you are espousing is fatalism, not biblical theology.

[NiceneCouncilcom]

@jimtrueblue99 furthermore, God saves by means and that is the believing of the gospel. Calvinism does not cancel itself out, but rather is comprehensive in declaring God uses means to fulfill His purposes. The apostle Paul says as much in Romans 10, "How shall they believe without hearing and how shall they hear without a preacher?" I hope that helps:)

[jimtrueblue99]

@NiceneCouncilcom Obviously belief is neither necessary nor sufficient. It is not sufficient because you have to be elected first. It is not necessary because if you are elected you must go to heaven because God's will cannot be thwarted. What's human belief got to do with divine election? Asserting that belief is necessary makes unconditional grace conditional upon belief--illogical! It is either the case that God alone does everything necessary for salvation or He does not. Which is it?

[NiceneCouncilcom]

@jimtrueblue99 again Jim, you are missing the point. you construct a strawman then proceed to tear it down. No one is saying that belief in Calvinism is what makes one a Christian. But neither is it required that one believe in the 12 apostles for salvation correct? is it important that people grow in the knowledge of God and His Word? Yes. This would also speak to knowing the men who God used to write the Bible. Agree? So is the same with the doctrines of grace.

[NiceneCouncilcom]

@jimtrueblue99 while it is true that if you are among the elect you will go to heaven, however what you are missing is the means God has given for one to enter heaven. Those means are the preaching of the gospel, the hearing of it and belief of the gospel and faith towards our Lord Jesus. Demanding that men believe is what the Scriptures teach Jim, just as teaching that God is free and sovereign in election is what the Scriptures teach as well. If you would understand that the ABILITY to....

[NiceneCouncilcom]

@jimtrueblue99 believe is a gift from God then it would prehaps make a bit more sense to you. The conditions that God demands for salvation are provided graciously to His elect by Him because of the Lord Jesus Christ.

[jimtrueblue99]

@NiceneCouncilcom Does disbelief cancel election?

[NiceneCouncilcom]

@jimtrueblue99 Jim is your question assuming that the will of the creature can overthrow the decrees and purposes of the Free and All powerful Creator? I'm not quite sure exactly what you are asking so if you can clarify I would be happy to answer.

[jimtrueblue99]

@NiceneCouncilcom Smith is one of the elect but not yet a believer. Smith crosses the road and is hit by a bus. He dies instantly. Does Smith go to heaven or hell?

[NiceneCouncilcom]

@jimtrueblue99 Jim your question smacks of "Can God make a rock so big he can't move it?" However, if Smith were one of the elect, God would sovereignly protect him and enable him to not only hear the gospel but believe it. Why would you ask such a question seeing there is the one, true, living God who is in complete control of all events in space and time?

[jimtrueblue99]

@NiceneCouncilcom I'm not posing quibbles about God. I want to know if Calvin's ideas of election and salvation by faith are consistent. They don't seem to be. In the video "Amazing Grace" Calvinist theologians disparage the Arminian claim that God requires a free faith act from the believer before salvation can be complete.  Yet you say that God requires a free faith act from the elect Smith before his salvation is complete. This seems a distinction without a difference and crypto-Arminian.

[NiceneCouncilcom]

@jimtrueblue99 Actually it's more consistent than the Arminians. For instance God requires men believe the Gospel in order to be saved. God also tells us men are dead in sins and unable to come to Christ unless the Father draws them and then they will come and Jesus will raise them up at the last day. So the one who elects, calls, then those He calls He justifies and those He justifies eventually He glorifies. That is the inspired apostle's words in Rom. 9 so that you know who taught this.

[NiceneCouncilcom]

@jimtrueblue99 Furthermore Jim, let me ask you this, where does the Bible teach that man has the ABILITY to having saving faith on his own apart from divine grace being given to him? There are plenty of passages which teach the exact opposite. On top of that, just where in the Scriptures can man do anything that is pleasing to God apart from God's grace? Where?

[jimtrueblue99]

@NiceneCouncilcom Unless Paul was God incarnate, you’re merely telling me what Paul, not God, thought. Paul thought himself an apostle because he once had a seizure and fell off his horse and claimed that he communed with spiritual beings during out-of-body excursions in heaven. Paul taught whatever his disorganized, careless mind concocted ad hoc. On the hand Jesus (author and finisher of my faith--yours too?) invited any who would seek to find and promised to open to any who would knock.

[NiceneCouncilcom]

@jimtrueblue99 first Paul was not God incarnate, but was, as Peter said moved along by God the Holy Spirit. Your assumption that Paul fell off a horse shows how less than careful you read Scripture as no horse was mentioned. So you will listen to the words of Jesus? Great:) Here Him then...."No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day." Get that? No man can come and the ones that do, do so because of the Father and are save

[jimtrueblue99]

@NiceneCouncilcom Maybe Paul fell off an elephant for all I care. His hallucinations are not my revelation. “For God so loved the world…” means everybody, even people who tangle themselves up in a theology of fatuous quibbles concocted by a third-rate French lawyer who projected his own loathsome character onto God and perversely turned a gospel of divine love into a cult of holy hate. However I do think Calvinists have one thing right: they are indeed totally depraved.

