Eternal Security or Once Saved Always Saved or Double Pre Destination: Revelations 3:5 They that overcome I will not blot their name out of the Book of Life (paraphrased) If you name is in the Book of Life then you are Saved, if God Blots it out does not mean you were not Saved, it means you lost your salvation! Live Daily for Christ, I do not work my way into Heaven and God does not Choose just a few: John 3:16: Whosoever will IS FOR EVERYONE NOT AN ELECT. Eternal Security stinks from HELL!
wait a second, augustine and those who followed him or were his disciples were the only ones who apparently, followed, this theology, and that was 1000 years after Christ, guess you need to get the history right, all the early church fathers professed and taught free, will, read church history,
my simple question is this if man has no free will why dosent God save everyone???, what fun does God have in punishing the non elect, and what good is any salvation, without free will, calvinism is for robots because no human can ever accpet such blasphemy, and this theology was never part of early christianity until augustine
"if man has no free will why dosent God save everyone?"
Are you presupposing that God would save everyone if no one had freewill?
"what fun does God have in punishing the non elect, and what good is any salvation, without free will,"
First of all, why would you think it's "fun" to punish lost souls? Second of all, salvation is good no matter what. Our freewill will lead us to condemnation if God does not save us. Our sinful nature has effected our "freewill." Lastly, this
@SaintsEdified i think it may be fun, because if it wasnt, why on earth would God not save everyone???, why on earth would He condemn people to hell, when they had no chance in the first place ,
Concerning church history. I don't claim to be an avid on church history, but I've read and continue to read on early church fathers. One of Augustine's most well-known opponents was Palagius. He was basically a modern day, consistent Arminian. The church declared him a heretic. So, this proves that Augustine was not the only one who held these views. The early church already affirmed what he believed and taught. Have you read any of Augustine's writing concerning salvation?
@SaintsEdified pelagian was not a arminian , i think you have been misinformed about that, study about pelagianism, it said, man could attain salvation on his own without God and was not affected by the fall and that he could fulfill all the commandments on his own, and there was no effect of the ancestral sin of adam on man, that isnt armianism, you need to check it out
Your comment about Augustine and “his disciples” existing 1,000 years after Christ was off, yet you seem to not acknowledge that you may also be wrong with other history concerning the church. I did not say Pelagius was an Arminian; I said that he was “basically” a consistent, modern-day Arminian, meaning that his theology was consistent Arminianism- works-based salvation. Synergism is two parties working together; hence, consistent Arminianism is a works-based salvation.
You will never get an Arminian to say that he affirms a works-based salvation, but that’s what Arminianism is when consistency is demanded. Pelagius was basically a consistent, modern-day Arminian.
As for your quotes, it’s simple to do a Google search on ante-Nicene fathers against Calvinism; clearly, that’s how you got those quotes. Have you honestly taken the time to actually read their letters and works? Most likely you don't have the slightest idea of their writings.
@SaintsEdified yup i have, well i thought the only way i could tell you about the misconseption u are having was by quoting ,apparently i have not simply quoted just proof texts, but rather small parts of entire contexts, i was expecting you would read the rest on your own, obviously i couldnt post the entire context,
@SaintsEdified well i have been reading the philokalia for sometime and i have constantly read through ireneus justin martyr, tertullian, i have read all the letters of theophilus in the philokalia, and yeah i belong to the orthodox church so i do know to some extent about all the fathers, dont know if its enough but i do have some idea about them i guess going by the quotes of course you dont expect me to post it entirely you can read the rest of the letters and see for urself
I’m not saying that every single (ante-Nicene) church father affirmed Calvinistic doctrine, but it sure was implied in many of their writings. If you look up their full writings (not just a biased, anti-Calvinist website) you will notice that a lot of them implied an all-by-grace and God’s work-alone type of salvation (monergism). Go to CCEL.org and research their entire writings. I'm just trying to help out here.
@SaintsEdified well i have been reading the philokalia since some time, its a great book, and i have found a consistent approach in all of the saints,
@SaintsEdified i just hope you read into the fathers, and come to the truth, i seriously feel if you read the fathers its quite difficult to still be a calvinist cheers
@SaintsEdified concerning your comparing of pelagianism with arminianism i think i see the problem, you see arminianism dosent say we are saved by our works it simply says we are saved by the works of God but we need to choose if we want God to work within ourselves, and guide us to salvation, there is no point of earning salvation, but accepting it,
Most likely you haven't, because if you did, you wouldn't disagree with him. He basically taught that we are completely dependable on God and His grace to save us. Most Arminians don't disagree with him once they find out that he was only teaching an all-grace, no-works type of salvation.
As for the rest of the church fathers, have you heard of the phrase "ante-Nicene church fathers?" And have you read their writings? I strongly recommend them if you haven't.
"augustine and those who followed him or were his disciples were the only ones who apparently, followed, this theology, and that was 1000 years after christ"
Wow... You history is way off. Augustine existed in the 300's...Only a little after 300 years after Christ, not a 1,000 years. You need to re-check your facts, my friend.
But look into the ante-Nicene church father's writings; you'll be surprised how much they agreed with Reformed Theology.
@SaintsEdified certainly, not, augustine existed in the 300's but his theology was not at all entirely in place until around 1000 ad when the east west schism due to the theological differences arised, lets look at the ante nicene fathers as you have mentioned
@SaintsEdified clement of rome:"For no other reason does God punish the sinner either in the present or future world, except because He knows that the sinner was able to conquer but neglected to gain the victory."
@SaintsEdified " ...and there is set before us life upon our observance [of God's precepts], but death as the result of disobedience, and every one, according to the choice he makes, shall go to his own place, let us flee from death, and make choice of life." st ignatious
@SaintsEdified justin martyr :We have learned from the prophets, and we hold it to be true, that punishments, chastisements, and rewards are rendered according to the merit of each man's actions. Otherwise, if all things happen by fate, then nothing is in our own power. For if it be predestined that one man be good and another man evil, then the first is not deserving of praise or the other to be blamed.
@SaintsEdified Unless humans have the power of avoiding evil and choosing good by free choice, they are not accountable for their actions-whatever they may be... For neither would a man be worthy of reward or praise if he did not of himself choose the good, but was merely created for that end. Likewise, if a man were evil, he would not deserve punishment, since he was not evil of himself, being unable to do anything else than what he was made for." (Justin First Apology chap. 43)
@SaintsEdified "...God, wishing men and angels to follow His will, resolved to create them free to do righteousness; possessing reason, that they may know by whom they are created, and through whom they, not existing formerly, do now exist; and with a law that they should be judged by Him, if they do anything contrary to right reason: and of ourselves we, men and angels, shall be convicted of having acted sinfully, unless we repent beforehand.
@SaintsEdified But if the word of God foretells that some angels and men shall be certainly punished, it did so because it foreknew that they would be unchangeably [wicked], but not because God had created them so. So that if they repent, all who wish for it can obtain mercy from God..."
@SaintsEdified "...it is not the part of good and solid faith to refer all things to the will of God...as to make us fail to understand that there is something within our power." tertullian
@SaintsEdified Ireaneus "And in man, as well as in angels, [God] has placed the power of choice...so that those who had yielded obedience might justly posses what is good, given indeed by God, but preserved by themselves. On the other hand, they who have not obeyed shall, with justice, be not found in possession of the good, and shall receive condign punishment: for God did kindly bestow on them what was good...but [they] poured contempt on His super-eminent goodness." Against Heresies 5:37.
@SaintsEdified this father infact seems to be calling calvinists pagans, Methodius :"Those [pagans] who decide that man does not have free will, but say that he is governed by the unavoidable necessities of fate, are guilty of impiety toward God Himself, making Him out to be the cause and author of human evils." - The Banquet of the Ten Virgins discourse 8, chap. 16
@SaintsEdified Theophilus of antioch :"For God made man free, and with power over himself . . . now God vouchsafes to him as a gift through His own philanthropy and pity, when men obey Him. For as man, disobeying, drew death on himself; so, obeying the will of God, he who desires is able to procure for himself life everlasting."
@SaintsEdified i think there is no confusion after this as to what the fathers believed, secondly coming back to augustine of hippo, he was not a christian before and was heavily influenced by manichaeism, what is that?? it was a sect who believed man is guided by fate and everything is by fate and not by free choice, so i guess you get the picture, i dont think i need to say anymor after this cheers :)
"i think there is no confusion after this as to what the fathers believed"
There seems to be a huge confusion on your part. You think by ripping writings out here and there proves your point, but it doesn't. Anyone can do that.
Augustine and Manichaeism:
He wrote about his regrets in being part of that religious sect (Confessions) so your argument fails to stand. What you are doing is getting bits and pieces of history to support your claims. That's being dishonest...
@SaintsEdified i think i will end with this final reading by st ireneus of lyon :"For He who makes the chaff and He who makes the wheat are not different persons, but one and the same, who judges them, that is, separates them But the wheat and the chaff, being inanimate and irrational, have been made such by nature.
@SaintsEdified But man, being endowed with reason, and in this respect like to God, having been made free in his will, and with power over himself, is himself the cause to himself, that sometimes he becomes wheat, and sometimes chaff Wherefore also he shall be justly condemned because, having been created a rational being, he lost the true rationality, and living irrationally, opposed the righteousness of God,
@SaintsEdified serving all lusts; as says the prophet, "Man, being in honor, did not understand: he was assimilated to senseless beasts, and made like to them." (St. Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies, book 4, chapter 4, paragraph 3)
@SaintsEdified lolz "Quoting bits and pieces of historical writings won't help you at all." and just when i was expecting something better you end up quoting bits and pieces of scripture, lolz, anyways i wont do the same,i'll leave you with an entire discourse in the bible, calvinists and lutherans hate him,but he is still part of canonical scripture unfortunately for them,
@SaintsEdified Speak and act as those who are going to be judged by the law that gives freedom because judgment without mercy will be shown to anyone who has not been merciful. Mercy triumphs over judgment! What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him? Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to him, "Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed,"
@SaintsEdified but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead But someone will say, "You have faith; I have deeds." Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that--and shudder You foolish man, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless?