[NiceneCouncilcom]

@jimtrueblue99 he didn't fall from anything and again shows you know nothing of what you are talking about. as for the john 3:16 passage, exegete the passage if you are able please. For the only ones that actually benefit from the love of God by sending His own son to die are those who believe (ie. the elect). But apparently since you have such a low view of Scripture (ie. "hallucinations") you give evidence that you are in need of repentance towards God and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.

[NiceneCouncilcom]

@jimtrueblue99 "He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God." BTW, in case you don't actually read the Bible, that is just 2 verses down from John 3:16. "He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him." This one actually concludes the chapter. i noticed you didn't address Jn 6.

[jimtrueblue99]

@NiceneCouncilcom Of course I don’t deny that a person needs to trust God. There’s no point not trusting somebody you love. I *do* deny that Calvin’s cockamamie holy-hate lawyer-theology has anything to do with the gospel of Christ. It’s a travesty. God loves the bugs and the bunny rabbits but he hates humans! And then Calvinists wonder why people laugh at their maniacal proof-texting. Gibbon was right: Calvinists will knife each other in the gut over a diphthong.

[NiceneCouncilcom]

@jimtrueblue99 So you are unwilling to exegete the texts i've given you? btw, could you point to the text where it says, "God loves the bugs and the bunny rabbits" for those who will read this? Calvinism actually tries to exegete texts within their context. you are now left to exegete John 3:16 in the context of the chapter. I'm also still waiting on an exegesis of John 6 that I referenced earlier. This is exactly why the Reformed position is so strong.

[theocratickingdom30]

@NiceneCouncilcom: Amen!!!

[jimtrueblue99]

@NiceneCouncilcom Oh, I missed this post. Am I now to understand that Calvin's god hates the bugs and bunny rabbits he created? And the whales and rivers and penguins too? What else of his creation does he hate? The troposphere? The stratosphere? How far from earth does his hate extend? Does he hate the moon? How about Mars? Jupiter? Not little Pluto too? Comets in the Oort cloud? Alpha Centauri? How deep into space does his hate extend? Do we measure the extent by light years?

[NiceneCouncilcom]

@jimtrueblue99 Sir, obviously you really don't care to know what Calvinists truly think as you continue to make more straw men. i simply asked you where you got your thoughts on that from.

[NiceneCouncilcom]

@jimtrueblue99 Say your son or daughter, if you have one, goes out and murders someone, they are found guilty of murder and the evidence is overwhelming. While yes, it may hurt you to know such a fate comes to your child, would you not agree that justice was being served when they were condemned and punished? If not, then we have nothing more to discuss. The fact is, I don't know who the elect are, nor am I given special insight into that. I merely present the gospel that they might be saved

[jimtrueblue99]

@NiceneCouncilcom Would you stop loving your child if he committed such a crime? Would you consign your child to torture and agony and call that proper punishment? Would you abandon your child and call that abandonment justice? When do Calvinist parents run out of love for their children? When do Calvinist fathers give their children stones when they ask for bread?

[NiceneCouncilcom]

@jimtrueblue99 Again, you show no understanding of the issues. The issue is not what I would do the issue is what would the law demand and in fact a just judge? Tell me Sir. If a mass murderer was found in your neighborhood, your own son, and he was found guilty and the judge released him with no punishment and no settling of the demands of the law.....would that judge be just? I think not. In your view Sir, I suppose you think God will save every single person who ever lived.

[jimtrueblue99]

@NiceneCouncilcom I'm not asking about justice; I'm asking about love. I want to know the boundaries of your love for your child. I want to know where and why your love ends. I want to know why the thought of your child suffering eternally in hell doesn't seem to bother you in the least. I want to know if a human heart beats in your chest. What if the real God does save every person? In your neck of the woods, would that be a bad thing?

[NiceneCouncilcom]

@jimtrueblue99 Jim again, that is to misunderstand the system. Does the Bible state that God hates as well as loves? Sure it does. And yet all men receive from him that which they do not deserve. All men deserve death because all men have sinned. That is justice, which apparently you don't understand at all. As for love, sure the thought is in my mind that my children would come under the wrath of God and so I warn them and pray for them daily and ask God to do for them what they cannot.

[jimtrueblue99]

@NiceneCouncilcom There's no point praying for your children if they are not among the elect. If Calvin's god hates them, what can you do about it? You must rejoice in their damnation and approve the righteous judgments of Calvin's god as he consigns them to eternal torment. You must spend eternity singing this god's praises. You must say to him with your whole heart, "Bless you for tormenting my children. They deserve it. I love your just judgment on them." What parent could ever say that?

[NiceneCouncilcom]

@jimtrueblue99 Again you show your complete ignorance of the subject. While God has decreed destinys, yes, He has decreed them by MEANS. Something you again forget in your argumentation. He also decreed the death of His own Son and used the means of sinful men to accomplish that so that sinners such as myself might have our sins atoned for and our punishment taken upon another so that we might go free.

[NiceneCouncilcom]

@jimtrueblue99 Jim, I'll ask again, since you reference the gospel of Christ and are asking "what if the real God does save every person"? Upon what basis do you even understand the gospel? Upon what basis would you ask the above question? Upon what truth do you subscribe to and why? Of course, what you fail to mention in all this is that Calvinists were the real installments of missions in America. If you have seen the DVD as you said, then you would have known that. So yes we have heart

[jimtrueblue99]

@NiceneCouncilcom Why are you so bothered by the thought of the real God saving all His children? Why is hate so important to you?

[NiceneCouncilcom]

@jimtrueblue99 Jim, I"m not bothered at all. I simply asked you for the authority upon which you base such a presupposition. Not once have I espoused hate here. That has come from you in almost each and every one of your posts. You Sir are the irrational hater. Not one time have you answered the question of where the authority for your claims come from and yet you pontificate against straw men, not against the position of any reformed Christian that I know.

[jimtrueblue99]

@NiceneCouncilcom And why would anyone want to go to a heaven run by Calvin’s arbitrary gargoyle hate-god? It would be like living in Jerome Bixby’s Peaksville, Ohio, where you don’t know one second to the next if little Anthony is going to whisk you off to the cornfield. Some day the cosmic sovereign might get bored with all their groveling and pack the obsequious elect off to hell just for fun. Who are you to object if it does, oh worm of a human? Am I unjust? Are you a worm?

[NiceneCouncilcom]

@jimtrueblue99 again, more straw men and we have seen nothing concerning exegesis of Scripture, so you fail to convince anyone of your position. While you and I are often unjust, God is not. Again your arguments sound like those anticipated by the Holy Spirit and the apostle Paul in Romans 9. So again, I'll ask for exegesis of Romans 9, which I'm beginning to doubt I'll see, but I am trying to get an answer:)

[jimtrueblue99]

@NiceneCouncilcom I don’t play the proof-texting parlor game. Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons, Seventh Day Adventists, tongues-babbling Pentecostalists, Southern/Eastern/Western/North­ern/Whatever Baptists, fossilized Lutherans, calcified Calvinists—this swarm of angry bees buzz around exactly the same verses and think their theologies nectar from a flower while everybody else’s is poison from a weed. If I’m in the mood for idle word games, I’ll do a crossword puzzle.

[NiceneCouncilcom]

@jimtrueblue99 actually jim all you are doing is pontificating your own mind. you have yet to actually exegete one passage of Scripture as you have been asked to do. Again, this is the strength of the Reformed position in that it can exegete passages of Scripture in their contexts and allow Scripture to interpret Scripture. All you have offered here is mere ad hominem and charicatures of a position that you do not know enough about to actually address the position.

[NiceneCouncilcom]

@jimtrueblue99 No one has asked for idle word games. You have been asked to support your position from Scriptural exegesis, but apparently you are unable to do so and have concocted a god of your own imagination. If you can discuss this as an adult here, I would be happy to engage you in that discussion and reasons from the Scritpures:)

[jimtrueblue99]

@NiceneCouncilcom Calvin’s god is a loveless wretch devoid of rudimentary decency because Calvin was a loveless wretch devoid of rudimentary decency. Calvin’s god is Calvin writ large—a cosmic moral cripple. Calvin’s god hates his enemies, tortures them, condemns them to eternal death because Calvin hated his enemies in Geneva, plotted against them, had them tortured and judicially murdered. Calvinism is the worst sort of idolatry—the self-worship of the morally deformed.

[NiceneCouncilcom]

@jimtrueblue99 again, more straw men and no exegesis, only the mind of Jim is on display here. The God of the Bible loves His people so much that He ACTUALLY DOES SAVE THEM. The God that Jim worships I suppose TRIES VERY HARD TO SAVE MEN, but alas the almighty power of man's will can overrule the sovereign all powerful God, which in Jim's view is quite impotent. That is not the God of Scripture.

[jimtrueblue99]

@NiceneCouncilcom You seem to think that I regard the texts of the Bible as the magic books you think they are. I don't. They have no more wisdom, value, or authority than other books written by people. At best your "exegesis" is an explanation of what an ancient person thought, at worst merely your opinion of what an ancient person thought. In either case, why do I care? Maybe that ancient person had a good idea or two, maybe not. But God's inerrant, infallible truth? Tell me another joke!

[NiceneCouncilcom]

@jimtrueblue99 The obvious question i have for you then Jim is this? Why do you care? Why must you even come on here and pontificate about that which you know nothing of? Is it to just show everyone exactly what the Scriptures say in regards to Reformed Theology? That in fact you are rebellious against God and under His wrath? I'd say you are doing a pretty good job of that in this forum. You are demonstrating that you do not have the ability to submit to the God of the Bible on His terms.

[jimtrueblue99]

@NiceneCouncilcom I want to probe the minds of 21st century people who live in a late-medieval cult. I want to understand the secret motivations behind the love of holy hate and the worship of raw power. I want to cut through the proof-text evasions and find out why ostensible adults cringe and crawl and grovel before a fiction cooked up by a crackpot. I want to know what really makes you tick. We know it can’t be love of neighbors or kindness of heart. Decency’s out. So what is it?