@SaintsEdified Was not our ancestor Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did.And the scripture was fulfilled that says, "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness," and he was called God's friend
@SaintsEdified You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone.In the same way, was not even Rahab the prostitute considered righteous for what she did when she gave lodging to the spies and sent them off in a different direction? As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead. such clear scriptural teaching if one cannot see the gist here one is surely being dishonest
@SaintsEdified you seem to be shifting ground, here on one hand you say the fathers agree on calvinism, then when i post parts of their discourses you accuse me of prooftexting and go back to scripture and do the same, let me make it clear here, i didnt prooftext the fathers infact if you read the entire context of my posts you will realise i have simply posted a small part of a discourse which talks exactly about free will
@SaintsEdified infact i have gone through the website , how can u still be a calvinist after reading it all, it is so consistent m the urging to fast, keeping watch in prayer, the sacraments, everything is so clear, please read them, i dont want to say anything else, read justin martyr, polycarp,ireneus, the didache,origen ,ignatious, i am done commenting, i cant force views if you are adamant on calvinism, nice talking to u tkr :)
I’ll say it once more. All you did was post quotes from church fathers that you most likely got from an anti-Calvinist website. Those were the same quotes I used to use when I was against Reformed theology. You’re not fooling anyone. You disregarded what I said before—Quoting bits and pieces of historical articles won’t back up what you say. I could do the same exact thing you did with almost the same people and their writings, but that’s being dishonest. CCEL.org, read them.
@SaintsEdified Since if it be not so, but all things happen by fate, neither is anything at all in our own power. For if it be fated that this man, e.g., be good, and this other evil, neither is the former meritorious nor the latter to be blamed. And again, unless the human race have the power of avoiding evil and choosing good by free choice, they are not accountable for their actions, of whatever kind they be
@SaintsEdified But that it is by free choice they both walk uprightly and stumble, we thus demonstrate. We see the same man making a transition to opposite things. Now, if it had been fated that he were to be either good or bad, he could never have been capable of both the opposites, nor of so many transitions. But not even would some be good and others bad, since we thus make fate the cause of evil, and exhibit her as acting in opposition to herself;
@SaintsEdified or that which has been already stated would seem to be true, that neither virtue nor vice is anything, but that things are only reckoned good or evil by opinion; which, as the true word shows, is the greatest impiety and wickedness. But this we assert is inevitable fate, that they who choose the good have worthy rewards, and they who choose the opposite have their merited awards.
@SaintsEdified . For not like other things, as trees and quadrupeds, which cannot act by choice, did God make man: for neither would he be worthy of reward or praise did he not of himself choose the good, but were created for this end; nor, if he were evil, would he be worthy of punishment, not being evil of himself, but being able to be nothing else than what he was made.
@SaintsEdified And the holy Spirit of prophecy taught us this, telling us by Moses that God spoke thus to the man first created: “Behold, before thy face are good and evil: choose the good.”
And again, by the other prophet Isaiah, that the following utterance was made as if from God the Father and Lord of all: “Wash you, make you clean; put away evils from your souls; learn to do well; judge the orphan, and plead for the widow:
@SaintsEdified and come and let us reason together, saith the Lord: And if your sins be as scarlet, I will make them white as wool; and if they be red like as crimson, I will make them white as snow. And if ye be willing and obey Me, ye shall eat the good of the land; but if ye do not obey Me, the sword shall devour you: for the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it.” And that expression, “The sword shall devour you,” does not mean that the disobedient shall be slain by the sword, but
@SaintsEdified the sword of God is fire, of which they who choose to do wickedly become the fuel. Wherefore He says, “The sword shall devour you: for the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it.” And if He had spoken concerning a sword that cuts and at once dispatches, He would not have said, shall devour. And so, too, Plato, when he says, “The blame is his who chooses, and God is blameless,”
@SaintsEdified took this from the prophet Moses and uttered it. For Moses is more ancient than all the Greek writers. And whatever both philosophers and poets have said concerning the immortality of the soul, or punishments after death, or contemplation of things heavenly, or doctrines of the like kind, they have received such suggestions from the prophets as have enabled them to understand and interpret these things
@SaintsEdified And hence there seem to be seeds of truth among all men; but they are charged with not accurately understanding the truth when they assert contradictories. So that what we say about future events being foretold, we do not say it as if they came about by a fatal necessity; but God foreknowing all that shall be done by all men, and it being His decree that the future actions of men shall all be recompensed according to their several value
@SaintsEdified He foretells by the Spirit of prophecy that He will bestow meet rewards according to the merit of the actions done, always urging the human race to effort and recollection, showing that He cares and provides for men. But by the agency of the devils death has been decreed against those who read the books of Hystaspes, or of the Sibyl,
@SaintsEdified or of the prophets, that through fear they may prevent men who read them from receiving the knowledge of the good, and may retain them in slavery to themselves; which, however, they could not always effect. For not only do we fearlessly read them, but, as you see, bring them for your inspection
@SaintsEdified knowing that their contents will be pleasing to all. And if we persuade even a few, our gain will be very great; for, as good husbandmen, we shall receive the reward from the Master. (St. Justin the Philosopher, First Apology, 43-44)
@SaintsEdified This expression of our Lord, “How often would I have gathered thy children together, and thou wouldest not,”
set forth the ancient law of human liberty, because God made man a free agent from the beginning, possessing his own power, even as he does his own soul, to obey the behests of God voluntarily, and not by compulsion of God.
@SaintsEdified For there is no coercion with God, but a good will towards us is present with Him continually. And therefore does He give good counsel to all. And in man, as well as in angels, He has placed the power of choice (for angels are rational beings), so that those who had yielded obedience might justly possess what is good, given indeed by God, but preserved by themselves.
@SaintsEdified On the other hand, they who have not obeyed shall, with justice, be not found in possession of the good, and shall receive condign punishment: for God did kindly bestow on them what was good; but they themselves did not diligently keep it, nor deem it something precious, but poured contempt upon His super-eminent goodness. Rejecting therefore the good, and as it were spuing it out, they shall all
@SaintsEdified deservedly incur the just judgment of God, which also the Apostle Paul testifies in his Epistle to the Romans, where he says, “But dost thou despise the riches of His goodness, and patience, and long-suffering, being ignorant that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance? But according to thy hardness and impenitent heart, thou treasurest to thyself wrath against the day of wrath, and the revelation of the righteous judgment of God.” “But glory and honour,” he says,
@SaintsEdified “But glory and honour,” he says, “to every one that doeth good.”
God therefore has given that which is good, as the apostle tells us in this Epistle, and they who work it shall receive glory and honour, because they have done that which is good when they had it in their power not to do it; but those who do it not shall receive the just judgment of God, because they did not work good when they had it in their power so to do.
@SaintsEdified But if some had been made by nature bad, and others good, these latter would not be deserving of praise for being good, for such were they created; nor would the former be reprehensible, for thus they were made originally. But since all men are of the same nature, able both to hold fast and to do what is good; and, on the other hand, having also the power to cast it from them and not to do it,—
@SaintsEdified some do justly receive praise even among men who are under the control of good laws (and much more from God), and obtain deserved testimony of their choice of good in general, and of persevering therein; but the others are blamed, and receive a just condemnation, because of their rejection of what is fair and good. And therefore the prophets used to exhort men to what was good, to act justly and to work righteousness, as I have so largely demonstrated, because it
@SaintsEdified is in our power so to do, and because by excessive negligence we might become forgetful, and thus stand in need of that good counsel which the good God has given us to know by means of the prophets.
For this reason the Lord also said, “Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good deeds, and glorify your Father who is in heaven.”
And, “Take heed to yourselves, lest perchance your hearts be overcharged with surfeiting, and drunkenness, and worldly cares.”
@SaintsEdified And, “Let your loins be girded about, and your lamps burning, and ye like unto men that wait for their Lord, when He returns from the wedding, that when He cometh and knocketh, they may open to Him. Blessed is that servant whom his Lord, when He cometh, shall find so doing.” And again, “The servant who knows his Lord’s will, and does it not, shall be beaten with many stripes.”
@SaintsEdified And, “Why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?”
And again, “But if the servant say in his heart, The Lord delayeth, and begin to beat his fellow-servants, and to eat, and drink, and to be drunken, his Lord will come in a day on which he does not expect Him, and shall cut him in sunder, and appoint his portion with the hypocrites.”
@SaintsEdified All such passages demonstrate the independent will of man, and at the same time the counsel which God conveys to him, by which He exhorts us to submit ourselves to Him, and seeks to turn us away from the sin of unbelief against Him, without, however, in any way coercing us. No doubt, if any one is unwilling to follow the Gospel itself, it is in his power [to reject it], but it is not expedient. For it is in man’s power to disobey God, and to forfeit what is good;
@SaintsEdified to forfeit what is good; but such conduct brings no small amount of injury and mischief. And on this account Paul says, “All things are lawful to me, but all things are not expedient;”
referring both to the liberty of man, in which respect “all things are lawful,” God exercising no compulsion in regard to him; and by the expression “not expedient” pointing out that we “should not use our liberty as a cloak of maliciousness,”
@SaintsEdified walk honestly as children of the light, not in rioting and drunkenness, not in chambering and wantonness, not in anger and jealousy. And such were some of you; but ye have been washed, but ye have been sanctified in the name of our Lord.” If then it were not in our power to do or not to do these things, what reason had the apostle, and much more the Lord Himself, to give us counsel to do some things, and to abstain from others?
@SaintsEdified But because man is possessed of free will from the beginning, and God is possessed of free will, in whose likeness man was created, advice is always given to him to keep fast the good, which thing is done by means of obedience to God.
And not merely in works, but also in faith, has God preserved the will of man free and under his own control, saying, “According to thy faith be it unto thee;”
@SaintsEdified thus showing that there is a faith specially belonging to man, since he has an opinion specially his own. And again, “All things are possible to him that believeth;”
and, “Go thy way; and as thou hast believed, so be it done unto thee.”
Now all such expressions demonstrate that man is in his own power with respect to faith. And for this reason, “he that believeth in Him has eternal life while he who believeth not the Son hath not eternal life,
@SaintsEdified In the same manner therefore the Lord, both showing His own goodness, and indicating that man is in his own free will and his own power, said to Jerusalem, “How often have I wished to gather thy children together, as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not! Wherefore your house shall be left unto you desolate.”
@SaintsEdified Those, again, who maintain the opposite to these conclusions, do themselves present the Lord as destitute of power, as if, forsooth, He were unable to accomplish what He willed; or, on the other hand, as being ignorant that they were by nature “material,” as these men express it, and such as cannot receive His immortality
@SaintsEdified “But He should not,” say they, “have created angels of such a nature that they were capable of transgression, nor men who immediately proved ungrateful towards Him; for they were made rational beings, endowed with the power of examining and judging, and were not formed as things irrational or of a merely animal nature, which can do nothing of their own will, but are drawn by necessity and compulsion to what is good, in which things there is one mind and one usage,
@SaintsEdified working mechanically in one groove, who are incapable of being anything else except just what they had been created.” But upon this supposition, neither would what is good be grateful to them, nor communion with God be precious, nor would the good be very much to be sought after, which would present itself without their own proper endeavour, care, or study,
@SaintsEdified but would be implanted of its own accord and without their concern. Thus it would come to pass, that their being good would be of no consequence, because they were so by nature rather than by will, and are possessors of good spontaneously, not by choice; and for this reason they would not understand this fact, that good is a comely thing,
@SaintsEdified nor would they take pleasure in it. For how can those who are ignorant of good enjoy it? Or what credit is it to those who have not aimed at it? And what crown is it to those who have not followed in pursuit of it, like those victorious in the contest?