[NiceneCouncilcom]

@jimtrueblue99 Jim you are not interested in that. Sir you have no final authority it appears other than your own reason and well, quite honestly, everyone has an opinion, so that certainly isn't reliable. I am far from cultic. I stand upon the Scriptures and faith that has been handed down since Creation. God has shown me love and mercy and granted me His grace.  In turn, my desire is that His gospel might be proclaimed and that men would honor Him as He deserves.

[jimtrueblue99]

@NiceneCouncilcom Well, you finally got it. Everybody has an opinion including John Calvin. His preposterous theology is his opinion. How did Calvin's god show love to you? If you're one of the elect, it's not because he loved you. Don't you remember--there's nothing in a totally depraved sinful human to commend him to Calvin's god. You were a fat sack of sin. Calvin's god hated you. You offended him. How you got to be an elect is anybody's guess--but love had nothing to do with it! 

[NiceneCouncilcom]

@jimtrueblue99 This is exactly where you are wrong. Of course i was a rebel sinner and that doesn't come from Calvin, that comes from the Scriptures, but God has shown His love by sending His Son to die in my place WHILE I was a sinner (Rom 5:8). He chose to set His love upon me, even in my condition before the world began (Ephesians 1). But alas, you wouldn't understand that because you are not interested in that. You are merely interested in pontificating your own mind.

[NiceneCouncilcom]

@jimtrueblue99 God has commanded you to repent Jim. He is not impotent as you believe Him to be. If He should so desire He could change you just as He has countless millions throughout history, but that is up to Him. Christ lived perfectly, died as an atonement for sin and was buried and rose again and now He is at the right hand of God and will judge all men, including you, on the last day. From one sinner to another, I urge you to believe upon Him and be saved.

[jimtrueblue99]

@NiceneCouncilcom Calvin’s god loved you? Let’s see. This is possible in Calvin’s world. Tell me if it’s love: You are an elect but your son and daughter are not. Luck of the draw. Now, tell me, Dad, how do you feel knowing Calvin’s god hates your children? Will you enjoy heaven with them in hell? Will you watch them suffer yet praise that god’s justice and mercy? Will you thank that god for saving you and damning them? Their heavenly father hates them. What about their earthly father?

[NiceneCouncilcom]

@jimtrueblue99 Jim, again you know nothing of what you speak. If you actually understood Calvinism you would hold your tongue a bit more. Luck has nothing to do with it. The grace of God is what the issue is. Since you did agree in your first posts that all men are depraved, that speaks to their inability to do what is right before God. Since this is the case, let me in turn ask you, .......i'll follow in a separate post.....

[jimtrueblue99]

@NiceneCouncilcom I agreed to no such thing. You mistake a gibe for an assertion. Since you have absolutely no idea by what criteria Calvin's god selects the elect, why can't it be merely luck of the draw? For all intents and purposes from the human point of view it may as well be since there is no intelligible rhyme or reason for it. Events without reasons are the very essence of chance. For all you know, Calvin's god went enie menie minie mo. If you know for certain otherwise, fill me in.

[NiceneCouncilcom]

@jimtrueblue99 Jim, here is the thing, God does tell us why he elects in Ephesians 1. It is for His own good pleasure and purposes. I has nothing to do with who men are because they are undeserving as sinners. God is simply gracious in saving anyone! Furthermore I reject luck or chance as God PURPOSES all things, even bad things.  That is how there can be purpose. I would love for you to expound your authority and your beliefs and see if they are consistent. But again, post after post.....

[jimtrueblue99]

@NiceneCouncilcom People play games of chance for their own good pleasure and purposes. I don't doubt that Calvin thought his god got a kick out of electing some and damning others. I'm talking mechanism of election, not purpose. Nothing you've said is inconsistent with thinking that Calvin's god settled your hash with a roll of the dice. Calvin's god has only one purpose so far as I can tell: doing as he pleases. If it pleased him to determine your fate with a cut of the cards, why not?

[NiceneCouncilcom]

@jimtrueblue99 I totally agree that He can and does do as He pleases for His own glory. No question about that. Point is, you keep referencing "rolling dice" and "cutting cards" and yet neither the Bible nor Calvin said such a thing. So once again you show your ignorance in erecting strawmen.

[jimtrueblue99]

@NiceneCouncilcom Calvin never tells you how his version of god made his choices. Why? Because Calvin knew if he offered a reason everybody would see how preposterous his theology was. So he left it obscure and wrapped it in mumbo-jumbo. Just as you do. Rolling dice or cutting cards is as good an explanation of the preposterous dogma of election as any since you have absolutely no idea why you are among the elect (if in fact you are) or somebody is not. Again, if you do know why, fill me in.

[NiceneCouncilcom]

@jimtrueblue99 Jim, Calvin did as any reformed person would do and simply say the Scriptures do not declare to us why God has elected some and not others. What we do know comes from John's gospel, chapter one and that is what it is not based upon: man's will, the flesh, or ancestory. I suppose you think that God must disclose everything to you in order for you to accept it, which would mean you would have to be Him in order to compute it all.  God has not chosen to work that way.

[NiceneCouncilcom]

@jimtrueblue99 you continue to show that you don't have the faintest idea what the Bible or Calvinism teaches. It would do you well to actually take time to view the DVD and then critique the content rather than strawmen you erect only to knock down which no one believes in.

[jimtrueblue99]

@NiceneCouncilcom I have viewed the video. I don't accept its anodyne presentation of Calvin's grotesque parody of Christ's gospel. I'm not arguing on your terms. I'm arguing on mine.

[NiceneCouncilcom]

@jimtrueblue99 I know you are arguing on your terms, and that is the problem as you clearly don't understand that which you argue against, which is demonstrated by every post you have made. Not a single Reformed Christian, nor Calvin for that matter believes the things you have stated in this thread. So maybe watching the video, and actually trying to understand the system would be helpful, rather than watching without really listening to what is said.

[jimtrueblue99]

@NiceneCouncilcom Of course devotees of Calvinism don't believe anything I've written because they foolishly believe that their beliefs make sense. Crackpots don't believe that they are crackpots; they believe that they are sound thinkers. Crazy people don't believe that they are crazy; they believe that everybody else is crazy. Crackpots and kooks never accept reasonable examination of their beliefs; only reasonable people do. True believers fight to the death to defend nonsense.

[NiceneCouncilcom]

@jimtrueblue99 Actually Jim that is not the case. If I came and attacked a position and claimed you held it when you did not, first it would be dishonest and a violation of the 9th commandment. Second, it would do nothing to destroy your false presuppositions. Third, it would do nothing to demonstrate to others the error of your position. Yet you come to this forum and do just that. You do not understand the position you attack and look utterly foolish as you mount and attack windmills.

[jimtrueblue99]

@NiceneCouncilcom People always make the same mistake: they acknowledge only their positive, explict beliefs but reject what follows implicitly from those beliefs. Calvinists believe that their god is just and arbitrary at the same time.Their god loves and hates them at the same time.Their god is righteous yet his might always and only makes right. In each of these beliefs, they affirm only the former part even though the latter follows logically. Calvinism is a cult of special pleaders.

[NiceneCouncilcom]

@jimtrueblue99 Actually we are all still waiting for you to expound what your authority is and exposition of your epistomology. Calvinists do not say God is "just and arbitrary at the same time". Calvinists do not say that "God loves and hates them at the same time. Your logic is simply flawed because as I've stated on numerous occasions you do not understand the system and have erected loads of strawmen that anyone reading can see you are unable to deal with the text of Scripture.

[jimtrueblue99]

@NiceneCouncilcom Calvin says his god is entirely just; because he is just he damns sinner Smith and but then he elects sinner Jones; nobody knows why, only that he can and does. That's the very definition of arbitrariness. Calvin's god hates sinners, but some sinners he loves and awards grace. Calvin's god hates and loves the same person at the same time. Why? In truth, because Calvin's god is merely arbitrary, hateful Calvin himself. You don't need "authority" to think. Just think. Try it.

[NiceneCouncilcom]

@jimtrueblue99 I see, so because He does not disclose why He does this to you are me your presupposition is arbitrariness.....Now tell me Jim, since I'm not disclosing to you why I allow your posts......am I being aritrary? What if I stop allowing your posts? Am I arbitrary then if I don't tell you why? See your presuppositioin? I have reasons for allowing your posts, though I'm not disclosing them to you. God has reasons He chooses not to disclose. This does not make Him arbitrary.

[NiceneCouncilcom]

@jimtrueblue99 Neither does He love and hate the same person at the same time. Again, you are only demonstrating your ignorance of what Calvinism ACTUALLY teaches. God saving some sinners is simply mercy and cannot be demanded by any sinners and some sinners He damns and that is simply justice. Again, we will ask upon what basis you believe these things since you certainly don't believe them based upon Reformed theology or the Bible.

[jimtrueblue99]

@NiceneCouncilcom Calvin's teachings are incoherent. His god hates all rebellious sinners including the rebellious sinners he has elected. But those rebellious sinners he supposedly loves. He hates those he loves and loves those he hates. You can't wiggle out of this logical conundrum by merely saying "it ain't so, so there!" You can have a hater god or a loving god, but you don't get one in the same unless you concede that Calvin's god is as emotionally disturbed as Calvin was.

[NiceneCouncilcom]

@jimtrueblue99 Jim, again you know nothing of which you speak. Could you please cite for us where this is stated? Book, and page number please? The reality is that God foreknew (fore- loved) the elect from eternity past, according to Romans 8:28 and following. Could you please give us actual textual proof of your assertions? Otherwise one can only come away from here finding your statements "incoherent". You say, "such and such says...", but provide no proof and no context. The DVD does.

[NiceneCouncilcom]

@jimtrueblue99 I see you didn't want to address the "arbitrary" post as it also exposes the strawmen you've erected here. The same is true with all your posts Jim. You really don't understand Reformed Theology as well as you think you do. You are following in the footsteps of men like Dave Hunt who think they are wise but show themselves over and over as foolish by speaking out against things that they themselves do not understand.