On this account, too, did the Lord assert that the kingdom of heaven was the portion of “the violent;”
@SaintsEdified and He says, “The violent take it by force;”
that is, those who by strength and earnest striving are on the watch to snatch it away on the moment. On this account also Paul the Apostle says to the Corinthians, “Know ye not, that they who run in a racecourse, do all indeed run, but one receiveth the prize? So run, that ye may obtain. Every one also who engages in the contest is temperate in all things: now these men do it that they may obtain a corruptible crown
@SaintsEdified but we an incorruptible. But I so run, not as uncertainty; I fight, not as one beating the air; but I make my body livid, and bring it into subjection, lest by any means, when preaching to others, I may myself be rendered a castaway.” This able wrestler, therefore, exhorts us to the struggle for immortality, that we may be crowned, and may deem the crown precious, namely, that which is acquired by our struggle, but which does not encircle us of its own accord.
@SaintsEdified And the harder we strive, so much is it the more valuable; while so much the more valuable it is, so much the more should we esteem it. And indeed those things are not esteemed so highly which come spontaneously, as those which are reached by much anxious care. Since, then, this power has been conferred upon us, both the Lord has taught and the apostle has enjoined us the more to love God, that we may reach this prize for ourselves by striving after it
@SaintsEdified For otherwise, no doubt, this our good would be virtually irrational, because not the result of trial. Moreover, the faculty of seeing would not appear to be so desirable, unless we had known what a loss it were to be devoid of sight; and health, too, is rendered all the more estimable by an acquaintance with disease; light, also, by contrasting it with darkness; and life with death. Just in the same way is the heavenly kingdom honourable to those who have known the earthly one.
@SaintsEdified But in proportion as it is more honourable, so much the more do we prize it; and if we have prized it more, we shall be the more glorious in the presence of God. The Lord has therefore endured all these things on our behalf, in order that we, having been instructed by means of them all, may be in all respects circumspect for the time to come, and that, having been rationally taught to love God
@SaintsEdified we may continue in His perfect love: for God has displayed long-suffering in the case of man’s apostasy; while man has been instructed by means of it, as also the prophet says, “Thine own apostasy shall heal thee;” God thus determining all things beforehand for the bringing of man to perfection, for his edification, and for the revelation of His dispensations,
@SaintsEdified we may continue in His perfect love: for God has displayed long-suffering in the case of man’s apostasy; while man has been instructed by means of it, as also the prophet says, “Thine own apostasy shall heal thee;” God thus determining all things beforehand for the bringing of man to perfection, for his edification, and for the revelation of His dispensations,
@SaintsEdified that goodness may both be made apparent, and righteousness perfected, and that the Church may be fashioned after the image of His Son, and that man may finally be brought to maturity at some future time, becoming ripe through such privileges to see and comprehend God. (St. Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies, 4, 37)
@SaintsEdified well i dont think you can now say that i have quoted from here and there or prooftexted, since i just posted two entire discourses, and not from any anticalvinist website, check your own website i have added, the name of the author and chapter, for u to cross check, if even after that you continue to rant against me then i will assume you have no purssuit for the truth and only want to protect ur doctrine in which case i am helpless
Gnosticism is in no way or form consistent with Calvinism. That’s a ridiculous statement, sir. I explained how Pelagius was basically a modern-day, consistent Arminian; now, you explain how Gnosticism is consistent (modern-day) Calvinism. I’ll be waiting for your response, unless you were being dishonest again.
Anyone who compares Manichaeism with Calvinism has no idea what Calvinism is- simply said. In other words, you have no idea what you’re talking about.
@SaintsEdified look up gnosticism, or wait, i will message you links, which explain, gnosticism, or if you have read ireneus of lyon, you would know.i am somehow feeling you have not read any of the works of the fathers and are simply followong someone's advice blindly anyways i am going to post two 'entire' works which i got from your website, if you deny that then i really would assume that you have no interest in the truth, and i would give up. i cant force u
@SaintsEdified well guess you are ignorant about a lot of things, even calvinists themselves agree that it has a very gnostic influence, you are just trying too hard to protect your philosophy, ranting about things dosent make thoose things false
@SaintsEdified But lest some suppose, from what has been said by us [concerning the fulfillment of prophecy], that we say that whatever happens, happens by a fatal necessity, because it is foretold as known beforehand, this too we explain. We have learned from the prophets, and we hold it to be true, that punishments, and chastisements, and good rewards, are rendered according to the merit of each man’s actions
@paulomi123 (3) “I just hope you read into the fathers and come to the truth”
Are you a Roman Catholic? I continue to read the early church fathers, both ante and post Nicene. Even if they did have a different ideology, I hold to Sola Scriptura, which the Bible clearly affirms Reformed theology. So far, all you have done is post random quotes you got from an anti-Calvinist website and assert that the early church fathers will bring me to truth. Seems like Scripture isn't your authority.
@SaintsEdified well u seem to be constantly shifting ground, i am simply correcting ur assertion that the early fathers agreed with calvinism which according to me is a false and ignorant statement
You randomly quoted James 2… Saving faith brings forth fruit (good deeds). Faith does not come alone, understand? Do you believe in works-based salvation? If you do then I’m afraid you do not understand the gospel. So far you proved to be misinformed about history, and now you’re proving yourself to believe in a false gospel of human works/self-righteousness. Read Ephesians 2 and Romans 3-5. If you believe in a false gospel, you must repent and trust in Jesus. (Gal. 1:6-9)
Do you notice the flaws in your argumentation? First of all, I said that the implications of Calvinism is in the writings of the early (ante and post Nicene) church fathers. Does this mean that every single thing they wrote will support Calvinism? No! It only means that (some of) their views and writings implied Calvinistic doctrine. For example, most agreed that salvation is by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone, God is sovereign, and He alone saves sinners.
@SaintsEdified For example, most agreed that salvation is by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone, God is sovereign, and He alone saves sinners. well even arminians believe that, lolz, salvation is by God alone God alone can save by His grace who is oppossing that, do you even know what you are opposing??, i think you need more research, and seondly, the fathers are clearly mentioning and supporting free will if u cant see that then, i doubt if you are being honest
Secondly, you posting a whole letter on this comment section is ridiculous. That does not prove your point. What would prove your point is if you can get their writings and prove that they were explicitly teaching against Reformed theology, not Gnosticism. Writings that contain that men have “free choices” or “free will” does not refute Calvinism, buddy! What would prove your point is if they were arguing against original sin, or if the fall affected every part of man.
@SaintsEdified lolz you are really trying too hard to save ur doctrine,to the extent that you make no sense,atleast be honest and agree that you reject the fathers, that wont make your theory false, only your claim that the fathers supported your theory would be false,neways i give up, cheers
@SaintsEdified free will or choice,without which there is no sense in christianity, they are genuinely (if u read in context) debating againts the gnostic idea that each one is born with a divine spark which decides their salvation,and if they dont have the spark they are damned which is exactly though not theologically in unity with calvinism, using theological sugar coatings is not going to change the reality, of what each presupposes in their theory,
And no, I never said John Calvin was perfect. There are MANY things I disagree with him also. Ante/post church fathers are not inspired like the writers of the Bible were; hence, they are not perfect. Origen wrote many good things, but later became a heretic. Augustine wrote many good things, too, but had a strange view of justification. Martin Luther had a strange view of the canon. Etc... Only God is perfect. Your silly remarks are ridiculous.
What Irenaeus was writing against was Gnosticism, not Calvinism! The end of the title of that letter you posted even said, “It is not, therefore, that some are by nature good, and others bad.” He was teaching against fatalistic doctrine, which Calvinism denies! Don’t try to act like you know it all when you obviously don’t. You have disgustingly taken that whole letter out of context. You are falsely presupposing that Gnosticism is basically Calvinism; that is completely wrong.
@SaintsEdified of course john calvin was not existent then , but have you read at the stressing of the fathers on the importance of free will,??, you just picked up one sentence out of context , i am not talking about what calvinism denies, i am talking about what those letters talk about, and even if you take a fatalistic doctrine, it presupposes the same condition, of beings without free will, do you disagree with that? how can u?, and the fathers are specifically talking about the importance
There are man misconceptions on Calvinism. One being that Calvinism denies free will, in the sense that man cannot choose what they desire. That is a wrong view of Calvinism. Calvinism teaches that man DOES have the ability to choose what they desire, but the problem is in what they desire before being regenerated. That's not an issue that was addressed in any of the quotes you mentioned.
@paulomi123 "so calvinism does not deny free will??, thats a twist"
Did you not read what I said before? Your definition of free will differs from others. I define free will as having the ability "to choose what you desire." Do I reject that? No, neither do other Calvinist. What Calvinist deny is the ability to choose God before being regenerated. Once someone is regenerated THEN they are able to choose God.
@SaintsEdified no you need to answer my question first,we will deal with what you said later. do you agree or deny that every human is predestined to salvation or damnation before birth without any choice of his???
@SaintsEdified "God's election is not influenced by human choice" aka man is predestined to damnation and salvation without any choice of his, correct me if i am wrong but dosent this imply that both calvinism and gnosticism and consistent with the idea of salvation or damnation without human choice
You seem to be implying a fatalistic view of predestination for Calvinism. Those who will be eternally damned are by choice unrepentant, unfaithful, and unwilling to come to God. Those who will be eternally saved are by grace chosen, faithful, and were drawn by the Father to the Son. If you are arguing that both views are predestination then I agree, but within the both views are MAJOR differences. Don't you agree that the bible teaches predestination?
@SaintsEdified but ultimately even the desire to choose, is forced upon by God due to His irressistible grace, and since man is totally depraved he cannot chose anything good,
And if you want to stat being immature and "lolz" at everything then you demonstrate how you're not capable of having a worthy discussion. Taking a letter out of its context is not "taking context out of its context." You don't understand these basic things. The letter was against Gnosticism and their view of people being good and bad, not against Calvinism.