[jimtrueblue99]

@NiceneCouncilcom I don't know who Dave Hunt is; I don't follow the dramatis personae of squabbling cults. Quoting Bible verses proves nothing except that you can quote Bible verses. I simply follow Calvinist assertions to their logical conclusion. If Calvin's god can love one sinner, why can't he love all sinners? Answer: don't know. Why does he withhold his love? Answer: don't know. If he can show mercy to one, why not all? Answer: don't know. He just does. That's the definition of arbitrary.

[NiceneCouncilcom]

@jimtrueblue99 Jim you are not following anything as far as I can see. It is not an issue of "if God can love all sinners". Your's is a demand that He do it. he is not obligated to love those who rebel against Him. It is simply because He is free to love someone despite what they do. However, He has revealed in His Word that He loves them not based upon them though, but is simply merciful and gracious to them because of what His Son the Lord Jesus has done on their behalf.

[jimtrueblue99]

@NiceneCouncilcom You're absolutely right I demand it of the real God because the real God created persons in His image, not things to torture, torment and toy with as in Calvin's depraved fantasy world. Your god is an amalgam of the hate, resentment, cruelty, and bitterness rattling around in your subconscious. Your god is a stranger to real love because you are. Your god torments those he hates because you want to. The only realm your god rules is the space between your left and right ears.

[NiceneCouncilcom]

@jimtrueblue99 Then Sir, you know nothing of the true and living God and you are in desperate need of repentance and humility which I pray God would grant you in Christ. Creatures can demand nothing of their Creator. Your logic should tell you that! But it is spiritual blindness that keeps you grasping for a god that you have made in your image, rather than the reverse. Men choose sin over God unless God graciously changes the desires of their hearts.

[jimtrueblue99]

@NiceneCouncilcom Utter nonsense. The real God didn’t endow humans with His image only to debase that image Himself by demanding humans grovel and beg before Him. Calvin’s god demands that because Calvin needed to grovel and beg for his unloving father’s approval. Your cult religion is the sigh of the unloved child, the emptiness unfilled by a heartless parent, the grief inflicted by indifference. The real God loves all his children. You don’t have to bargain for His love.

[NiceneCouncilcom]

@jimtrueblue99 More strawmen! No Calvinist believes in "bargaining" for God's love. Yes He did make man in His image to reflect His glory, but what did man do? Man rebelled against God, and sinned and marred the image of God and was effected throughout his entire being (body, soul, will, emotions). But again, you know that the god you proclaim is like this how? By what authority to you pontificate these things you have said?

[jimtrueblue99]

@NiceneCouncilcom Authority? What “authority” do you think you have? You pick a handful of ancient, mostly anonymous books, chant an incantation over them using words like “infallible” and “inspired” and “inerrant,” claim that they now crackle with authority, and then cherry-pick them for snappy proof-texts as if that settled anything. Ever hear of circular reasoning? The only authority is truth; the only way to truth is through experience examined by reason.

[NiceneCouncilcom]

@jimtrueblue99 And who is the determiner of truth here Sir? You have accused me of the very thing you are doing. You claim to know the truth by experience examined by reason. Tell me then, have you met God face to face? How do you know for a fact that there are not those who are in fact in Hell today, seeing as you claim He loves everyone indiscriminately? Are we to trust your supposed reason which is very much circular. As far as authority, I am simply trusting what the Church always has.

[NiceneCouncilcom]

@NiceneCouncilcom and again, Jesus said that "Thy Word is truth" and prayed for the Father to "sanctify them (His disciples) with the truth". Again though you are shameless in putting up more strawmen. The majority of the books of the Old and New Testaments have known authors. The others are guesses but accepted as Scripture by the Church and are authoritative. No Reformed person and certainly not Calvin was a "cheery picker" as evidenced by his commentaries of the OT and NT.

[jimtrueblue99]

@NiceneCouncilcom You determine truth in the same way that courts of law, scientists, or historians determine truth: follow the evidence, weigh the evidence, and draw conclusions supported by the evidence. How do you know for a fact that there is a hell at all? All you do is selectively quote ancient writers and pretend that somehow they knew. How did they know? Where is any evidence at all that they had standing to speak for God? Your proof-texting is playing make-believe.

[NiceneCouncilcom]

@jimtrueblue99 Actually I'm quoting eyewitnesses, which you would use in court btw. And those witnesses are not at odds with one another. They claim to have seen and heard those things and to be present with the Lord Jesus and wrote down those things and yes they claimed to have seen Him after He was resurrected. So, Jim, where do you want to go from here? Do you wish to really evaluate the evidence of what EYEWITNESSES claimed to have seen or do you choose to throw that out as well?

[jimtrueblue99]

@NiceneCouncilcom Eyewitnesses to what? The gospels are anonymous. Their authors never claim to have witnessed anything they write about. I suppose Paul is an eyewitness to his own visions, but so is everybody who has ever had a hallucination. We’re not even talking about the resurrection. We’re talking about the crackpot Calvinist dogmas of election, and limited atonement, and the hater god. Do you have eyewitnesses for any of that nonsense? Produce them!

[NiceneCouncilcom]

@jimtrueblue99 Actually the apostle John in 1 John says, "1 ¶ That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, concerning the Word of life —

2 the life was manifested, and we have seen, and bear witness, and declare to you that eternal life which was with the Father and was manifested to us —"

He goes on from there and the apostle John is also the writer of the gospel of John which is.....

[jimtrueblue99]

@NiceneCouncilcom You don't know that the evangelist who wrote the gospel of John wrote I John. The author of I John makes no such claim. This is an inference on your part because you want the author of I John to be an eyewitness. Your polemical need doesn't establish the anonymous evangelist as the author. If you have evidence of the identity of either the evangelist or the letter writer, produce it. What have you got--driver's license, birth certificate, SSN card, library card? What?

[NiceneCouncilcom]

@jimtrueblue99 Surely you can produce otherwise then what you are claiming to negate the claims of the Church down through history? I'm guessing not though. It seems all you can do is erect strawmen to knock over. You have obviously not read any literature on the subject.

[NiceneCouncilcom]

@jimtrueblue99 I suppose you would throw out eyewitnesses in court if say 8 people agreed in testimony about a particular incident and you would just say they were "crackpots" and not take them seriously if they were testifying to something that didn't happen while you were around, unless you perceived somehow, by what authority we know not and still ask for that from you, that you might find it believable.

[jimtrueblue99]

@NiceneCouncilcom An eyewitness has to be at the site of the event he claims to witness at the same time the event occurs and he must have observed the event. Apropos the resurrection, don’t you read the gospels? Not one gospel author claims to have witnessed the resurrection. Further, nobody they write about witnessed the resurrection. The evangelists write about *post-resurrection* events. Nobody witnessed the resurrection because nobody was in the tomb with Jesus.

[NiceneCouncilcom]

@jimtrueblue99 This has to be without a doubt, by anyone reading it, the lamest of your posts. Fine, they claimed to witness Jesus, post death, burial and resurrection and yes they did claim that. Each gospel writer says they saw Him after the resurrection. Paul says as much in 1 Corinthians 15 and again John claims the same thing. Point is, the one that rose from the dead, claimed to be the Son of God and claimed the things about the powerlessness of the sinner and the power of God to save

[jimtrueblue99]

@NiceneCouncilcom No gospel writer claims to have seen the risen Jesus. They write about the reactions of people who do experience the risen Jesus; they do not write about themselves. Again, where exactly--chapter and verse--does any evangelist write "I saw the risen Jesus?" Answer: no where. Paul merely has a hallucination years after the event. I am not contesting the resurrection; I am contesting your baseless claim that the gospel writers claim to be witnesses of it. They do not.

[NiceneCouncilcom]

@jimtrueblue99 I see, so you are making a logical fallacy here. You are saying because they were not at the tomb, they didn't witness the resurrection and I would agree that they did not see it happen, but there is no doubt that they witnessed the Lord Jesus alive after His death and burial. Therefore, it is safe to conclude that they saw Him AFTER the resurrection and that was the point I was making. They saw Him alive after He was dead. The point, however, tied to the thread here is this:

[NiceneCouncilcom]

@jimtrueblue99 Agreed Jim, but the point I was making was that they had witnessed the resurrected Christ. I apologize if in my words it came across as though they were there at the tomb when it occurred. That was not my point. My point was that they were eyewitnesses of Christ both before and after the resurrection, thus they also gave account of His words which is what this thread is about.....Christ's teachings. Am I to suppose you believe in the resurrection, but not the teaching of elect

[jimtrueblue99]

@NiceneCouncilcom I believe in the resurrection and I find everything in Calvinism to be preposterous. Of course a number of people experienced the resurrected Jesus. However, the gospel evangelists were not among them. They wrote long after these events. They never claim to have been participants in anything they write about.

[NiceneCouncilcom]

@jimtrueblue99 Jim I'm glad to hear that. Then what do you base your belief in the resurrection on? Let's start there and work our way forward please:)

[b1foschiefs]

@jimtrueblue99 I dont mean to pry into your conversation, but this statement you make is false. Read the 15th chapter of Corinthians, you will see there that all the 12 apostles, including Paul, and at least 500 others saw the resurrected Christ. That includes Paul, who wrote the epistles, John, and John who wrote 3 epistles and the gospel of John. They died for what they believed, for what they had witnessed, not for what someone had told them.

[jimtrueblue99]

@NiceneCouncilcom Apropos Calvinist election nonsense: all that was supposed to have happened in eternity before Calvin’s god created the universe. That means nobody (including Paul and Calvin) was around to see this election event. So just how do you know what happened? Where did you get your information? Quoting Paul and Calvin doesn’t help—they weren’t there either. How would they know? Calvinism is just playing make-believe. Go for it if playing kiddy games appeals to you.

[NiceneCouncilcom]

@jimtrueblue99 I'll take it from you since you cannot argue from reality, history, or in a court of law that this will be your last post, since you consider the actual people who lived at the time to be unreliable, according to you. So it does not matter what is posted here you are spiritually blind to the truth and unwilling (which is what the Bible teaches) to believe the truth, but instead you choose to suppress in unrighteousness. May God have mercy upon you and grant you faith in Christ.