@SaintsEdified of course that is so obvious, calvinism was not existent at the time of these letters, i am talking about, the importance given to free will in these letters, how many times should i tell that,
And when I said "The letter was against Gnosticism and their view of people being good and bad, not against Calvinism." I know that Calvinism wasn't mentioned. I was saying that his letters cannot be directed to Calvinism in any way. The context of that letter reveals that .That's like trying to argue against Muslims with arguments that were original for Buddhists. It doesn't make sense! Gnosticism and Calvinism are two totally different systems of thought and philosophy.
Third of all, I would like to meet those Calvinist who have told you that Calvinism (C) was influenced by Gnosticism (G). Let me explain to you why that is not so:
1. C disagrees with G on receiving “secret knowledge” apart from Scripture. C teaches Sola Scritpura.
2. C teaches that God makes covenants with sinful men while G teaches that God is distant from His creation.
3. C affirms that Jesus was God incarnate while G denies it.
@SaintsEdified i related c and g just like you related pelagianism with arminianism, p believes the fall changed nothing, a believes the fall did alter human nature, p believes that man can fulfill the commandments on his own, a believes man is born with an affinity to sin and cannot fulfill the commandments without grace, if i am wrong in comparing calvinism with gnosticism then even you are wrong in comparing P with A
And no, you did not relate Calvinism and Gnosticism the way I related Palagianism and Arminianiam. Even if you did, that makes no sense whatsoever, since Gnosticism does not relate to Calvinism at all. P relates to A since they are both synergistic in salvation in terms of man's ability; whereas C and G differ since G depended on knowledge and C depends fully on God.
Nope? You don't agree that the Bible teaches predestination?
Irresistible Grace only teaches that the Holy Spirit's work of regeneration and the Father's word of drawing to the Son cannot be resisted. God isn't forcing anyone to do anything. Once regenerated, we have the desire to come to Jesus, repent, and be faithful. Our "free will" is now able to desire what really is good. So to answer your question, no.
@SaintsEdified i believe in predestination, but i believe we are predestined according to our willingness to submit to Christ, i think there might be a mistake maybe you are contesting a different sect of calvinism, but according to what i have come across, dosent irressistible grace signify that man if chosen by God for salvation can never fall even if he wants, because he cannot resist the grace of God?, anyways i think we should end our debate here
@paulomi123 "dosent irressistible grace signify that man if chosen by God for salvation can never fall even if he wants"
That's the problem. Irresistible Grace teaches that the regenerate person will not ultimately desire to fall away. There may be times of struggles and dry seasons, but because of God's faithfulness and steadfast, God will ultimate keep His children. My view of Calvinism isn't from a "different sect." It's basic Calvinism... Maybe you don't understand what Calvinism is.
@SaintsEdified it was a great learning experience debating with, i think if we go on further, it will only end up being one of those harse and ugly debates i have come across youtube videos, i have debated calvinists on youtube in the past and i have thankfully always ended it with peace and love,and i hope to do it again, lets not ruin our debate, i think we both have said enough for us to ponder, i believe Christ Himself would not be desisring us to keep throwing slack at each other as many do
I apologize, too, if I have came off as harsh or immature in any way, shape, or form. In person I'm very calm, but it's hard to read emotion and impressions through writing. I'm barely learning how to make videos properly, so maybe I'll do one on the ante-Nicene church fathers and Gnosticism, comparing it with Calvinism. I'll be interested in your response! ;)
@SaintsEdified so really this will be it from me (for real), it was nice talking with you sir, am really sorry for my harsh tones, but i will try to honestly go through all that we have discussed, hope you might do the same, anyways, tkr, :)
5.They have two different views on predestination. Just because they have a view of predestination does not mean that Calvinism was influenced by them.
Calvinism does not relate to Gnosticism at all! You have been grossly misinformed.
Irenaeus is well known to be an opponent of Gnosticism and Calvinists take his side. Sure, there may be sections were he may give too much credit to man, but he wasn't perfect. You need to get your facts straight.
@SaintsEdified if you cannot see the clarity with which the fathers define free will and how important it is, then i think there is no point in arguing any further,
From reading everything you posted, you seem to either have a wrong view of Gnosticism or a wrong view of Calvinism. Irenaeus's arguments don't oppose Calvinism; they were opposing Gnosticism, which are two totally different things. If we honestly want to get somewhere in this discussion, you'll have to define what you think Calvinism and Gnosticism is.
Wow... You're the first person I ever met say that God will have "fun" punishing people for all eternity! But to answer your question, I believe God will be pleased with punishing the unrighteous, because He is just. That's as far as I'll go with God's "pleasure" in punishing the wicked.
There is no hope for men within himself (including freewill) to save himself; therefore, men must be completely dependent on God, not freewill, for salvation.
video was created for fun, not for a theology 101 course.
"calvinism is for robots because no human can ever accpet such blasphemy"
Sinners despised Jesus and His gospel. The Bible affirms Calvinism. There have been many church fathers who implied the teachings of Calvinism and many influential Christian men in the past were Calvinists. So your claim doesn't stand.
What the bible teaches is -1) Man is born separated from God & can’t save himself - he will not & cannot come to God on his own, & couldn't repair the relationship even if he did 2)God has supplied a way back to Himself thru Christ 3) God intervenes in each person's life, convicts them of their sin & need for a Savior & 4) calls them to repentance 5) those who CHOOSE to respond are then given to Christ for regeneration.
God convicts, calls, draws, etc but man can CHOOSE to reject it all.
I ignored you for a reason. You don't care what anyone has to say (ignorance) and all you do is insult rather than having a decent discussion about the bible. So after this, you're no longer posting on my stuff. If you really want to have a mature and decent conversation then message me.
(1) Man's heart is deceitful and desperately wicked (Jer. 17:9). Man is full of evil (Mark 7:21-23), loves darkness rather than light (John 3:19), is unrighteous, does not understand, does not seek for God (Rom. 3:10-12), is helpless and ungodly (Rom. 5:6), is dead in his trespasses and sins (Eph. 2:1), and is by nature a child of wrath (Eph. 2:3). Man cannot understand spiritual things (1 Cor. 2:14), but is a slave of sin (Rom. 6:16-20). Man will continually reject God unless God
(2) God draws people to Himself (John 6:44,65), creates a clean heart (Psalm 51:10), appoints people to believe (Acts 13:48), works faith in the believer (John 6:28-29), chooses who is to be holy and blameless (Eph. 1:4), chooses us for salvation (2 Thess. 2:13-14), grants the act of believing (Phil. 1:29), grants repentance (2 Tim. 2:24-26), calls according to His purpose (2 Tim. 1:9),
@2row777 lolz you cant just make theology by quoting verses from here and there, in this way i can even prove the theology of the jehovahs witnesses to be biblical, stop acting like robots, and start thinking like humans
"but let him who boasts boast in this, that he understands and knows Me, that I am the Lord who practices steadfast love, justice, and righteousness in the earth. For in these things I delight, declares the Lord.”
@Bill244888 you develop theology from the entire context of the bible not from a few verses here and there, lolz you seem to be prooftexting even what i am saying, the jehovah's witnesses have developed their theology entirely from the bible, try debating a jw and you will realise he will use a few verses here and there to prove his teaching
It's a bit hypocritical to say that when you're guilty of doing the same with the church fathers, by the way. Just wanted to throw that in there. Anyway, take care!
@SaintsEdified well i didnt intend to do that, i simply gave you a part of the quote so that you would read the rest, i dont expect you to build your 'theology' on these quotes, i mean seriously its obviously impossible to post the entire letter ,
This has been flagged as spam show
Eternal Security or Once Saved Always Saved or Double Pre Destination: Revelations 3:5 They that overcome I will not blot their name out of the Book of Life (paraphrased) If you name is in the Book of Life then you are Saved, if God Blots it out does not mean you were not Saved, it means you lost your salvation! Live Daily for Christ, I do not work my way into Heaven and God does not Choose just a few: John 3:16: Whosoever will IS FOR EVERYONE NOT AN ELECT. Eternal Security stinks from HELL!
FormerMPSGT 2 months ago
wait a second, augustine and those who followed him or were his disciples were the only ones who apparently, followed, this theology, and that was 1000 years after Christ, guess you need to get the history right, all the early church fathers professed and taught free, will, read church history,
paulomi123 2 months ago
my simple question is this if man has no free will why dosent God save everyone???, what fun does God have in punishing the non elect, and what good is any salvation, without free will, calvinism is for robots because no human can ever accpet such blasphemy, and this theology was never part of early christianity until augustine
paulomi123 2 months ago
@paulomi123 (1)
"if man has no free will why dosent God save everyone?"
Are you presupposing that God would save everyone if no one had freewill?
"what fun does God have in punishing the non elect, and what good is any salvation, without free will,"
First of all, why would you think it's "fun" to punish lost souls? Second of all, salvation is good no matter what. Our freewill will lead us to condemnation if God does not save us. Our sinful nature has effected our "freewill." Lastly, this
SaintsEdified 2 months ago
@SaintsEdified i think it may be fun, because if it wasnt, why on earth would God not save everyone???, why on earth would He condemn people to hell, when they had no chance in the first place ,
paulomi123 2 months ago
@paulomi123 (1)
Concerning church history. I don't claim to be an avid on church history, but I've read and continue to read on early church fathers. One of Augustine's most well-known opponents was Palagius. He was basically a modern day, consistent Arminian. The church declared him a heretic. So, this proves that Augustine was not the only one who held these views. The early church already affirmed what he believed and taught. Have you read any of Augustine's writing concerning salvation?
SaintsEdified 2 months ago
@SaintsEdified pelagian was not a arminian , i think you have been misinformed about that, study about pelagianism, it said, man could attain salvation on his own without God and was not affected by the fall and that he could fulfill all the commandments on his own, and there was no effect of the ancestral sin of adam on man, that isnt armianism, you need to check it out
paulomi123 2 months ago
@paulomi123 (1)
Your comment about Augustine and “his disciples” existing 1,000 years after Christ was off, yet you seem to not acknowledge that you may also be wrong with other history concerning the church. I did not say Pelagius was an Arminian; I said that he was “basically” a consistent, modern-day Arminian, meaning that his theology was consistent Arminianism- works-based salvation. Synergism is two parties working together; hence, consistent Arminianism is a works-based salvation.
SaintsEdified 2 months ago
@SaintsEdified well in that case even gnosticism and manacheism is basically consistent with modern day calvinism, but that dosent prove anything
paulomi123 2 months ago
@paulomi123 (2)
You will never get an Arminian to say that he affirms a works-based salvation, but that’s what Arminianism is when consistency is demanded. Pelagius was basically a consistent, modern-day Arminian.
As for your quotes, it’s simple to do a Google search on ante-Nicene fathers against Calvinism; clearly, that’s how you got those quotes. Have you honestly taken the time to actually read their letters and works? Most likely you don't have the slightest idea of their writings.
SaintsEdified 2 months ago
@SaintsEdified yup i have, well i thought the only way i could tell you about the misconseption u are having was by quoting ,apparently i have not simply quoted just proof texts, but rather small parts of entire contexts, i was expecting you would read the rest on your own, obviously i couldnt post the entire context,
paulomi123 2 months ago
@SaintsEdified well i have been reading the philokalia for sometime and i have constantly read through ireneus justin martyr, tertullian, i have read all the letters of theophilus in the philokalia, and yeah i belong to the orthodox church so i do know to some extent about all the fathers, dont know if its enough but i do have some idea about them i guess going by the quotes of course you dont expect me to post it entirely you can read the rest of the letters and see for urself
paulomi123 2 months ago
@paulomi123 (3)
I’m not saying that every single (ante-Nicene) church father affirmed Calvinistic doctrine, but it sure was implied in many of their writings. If you look up their full writings (not just a biased, anti-Calvinist website) you will notice that a lot of them implied an all-by-grace and God’s work-alone type of salvation (monergism). Go to CCEL.org and research their entire writings. I'm just trying to help out here.
SaintsEdified 2 months ago
@SaintsEdified well i have been reading the philokalia since some time, its a great book, and i have found a consistent approach in all of the saints,
paulomi123 2 months ago
@SaintsEdified i dont think so, in my readings i have actually seen a very opposite ideology
paulomi123 2 months ago
@SaintsEdified i just hope you read into the fathers, and come to the truth, i seriously feel if you read the fathers its quite difficult to still be a calvinist cheers
paulomi123 2 months ago
@SaintsEdified concerning your comparing of pelagianism with arminianism i think i see the problem, you see arminianism dosent say we are saved by our works it simply says we are saved by the works of God but we need to choose if we want God to work within ourselves, and guide us to salvation, there is no point of earning salvation, but accepting it,
paulomi123 2 months ago
@paulomi123 (2)
Most likely you haven't, because if you did, you wouldn't disagree with him. He basically taught that we are completely dependable on God and His grace to save us. Most Arminians don't disagree with him once they find out that he was only teaching an all-grace, no-works type of salvation.
As for the rest of the church fathers, have you heard of the phrase "ante-Nicene church fathers?" And have you read their writings? I strongly recommend them if you haven't.
SaintsEdified 2 months ago
@paulomi123 (3)
"augustine and those who followed him or were his disciples were the only ones who apparently, followed, this theology, and that was 1000 years after christ"
Wow... You history is way off. Augustine existed in the 300's...Only a little after 300 years after Christ, not a 1,000 years. You need to re-check your facts, my friend.
But look into the ante-Nicene church father's writings; you'll be surprised how much they agreed with Reformed Theology.
SaintsEdified 2 months ago
@SaintsEdified certainly, not, augustine existed in the 300's but his theology was not at all entirely in place until around 1000 ad when the east west schism due to the theological differences arised, lets look at the ante nicene fathers as you have mentioned
paulomi123 2 months ago
@SaintsEdified clement of rome:"For no other reason does God punish the sinner either in the present or future world, except because He knows that the sinner was able to conquer but neglected to gain the victory."
paulomi123 2 months ago
@SaintsEdified " ...and there is set before us life upon our observance [of God's precepts], but death as the result of disobedience, and every one, according to the choice he makes, shall go to his own place, let us flee from death, and make choice of life." st ignatious
paulomi123 2 months ago
@SaintsEdified justin martyr "God's foreknowledge is intuitive, not active, and is caused by man's choices."
paulomi123 2 months ago
@SaintsEdified justin martyr :We have learned from the prophets, and we hold it to be true, that punishments, chastisements, and rewards are rendered according to the merit of each man's actions. Otherwise, if all things happen by fate, then nothing is in our own power. For if it be predestined that one man be good and another man evil, then the first is not deserving of praise or the other to be blamed.
paulomi123 2 months ago
@SaintsEdified Unless humans have the power of avoiding evil and choosing good by free choice, they are not accountable for their actions-whatever they may be... For neither would a man be worthy of reward or praise if he did not of himself choose the good, but was merely created for that end. Likewise, if a man were evil, he would not deserve punishment, since he was not evil of himself, being unable to do anything else than what he was made for." (Justin First Apology chap. 43)
paulomi123 2 months ago
@SaintsEdified "...God, wishing men and angels to follow His will, resolved to create them free to do righteousness; possessing reason, that they may know by whom they are created, and through whom they, not existing formerly, do now exist; and with a law that they should be judged by Him, if they do anything contrary to right reason: and of ourselves we, men and angels, shall be convicted of having acted sinfully, unless we repent beforehand.
paulomi123 2 months ago
@SaintsEdified But if the word of God foretells that some angels and men shall be certainly punished, it did so because it foreknew that they would be unchangeably [wicked], but not because God had created them so. So that if they repent, all who wish for it can obtain mercy from God..."
paulomi123 2 months ago
@SaintsEdified "...it is not the part of good and solid faith to refer all things to the will of God...as to make us fail to understand that there is something within our power." tertullian
paulomi123 2 months ago
@SaintsEdified Ireaneus "And in man, as well as in angels, [God] has placed the power of choice...so that those who had yielded obedience might justly posses what is good, given indeed by God, but preserved by themselves. On the other hand, they who have not obeyed shall, with justice, be not found in possession of the good, and shall receive condign punishment: for God did kindly bestow on them what was good...but [they] poured contempt on His super-eminent goodness." Against Heresies 5:37.
paulomi123 2 months ago
@SaintsEdified this father infact seems to be calling calvinists pagans, Methodius :"Those [pagans] who decide that man does not have free will, but say that he is governed by the unavoidable necessities of fate, are guilty of impiety toward God Himself, making Him out to be the cause and author of human evils." - The Banquet of the Ten Virgins discourse 8, chap. 16
paulomi123 2 months ago
@SaintsEdified Theophilus of antioch :"For God made man free, and with power over himself . . . now God vouchsafes to him as a gift through His own philanthropy and pity, when men obey Him. For as man, disobeying, drew death on himself; so, obeying the will of God, he who desires is able to procure for himself life everlasting."
paulomi123 2 months ago
@SaintsEdified i think there is no confusion after this as to what the fathers believed, secondly coming back to augustine of hippo, he was not a christian before and was heavily influenced by manichaeism, what is that?? it was a sect who believed man is guided by fate and everything is by fate and not by free choice, so i guess you get the picture, i dont think i need to say anymor after this cheers :)
paulomi123 2 months ago
@paulomi123 (4)
"i think there is no confusion after this as to what the fathers believed"
There seems to be a huge confusion on your part. You think by ripping writings out here and there proves your point, but it doesn't. Anyone can do that.
Augustine and Manichaeism:
He wrote about his regrets in being part of that religious sect (Confessions) so your argument fails to stand. What you are doing is getting bits and pieces of history to support your claims. That's being dishonest...
SaintsEdified 2 months ago
@SaintsEdified i think i will end with this final reading by st ireneus of lyon :"For He who makes the chaff and He who makes the wheat are not different persons, but one and the same, who judges them, that is, separates them But the wheat and the chaff, being inanimate and irrational, have been made such by nature.
paulomi123 2 months ago
@SaintsEdified But man, being endowed with reason, and in this respect like to God, having been made free in his will, and with power over himself, is himself the cause to himself, that sometimes he becomes wheat, and sometimes chaff Wherefore also he shall be justly condemned because, having been created a rational being, he lost the true rationality, and living irrationally, opposed the righteousness of God,
paulomi123 2 months ago
@paulomi123
Apparently st. ireneus of lyon forgot about Jesus' condemnation in John 3:19, or Paul's unambiguous teaching in Rom. 9:15-16
Bill244888 2 months ago
@Bill244888 or maybe you need to read it in context, instead of calling me a hypocrite, no offence ,cheers
paulomi123 2 months ago
@paulomi123
Did I call you a hypocrite?
Are you going to address the passages I mentioned or just claim they are taken out of context?
I suppose I could exegete the book of John or Romans, but I doubt that is necessary to prove my point.
Bill244888 2 months ago
@Bill244888 oops am srry my friend, this comment was for saintsedified, i am so srry, lolz ,:),
paulomi123 2 months ago
@SaintsEdified serving all lusts; as says the prophet, "Man, being in honor, did not understand: he was assimilated to senseless beasts, and made like to them." (St. Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies, book 4, chapter 4, paragraph 3)
merry christmas
paulomi123 2 months ago
@paulomi123 (5)
"i will end with this final reading by..."
Quoting bits and pieces of historical writings won't help you at all. But since you're leaving, I'll leave you with Scripture:
"So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy." Rom 9:18
"Whatever the LORD pleases, he does, in heaven and on earth, in the seas and all deeps." Ps 135:6
"I form light and create darkness, I make well-being and create calamity, I am the LORD, who does all these things." Is. 45:7
SaintsEdified 2 months ago
@SaintsEdified lolz "Quoting bits and pieces of historical writings won't help you at all." and just when i was expecting something better you end up quoting bits and pieces of scripture, lolz, anyways i wont do the same,i'll leave you with an entire discourse in the bible, calvinists and lutherans hate him,but he is still part of canonical scripture unfortunately for them,
paulomi123 2 months ago
@SaintsEdified Speak and act as those who are going to be judged by the law that gives freedom because judgment without mercy will be shown to anyone who has not been merciful. Mercy triumphs over judgment! What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him? Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to him, "Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed,"
paulomi123 2 months ago
@SaintsEdified but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead But someone will say, "You have faith; I have deeds." Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that--and shudder You foolish man, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless?
paulomi123 2 months ago
@SaintsEdified Was not our ancestor Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did.And the scripture was fulfilled that says, "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness," and he was called God's friend
paulomi123 2 months ago
@SaintsEdified You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone.In the same way, was not even Rahab the prostitute considered righteous for what she did when she gave lodging to the spies and sent them off in a different direction? As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead. such clear scriptural teaching if one cannot see the gist here one is surely being dishonest
paulomi123 2 months ago
@SaintsEdified you seem to be shifting ground, here on one hand you say the fathers agree on calvinism, then when i post parts of their discourses you accuse me of prooftexting and go back to scripture and do the same, let me make it clear here, i didnt prooftext the fathers infact if you read the entire context of my posts you will realise i have simply posted a small part of a discourse which talks exactly about free will
paulomi123 2 months ago
@SaintsEdified infact i have gone through the website , how can u still be a calvinist after reading it all, it is so consistent m the urging to fast, keeping watch in prayer, the sacraments, everything is so clear, please read them, i dont want to say anything else, read justin martyr, polycarp,ireneus, the didache,origen ,ignatious, i am done commenting, i cant force views if you are adamant on calvinism, nice talking to u tkr :)
paulomi123 2 months ago
@paulomi123 (1)
I’ll say it once more. All you did was post quotes from church fathers that you most likely got from an anti-Calvinist website. Those were the same quotes I used to use when I was against Reformed theology. You’re not fooling anyone. You disregarded what I said before—Quoting bits and pieces of historical articles won’t back up what you say. I could do the same exact thing you did with almost the same people and their writings, but that’s being dishonest. CCEL.org, read them.