[jimtrueblue99]

@NiceneCouncilcom What is this, the Calvinist version of a malediction? When words fail you shake beads and rattles in my direction and try to scare me off? If you can't think of a riposte, throw a rock instead? How come the elect have such thin skins?

[NiceneCouncilcom]

@jimtrueblue99 Actually I have a very thick skin to be honest. I'm simply asking of you what you demand of Calvinists......proof. The Calvinists proof if the Word of God, not our own meandorings. The Word of God was written by men inspired of the Holy Spirit and in the case of the New Testament, men who also were eyewitnesses of the resurrected Lord Jesus Christ. Where is your evidence? What is your authority? That is not throwing rocks, merely asking of you for proof that validates claims

[NiceneCouncilcom]

Respond to this video... One more thing, again you are missing the point that the Lord Jesus is the one who taught these things. They merely wrote down His words and then expounded upon what they meant. They knew because the One who made all things told them, but I doubt you will believe anything or see the consistency of the argument because contrary to your posts, it is you who are filled with rage and hatred towards your Creator and unwilling to bow to the King of kings

[NiceneCouncilcom]

@NiceneCouncilcom Calvinistic. Maybe try reading John 6 and I would be most interested, if you have the ability that is, in your exegesis of that chapter. These were all written in the first century among their contemporaries so if these things were not true that they wrote about it should have been very simple for the enemies of Christ to have produced his body don't you think? You continue to erect more strawmen without getting the truth of the position, so your attack is not against Calvin

[jimtrueblue99]

@NiceneCouncilcom The Gospel of John is just as anonymous as the other three. Nobody knows who wrote it or when. Traditional attribution is not a demonstrated fact. So how do you know that the evangelist used "eyewitnesses?" For all you know and can demonstrate, he may have used multiple-handed accounts or even created stories for himself to illustrate points. You can't demonstrate as fact what you want to claim as fact. So you resort to make-believe.

[NiceneCouncilcom]

@jimtrueblue99 Really? and you have proof of this? You have evidence that will stand in a court of law for this? I'll ask you for the same thing you ask of me. I say those who wrote claimed themselves to be eyewitnesses of the Lord Jesus Christ and the things He taught and did. You come along 2000 years later and say no they didn't. Where Sir is the evidence you have for such a claim? You are 2000 years to late. You must prove your position.

[jimtrueblue99]

@NiceneCouncilcom You're the proof-texting machine, so show me where in the gospels the four evangelists claim to be personal eyewitnesses of what they write about? Start quoting. "I was there, I saw this, I heard that..." Where do the evangelists write such things? Answer: no where. The writers make no claims about themselves as participants or witnesses. You don't get to claim for the evangelists what they never claim for themselves. They never claim to be witnesses to anything.

[NiceneCouncilcom]

@jimtrueblue99 Luke 1 for example is Luke's account of things which he both seen and interviewed people who were eyewitnesses to the events laid out to give a historic account of the life of Christ. he also was a companion of Paul and continues his accounts after the resurrection in the book of Acts to Theophilus. he also recognizes the other gospel writers as having done the same thing he has done in giving the account of the life of Christ.

[NiceneCouncilcom]

Respond to this video... Again the author of 1 John is historically believed by the Church to be the same writer as the gospel of John and the Book of Revelation. Therefore, even if the words do not appear in the gospel of John, John no doubt records it very plainly in the first chapter of his epistle. Please address that, as he claims to be an eyewitness and furthermore.

[NiceneCouncilcom]

@jimtrueblue99 So Jim, if i show you that John in his epistle said just such things and then you say, "Well you don't know that was the same guy that wrote the gospel of John", that somehow substantiates you claim here? Really? that is the best you can give me? He claims to be an eyewitness. Fine, you don't want to believe it's the apostle John? then deal with the issue at hand, the writer's claim and then the writer's teaching on the issue.

[jimtrueblue99]

@NiceneCouncilcom What precisely does I John’s author claim to be a witness of? He never writes about events. He never writes “I am one of the original 12 disciples and I saw Jesus in the flesh.” Wouldn’t you if you were a disciple? The entire letter is a miscellaneous theological discourse that anybody could have written. It’s standard stuff. Further the letter is anonymous. The attribution to somebody named John (which by the way doesn’t imply the disciple John) is traditional.

[NiceneCouncilcom]

@jimtrueblue99 Actually he does. See 1 John 1:1-3. He claims to have witnessed the Word of life Himself. The Word is an obvious reference to Jesus Christ. John also speaks of the Word at the beginning of his gospel in chapter 1. He notes in 1 John that he saw, heard and handled Christ. So yes he was a first century eyewitness, not a long time separated from the events writer.

[NiceneCouncilcom]

@jimtrueblue99 Again, you don't really want to deal with the issue here. I have given you a perfectly good explanation of the difference between withholding information that God cannot be demanded to give and that information He has revealed. But you continue to show 1) that you don't want to be bothered by the facts, 2) you really don't understand logic here, and 3) that you are unwilling to actually learn, whether you agree or not, the system that you are incapable of dealing with.