SaintsEdified 2 months ago
@SaintsEdified Since if it be not so, but all things happen by fate, neither is anything at all in our own power. For if it be fated that this man, e.g., be good, and this other evil, neither is the former meritorious nor the latter to be blamed. And again, unless the human race have the power of avoiding evil and choosing good by free choice, they are not accountable for their actions, of whatever kind they be
paulomi123 2 months ago
@SaintsEdified But that it is by free choice they both walk uprightly and stumble, we thus demonstrate. We see the same man making a transition to opposite things. Now, if it had been fated that he were to be either good or bad, he could never have been capable of both the opposites, nor of so many transitions. But not even would some be good and others bad, since we thus make fate the cause of evil, and exhibit her as acting in opposition to herself;
paulomi123 2 months ago
@SaintsEdified or that which has been already stated would seem to be true, that neither virtue nor vice is anything, but that things are only reckoned good or evil by opinion; which, as the true word shows, is the greatest impiety and wickedness. But this we assert is inevitable fate, that they who choose the good have worthy rewards, and they who choose the opposite have their merited awards.
paulomi123 2 months ago
@SaintsEdified . For not like other things, as trees and quadrupeds, which cannot act by choice, did God make man: for neither would he be worthy of reward or praise did he not of himself choose the good, but were created for this end; nor, if he were evil, would he be worthy of punishment, not being evil of himself, but being able to be nothing else than what he was made.
paulomi123 2 months ago
@SaintsEdified And the holy Spirit of prophecy taught us this, telling us by Moses that God spoke thus to the man first created: “Behold, before thy face are good and evil: choose the good.”
And again, by the other prophet Isaiah, that the following utterance was made as if from God the Father and Lord of all: “Wash you, make you clean; put away evils from your souls; learn to do well; judge the orphan, and plead for the widow:
paulomi123 2 months ago
@SaintsEdified and come and let us reason together, saith the Lord: And if your sins be as scarlet, I will make them white as wool; and if they be red like as crimson, I will make them white as snow. And if ye be willing and obey Me, ye shall eat the good of the land; but if ye do not obey Me, the sword shall devour you: for the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it.” And that expression, “The sword shall devour you,” does not mean that the disobedient shall be slain by the sword, but
paulomi123 2 months ago
@SaintsEdified the sword of God is fire, of which they who choose to do wickedly become the fuel. Wherefore He says, “The sword shall devour you: for the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it.” And if He had spoken concerning a sword that cuts and at once dispatches, He would not have said, shall devour. And so, too, Plato, when he says, “The blame is his who chooses, and God is blameless,”
paulomi123 2 months ago
@SaintsEdified took this from the prophet Moses and uttered it. For Moses is more ancient than all the Greek writers. And whatever both philosophers and poets have said concerning the immortality of the soul, or punishments after death, or contemplation of things heavenly, or doctrines of the like kind, they have received such suggestions from the prophets as have enabled them to understand and interpret these things
paulomi123 2 months ago
@SaintsEdified And hence there seem to be seeds of truth among all men; but they are charged with not accurately understanding the truth when they assert contradictories. So that what we say about future events being foretold, we do not say it as if they came about by a fatal necessity; but God foreknowing all that shall be done by all men, and it being His decree that the future actions of men shall all be recompensed according to their several value
paulomi123 2 months ago
@SaintsEdified He foretells by the Spirit of prophecy that He will bestow meet rewards according to the merit of the actions done, always urging the human race to effort and recollection, showing that He cares and provides for men. But by the agency of the devils death has been decreed against those who read the books of Hystaspes, or of the Sibyl,
paulomi123 2 months ago
@SaintsEdified or of the prophets, that through fear they may prevent men who read them from receiving the knowledge of the good, and may retain them in slavery to themselves; which, however, they could not always effect. For not only do we fearlessly read them, but, as you see, bring them for your inspection
paulomi123 2 months ago
@SaintsEdified knowing that their contents will be pleasing to all. And if we persuade even a few, our gain will be very great; for, as good husbandmen, we shall receive the reward from the Master. (St. Justin the Philosopher, First Apology, 43-44)
paulomi123 2 months ago
@SaintsEdified This expression of our Lord, “How often would I have gathered thy children together, and thou wouldest not,”
set forth the ancient law of human liberty, because God made man a free agent from the beginning, possessing his own power, even as he does his own soul, to obey the behests of God voluntarily, and not by compulsion of God.
paulomi123 2 months ago
@SaintsEdified For there is no coercion with God, but a good will towards us is present with Him continually. And therefore does He give good counsel to all. And in man, as well as in angels, He has placed the power of choice (for angels are rational beings), so that those who had yielded obedience might justly possess what is good, given indeed by God, but preserved by themselves.
paulomi123 2 months ago
@SaintsEdified On the other hand, they who have not obeyed shall, with justice, be not found in possession of the good, and shall receive condign punishment: for God did kindly bestow on them what was good; but they themselves did not diligently keep it, nor deem it something precious, but poured contempt upon His super-eminent goodness. Rejecting therefore the good, and as it were spuing it out, they shall all
paulomi123 2 months ago
@SaintsEdified deservedly incur the just judgment of God, which also the Apostle Paul testifies in his Epistle to the Romans, where he says, “But dost thou despise the riches of His goodness, and patience, and long-suffering, being ignorant that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance? But according to thy hardness and impenitent heart, thou treasurest to thyself wrath against the day of wrath, and the revelation of the righteous judgment of God.” “But glory and honour,” he says,
paulomi123 2 months ago
@SaintsEdified “But glory and honour,” he says, “to every one that doeth good.”
God therefore has given that which is good, as the apostle tells us in this Epistle, and they who work it shall receive glory and honour, because they have done that which is good when they had it in their power not to do it; but those who do it not shall receive the just judgment of God, because they did not work good when they had it in their power so to do.
paulomi123 2 months ago
@SaintsEdified But if some had been made by nature bad, and others good, these latter would not be deserving of praise for being good, for such were they created; nor would the former be reprehensible, for thus they were made originally. But since all men are of the same nature, able both to hold fast and to do what is good; and, on the other hand, having also the power to cast it from them and not to do it,—
paulomi123 2 months ago
@SaintsEdified some do justly receive praise even among men who are under the control of good laws (and much more from God), and obtain deserved testimony of their choice of good in general, and of persevering therein; but the others are blamed, and receive a just condemnation, because of their rejection of what is fair and good. And therefore the prophets used to exhort men to what was good, to act justly and to work righteousness, as I have so largely demonstrated, because it
paulomi123 2 months ago
@SaintsEdified is in our power so to do, and because by excessive negligence we might become forgetful, and thus stand in need of that good counsel which the good God has given us to know by means of the prophets.
For this reason the Lord also said, “Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good deeds, and glorify your Father who is in heaven.”
And, “Take heed to yourselves, lest perchance your hearts be overcharged with surfeiting, and drunkenness, and worldly cares.”
paulomi123 2 months ago
@SaintsEdified And, “Let your loins be girded about, and your lamps burning, and ye like unto men that wait for their Lord, when He returns from the wedding, that when He cometh and knocketh, they may open to Him. Blessed is that servant whom his Lord, when He cometh, shall find so doing.” And again, “The servant who knows his Lord’s will, and does it not, shall be beaten with many stripes.”
paulomi123 2 months ago
@SaintsEdified And, “Why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?”
And again, “But if the servant say in his heart, The Lord delayeth, and begin to beat his fellow-servants, and to eat, and drink, and to be drunken, his Lord will come in a day on which he does not expect Him, and shall cut him in sunder, and appoint his portion with the hypocrites.”
paulomi123 2 months ago
@SaintsEdified All such passages demonstrate the independent will of man, and at the same time the counsel which God conveys to him, by which He exhorts us to submit ourselves to Him, and seeks to turn us away from the sin of unbelief against Him, without, however, in any way coercing us. No doubt, if any one is unwilling to follow the Gospel itself, it is in his power [to reject it], but it is not expedient. For it is in man’s power to disobey God, and to forfeit what is good;
paulomi123 2 months ago
@SaintsEdified to forfeit what is good; but such conduct brings no small amount of injury and mischief. And on this account Paul says, “All things are lawful to me, but all things are not expedient;”
referring both to the liberty of man, in which respect “all things are lawful,” God exercising no compulsion in regard to him; and by the expression “not expedient” pointing out that we “should not use our liberty as a cloak of maliciousness,”
paulomi123 2 months ago
@SaintsEdified walk honestly as children of the light, not in rioting and drunkenness, not in chambering and wantonness, not in anger and jealousy. And such were some of you; but ye have been washed, but ye have been sanctified in the name of our Lord.” If then it were not in our power to do or not to do these things, what reason had the apostle, and much more the Lord Himself, to give us counsel to do some things, and to abstain from others?
paulomi123 2 months ago
@SaintsEdified But because man is possessed of free will from the beginning, and God is possessed of free will, in whose likeness man was created, advice is always given to him to keep fast the good, which thing is done by means of obedience to God.
And not merely in works, but also in faith, has God preserved the will of man free and under his own control, saying, “According to thy faith be it unto thee;”
paulomi123 2 months ago
@SaintsEdified thus showing that there is a faith specially belonging to man, since he has an opinion specially his own. And again, “All things are possible to him that believeth;”
and, “Go thy way; and as thou hast believed, so be it done unto thee.”
Now all such expressions demonstrate that man is in his own power with respect to faith. And for this reason, “he that believeth in Him has eternal life while he who believeth not the Son hath not eternal life,
paulomi123 2 months ago
@SaintsEdified In the same manner therefore the Lord, both showing His own goodness, and indicating that man is in his own free will and his own power, said to Jerusalem, “How often have I wished to gather thy children together, as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not! Wherefore your house shall be left unto you desolate.”
paulomi123 2 months ago
@SaintsEdified Those, again, who maintain the opposite to these conclusions, do themselves present the Lord as destitute of power, as if, forsooth, He were unable to accomplish what He willed; or, on the other hand, as being ignorant that they were by nature “material,” as these men express it, and such as cannot receive His immortality
paulomi123 2 months ago
@SaintsEdified “But He should not,” say they, “have created angels of such a nature that they were capable of transgression, nor men who immediately proved ungrateful towards Him; for they were made rational beings, endowed with the power of examining and judging, and were not formed as things irrational or of a merely animal nature, which can do nothing of their own will, but are drawn by necessity and compulsion to what is good, in which things there is one mind and one usage,
paulomi123 2 months ago
@SaintsEdified working mechanically in one groove, who are incapable of being anything else except just what they had been created.” But upon this supposition, neither would what is good be grateful to them, nor communion with God be precious, nor would the good be very much to be sought after, which would present itself without their own proper endeavour, care, or study,
paulomi123 2 months ago
@SaintsEdified but would be implanted of its own accord and without their concern. Thus it would come to pass, that their being good would be of no consequence, because they were so by nature rather than by will, and are possessors of good spontaneously, not by choice; and for this reason they would not understand this fact, that good is a comely thing,
paulomi123 2 months ago
@SaintsEdified nor would they take pleasure in it. For how can those who are ignorant of good enjoy it? Or what credit is it to those who have not aimed at it? And what crown is it to those who have not followed in pursuit of it, like those victorious in the contest?
On this account, too, did the Lord assert that the kingdom of heaven was the portion of “the violent;”
paulomi123 2 months ago
@SaintsEdified and He says, “The violent take it by force;”
that is, those who by strength and earnest striving are on the watch to snatch it away on the moment. On this account also Paul the Apostle says to the Corinthians, “Know ye not, that they who run in a racecourse, do all indeed run, but one receiveth the prize? So run, that ye may obtain. Every one also who engages in the contest is temperate in all things: now these men do it that they may obtain a corruptible crown
paulomi123 2 months ago
@SaintsEdified but we an incorruptible. But I so run, not as uncertainty; I fight, not as one beating the air; but I make my body livid, and bring it into subjection, lest by any means, when preaching to others, I may myself be rendered a castaway.” This able wrestler, therefore, exhorts us to the struggle for immortality, that we may be crowned, and may deem the crown precious, namely, that which is acquired by our struggle, but which does not encircle us of its own accord.
paulomi123 2 months ago
@SaintsEdified And the harder we strive, so much is it the more valuable; while so much the more valuable it is, so much the more should we esteem it. And indeed those things are not esteemed so highly which come spontaneously, as those which are reached by much anxious care. Since, then, this power has been conferred upon us, both the Lord has taught and the apostle has enjoined us the more to love God, that we may reach this prize for ourselves by striving after it
paulomi123 2 months ago
@SaintsEdified For otherwise, no doubt, this our good would be virtually irrational, because not the result of trial. Moreover, the faculty of seeing would not appear to be so desirable, unless we had known what a loss it were to be devoid of sight; and health, too, is rendered all the more estimable by an acquaintance with disease; light, also, by contrasting it with darkness; and life with death. Just in the same way is the heavenly kingdom honourable to those who have known the earthly one.
paulomi123 2 months ago
@SaintsEdified But in proportion as it is more honourable, so much the more do we prize it; and if we have prized it more, we shall be the more glorious in the presence of God. The Lord has therefore endured all these things on our behalf, in order that we, having been instructed by means of them all, may be in all respects circumspect for the time to come, and that, having been rationally taught to love God
paulomi123 2 months ago
@SaintsEdified we may continue in His perfect love: for God has displayed long-suffering in the case of man’s apostasy; while man has been instructed by means of it, as also the prophet says, “Thine own apostasy shall heal thee;” God thus determining all things beforehand for the bringing of man to perfection, for his edification, and for the revelation of His dispensations,
paulomi123 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SaintsEdified we may continue in His perfect love: for God has displayed long-suffering in the case of man’s apostasy; while man has been instructed by means of it, as also the prophet says, “Thine own apostasy shall heal thee;” God thus determining all things beforehand for the bringing of man to perfection, for his edification, and for the revelation of His dispensations,
paulomi123 2 months ago
@SaintsEdified that goodness may both be made apparent, and righteousness perfected, and that the Church may be fashioned after the image of His Son, and that man may finally be brought to maturity at some future time, becoming ripe through such privileges to see and comprehend God. (St. Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies, 4, 37)
paulomi123 2 months ago
@SaintsEdified well i dont think you can now say that i have quoted from here and there or prooftexted, since i just posted two entire discourses, and not from any anticalvinist website, check your own website i have added, the name of the author and chapter, for u to cross check, if even after that you continue to rant against me then i will assume you have no purssuit for the truth and only want to protect ur doctrine in which case i am helpless
paulomi123 2 months ago
@paulomi123 (2)
Gnosticism is in no way or form consistent with Calvinism. That’s a ridiculous statement, sir. I explained how Pelagius was basically a modern-day, consistent Arminian; now, you explain how Gnosticism is consistent (modern-day) Calvinism. I’ll be waiting for your response, unless you were being dishonest again.
Anyone who compares Manichaeism with Calvinism has no idea what Calvinism is- simply said. In other words, you have no idea what you’re talking about.
SaintsEdified 2 months ago
@SaintsEdified look up gnosticism, or wait, i will message you links, which explain, gnosticism, or if you have read ireneus of lyon, you would know.i am somehow feeling you have not read any of the works of the fathers and are simply followong someone's advice blindly anyways i am going to post two 'entire' works which i got from your website, if you deny that then i really would assume that you have no interest in the truth, and i would give up. i cant force u
paulomi123 2 months ago
@SaintsEdified well guess you are ignorant about a lot of things, even calvinists themselves agree that it has a very gnostic influence, you are just trying too hard to protect your philosophy, ranting about things dosent make thoose things false
paulomi123 2 months ago
@SaintsEdified maybe u need to be honest, in your deductions, i have only heard rantings and nothing else
paulomi123 2 months ago
@SaintsEdified But lest some suppose, from what has been said by us [concerning the fulfillment of prophecy], that we say that whatever happens, happens by a fatal necessity, because it is foretold as known beforehand, this too we explain. We have learned from the prophets, and we hold it to be true, that punishments, and chastisements, and good rewards, are rendered according to the merit of each man’s actions
paulomi123 2 months ago
Comment removed
SaintsEdified 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@paulomi123 (3) “I just hope you read into the fathers and come to the truth”
Are you a Roman Catholic? I continue to read the early church fathers, both ante and post Nicene. Even if they did have a different ideology, I hold to Sola Scriptura, which the Bible clearly affirms Reformed theology. So far, all you have done is post random quotes you got from an anti-Calvinist website and assert that the early church fathers will bring me to truth. Seems like Scripture isn't your authority.
SaintsEdified 2 months ago
@SaintsEdified well u seem to be constantly shifting ground, i am simply correcting ur assertion that the early fathers agreed with calvinism which according to me is a false and ignorant statement
paulomi123 2 months ago
@paulomi123 (4)
You randomly quoted James 2… Saving faith brings forth fruit (good deeds). Faith does not come alone, understand? Do you believe in works-based salvation? If you do then I’m afraid you do not understand the gospel. So far you proved to be misinformed about history, and now you’re proving yourself to believe in a false gospel of human works/self-righteousness. Read Ephesians 2 and Romans 3-5. If you believe in a false gospel, you must repent and trust in Jesus. (Gal. 1:6-9)
SaintsEdified 2 months ago
@SaintsEdified i didnt say anything james did
paulomi123 2 months ago
@SaintsEdified atleat our calvinist friend bill is honest he directly denies the teaching of the early fathers
paulomi123 2 months ago
@paulomi123
Do you notice the flaws in your argumentation? First of all, I said that the implications of Calvinism is in the writings of the early (ante and post Nicene) church fathers. Does this mean that every single thing they wrote will support Calvinism? No! It only means that (some of) their views and writings implied Calvinistic doctrine. For example, most agreed that salvation is by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone, God is sovereign, and He alone saves sinners.
SaintsEdified 2 months ago
@SaintsEdified For example, most agreed that salvation is by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone, God is sovereign, and He alone saves sinners. well even arminians believe that, lolz, salvation is by God alone God alone can save by His grace who is oppossing that, do you even know what you are opposing??, i think you need more research, and seondly, the fathers are clearly mentioning and supporting free will if u cant see that then, i doubt if you are being honest
paulomi123 2 months ago
@paulomi123
Secondly, you posting a whole letter on this comment section is ridiculous. That does not prove your point. What would prove your point is if you can get their writings and prove that they were explicitly teaching against Reformed theology, not Gnosticism. Writings that contain that men have “free choices” or “free will” does not refute Calvinism, buddy! What would prove your point is if they were arguing against original sin, or if the fall affected every part of man.
SaintsEdified 2 months ago
@SaintsEdified lolz you are really trying too hard to save ur doctrine,to the extent that you make no sense,atleast be honest and agree that you reject the fathers, that wont make your theory false, only your claim that the fathers supported your theory would be false,neways i give up, cheers
paulomi123 2 months ago
@SaintsEdified free will or choice,without which there is no sense in christianity, they are genuinely (if u read in context) debating againts the gnostic idea that each one is born with a divine spark which decides their salvation,and if they dont have the spark they are damned which is exactly though not theologically in unity with calvinism, using theological sugar coatings is not going to change the reality, of what each presupposes in their theory,
paulomi123 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@paulomi123 "so who is perfect, john calvin???"
And no, I never said John Calvin was perfect. There are MANY things I disagree with him also. Ante/post church fathers are not inspired like the writers of the Bible were; hence, they are not perfect. Origen wrote many good things, but later became a heretic. Augustine wrote many good things, too, but had a strange view of justification. Martin Luther had a strange view of the canon. Etc... Only God is perfect. Your silly remarks are ridiculous.
SaintsEdified 2 months ago
@paulomi123
What Irenaeus was writing against was Gnosticism, not Calvinism! The end of the title of that letter you posted even said, “It is not, therefore, that some are by nature good, and others bad.” He was teaching against fatalistic doctrine, which Calvinism denies! Don’t try to act like you know it all when you obviously don’t. You have disgustingly taken that whole letter out of context. You are falsely presupposing that Gnosticism is basically Calvinism; that is completely wrong.
SaintsEdified 2 months ago
@SaintsEdified you mean to say ,i took an entire context out of context,lolz, yes sir,:)
paulomi123 2 months ago
@SaintsEdified “It is not, therefore, that some are by nature good, and others bad.” Re: and you blame me of taking things out of context,
paulomi123 2 months ago
@SaintsEdified of course john calvin was not existent then , but have you read at the stressing of the fathers on the importance of free will,??, you just picked up one sentence out of context , i am not talking about what calvinism denies, i am talking about what those letters talk about, and even if you take a fatalistic doctrine, it presupposes the same condition, of beings without free will, do you disagree with that? how can u?, and the fathers are specifically talking about the importance
paulomi123 2 months ago
@paulomi123
There are man misconceptions on Calvinism. One being that Calvinism denies free will, in the sense that man cannot choose what they desire. That is a wrong view of Calvinism. Calvinism teaches that man DOES have the ability to choose what they desire, but the problem is in what they desire before being regenerated. That's not an issue that was addressed in any of the quotes you mentioned.
SaintsEdified 2 months ago
@SaintsEdified so calvinism does not deny free will??, thats a twist
paulomi123 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@paulomi123 "so calvinism does not deny free will??, thats a twist"
Did you not read what I said before? Your definition of free will differs from others. I define free will as having the ability "to choose what you desire." Do I reject that? No, neither do other Calvinist. What Calvinist deny is the ability to choose God before being regenerated. Once someone is regenerated THEN they are able to choose God.
SaintsEdified 2 months ago
@paulomi123
The issiue is not whether we have the ability to choose. The issue is what we desire before being regenerated. Do you understand that?
SaintsEdified 2 months ago
@SaintsEdified no you need to answer my question first,we will deal with what you said later. do you agree or deny that every human is predestined to salvation or damnation before birth without any choice of his???
paulomi123 2 months ago
@paulomi123
God's election is not influenced by human choice, BUT human choice, repentance, and faith is involved in salvation. I affirm predestination.
Now, are you going to argue that Gnostics also agree with predestination; therefore, Calvinism is influenced by Gnosticism???
That's a flawed argument because the root of Gnosticism isn't Scripture, it's secret knowledge, randomness. Calvinism denies that.
SaintsEdified 2 months ago
@SaintsEdified "God's election is not influenced by human choice" aka man is predestined to damnation and salvation without any choice of his, correct me if i am wrong but dosent this imply that both calvinism and gnosticism and consistent with the idea of salvation or damnation without human choice
paulomi123 2 months ago
@paulomi123
You seem to be implying a fatalistic view of predestination for Calvinism. Those who will be eternally damned are by choice unrepentant, unfaithful, and unwilling to come to God. Those who will be eternally saved are by grace chosen, faithful, and were drawn by the Father to the Son. If you are arguing that both views are predestination then I agree, but within the both views are MAJOR differences. Don't you agree that the bible teaches predestination?
SaintsEdified 2 months ago
@SaintsEdified but ultimately even the desire to choose, is forced upon by God due to His irressistible grace, and since man is totally depraved he cannot chose anything good,
paulomi123 2 months ago
@paulomi123
And if you want to stat being immature and "lolz" at everything then you demonstrate how you're not capable of having a worthy discussion. Taking a letter out of its context is not "taking context out of its context." You don't understand these basic things. The letter was against Gnosticism and their view of people being good and bad, not against Calvinism.
SaintsEdified 2 months ago
@SaintsEdified of course that is so obvious, calvinism was not existent at the time of these letters, i am talking about, the importance given to free will in these letters, how many times should i tell that,
paulomi123 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@paulomi123
And when I said "The letter was against Gnosticism and their view of people being good and bad, not against Calvinism." I know that Calvinism wasn't mentioned. I was saying that his letters cannot be directed to Calvinism in any way. The context of that letter reveals that .That's like trying to argue against Muslims with arguments that were original for Buddhists. It doesn't make sense! Gnosticism and Calvinism are two totally different systems of thought and philosophy.
SaintsEdified 2 months ago
@paulomi123
Third of all, I would like to meet those Calvinist who have told you that Calvinism (C) was influenced by Gnosticism (G). Let me explain to you why that is not so:
1. C disagrees with G on receiving “secret knowledge” apart from Scripture. C teaches Sola Scritpura.
2. C teaches that God makes covenants with sinful men while G teaches that God is distant from His creation.
3. C affirms that Jesus was God incarnate while G denies it.
4. C denies antinomianism while G affirms it.
SaintsEdified 2 months ago
@SaintsEdified c denies free will, g denies free will, that is the context of our discussion i suppose, of course c and g arent same,
paulomi123 2 months ago
@SaintsEdified i related c and g just like you related pelagianism with arminianism, p believes the fall changed nothing, a believes the fall did alter human nature, p believes that man can fulfill the commandments on his own, a believes man is born with an affinity to sin and cannot fulfill the commandments without grace, if i am wrong in comparing calvinism with gnosticism then even you are wrong in comparing P with A
paulomi123 2 months ago
@paulomi123
And no, you did not relate Calvinism and Gnosticism the way I related Palagianism and Arminianiam. Even if you did, that makes no sense whatsoever, since Gnosticism does not relate to Calvinism at all. P relates to A since they are both synergistic in salvation in terms of man's ability; whereas C and G differ since G depended on knowledge and C depends fully on God.
SaintsEdified 2 months ago
@SaintsEdified C and G both affirm that salvation is independent of personal choices, do you disagree with that????
paulomi123 2 months ago
@paulomi123
Do you think that Calvinism denies man's responsibility?
SaintsEdified 2 months ago
@SaintsEdified nope but dosent calvinism imply that even man's responsibility is forced upon by God aka irressitible grace???
paulomi123 2 months ago
@paulomi123
Nope? You don't agree that the Bible teaches predestination?
Irresistible Grace only teaches that the Holy Spirit's work of regeneration and the Father's word of drawing to the Son cannot be resisted. God isn't forcing anyone to do anything. Once regenerated, we have the desire to come to Jesus, repent, and be faithful. Our "free will" is now able to desire what really is good. So to answer your question, no.
SaintsEdified 2 months ago
@SaintsEdified i believe in predestination, but i believe we are predestined according to our willingness to submit to Christ, i think there might be a mistake maybe you are contesting a different sect of calvinism, but according to what i have come across, dosent irressistible grace signify that man if chosen by God for salvation can never fall even if he wants, because he cannot resist the grace of God?, anyways i think we should end our debate here
paulomi123 2 months ago
@paulomi123 "dosent irressistible grace signify that man if chosen by God for salvation can never fall even if he wants"
That's the problem. Irresistible Grace teaches that the regenerate person will not ultimately desire to fall away. There may be times of struggles and dry seasons, but because of God's faithfulness and steadfast, God will ultimate keep His children. My view of Calvinism isn't from a "different sect." It's basic Calvinism... Maybe you don't understand what Calvinism is.
SaintsEdified 2 months ago
@SaintsEdified it was a great learning experience debating with, i think if we go on further, it will only end up being one of those harse and ugly debates i have come across youtube videos, i have debated calvinists on youtube in the past and i have thankfully always ended it with peace and love,and i hope to do it again, lets not ruin our debate, i think we both have said enough for us to ponder, i believe Christ Himself would not be desisring us to keep throwing slack at each other as many do
paulomi123 2 months ago
@paulomi123
I apologize, too, if I have came off as harsh or immature in any way, shape, or form. In person I'm very calm, but it's hard to read emotion and impressions through writing. I'm barely learning how to make videos properly, so maybe I'll do one on the ante-Nicene church fathers and Gnosticism, comparing it with Calvinism. I'll be interested in your response! ;)
Take care and God bless.
SaintsEdified 2 months ago
@SaintsEdified so really this will be it from me (for real), it was nice talking with you sir, am really sorry for my harsh tones, but i will try to honestly go through all that we have discussed, hope you might do the same, anyways, tkr, :)
paulomi123 2 months ago
@paulomi123
5.They have two different views on predestination. Just because they have a view of predestination does not mean that Calvinism was influenced by them.
Calvinism does not relate to Gnosticism at all! You have been grossly misinformed.
Irenaeus is well known to be an opponent of Gnosticism and Calvinists take his side. Sure, there may be sections were he may give too much credit to man, but he wasn't perfect. You need to get your facts straight.
SaintsEdified 2 months ago
@SaintsEdified so who is perfect, john calvin???,,,
paulomi123 2 months ago
@SaintsEdified well if you must have honestly read the letters then........,lolz i think i have said this a million times, anyways, tkr
paulomi123 2 months ago
@SaintsEdified if you cannot see the clarity with which the fathers define free will and how important it is, then i think there is no point in arguing any further,
paulomi123 2 months ago
@paulomi123
From reading everything you posted, you seem to either have a wrong view of Gnosticism or a wrong view of Calvinism. Irenaeus's arguments don't oppose Calvinism; they were opposing Gnosticism, which are two totally different things. If we honestly want to get somewhere in this discussion, you'll have to define what you think Calvinism and Gnosticism is.
SaintsEdified 2 months ago
@paulomi123 (4)
" i think it may be fun"
Wow... You're the first person I ever met say that God will have "fun" punishing people for all eternity! But to answer your question, I believe God will be pleased with punishing the unrighteous, because He is just. That's as far as I'll go with God's "pleasure" in punishing the wicked.
There is no hope for men within himself (including freewill) to save himself; therefore, men must be completely dependent on God, not freewill, for salvation.
SaintsEdified 2 months ago
@paulomi123 (2)
video was created for fun, not for a theology 101 course.
"calvinism is for robots because no human can ever accpet such blasphemy"
Sinners despised Jesus and His gospel. The Bible affirms Calvinism. There have been many church fathers who implied the teachings of Calvinism and many influential Christian men in the past were Calvinists. So your claim doesn't stand.
SaintsEdified 2 months ago
Great video!
HosannaHM 5 months ago
@HosannaHM
Thank you. :)
2row777 5 months ago
What the bible teaches is -1) Man is born separated from God & can’t save himself - he will not & cannot come to God on his own, & couldn't repair the relationship even if he did 2)God has supplied a way back to Himself thru Christ 3) God intervenes in each person's life, convicts them of their sin & need for a Savior & 4) calls them to repentance 5) those who CHOOSE to respond are then given to Christ for regeneration.
God convicts, calls, draws, etc but man can CHOOSE to reject it all.
JackMWolfe 5 months ago
@JackMWolfe
I ignored you for a reason. You don't care what anyone has to say (ignorance) and all you do is insult rather than having a decent discussion about the bible. So after this, you're no longer posting on my stuff. If you really want to have a mature and decent conversation then message me.
2row777 5 months ago
@JackMWolfe
(1) Man's heart is deceitful and desperately wicked (Jer. 17:9). Man is full of evil (Mark 7:21-23), loves darkness rather than light (John 3:19), is unrighteous, does not understand, does not seek for God (Rom. 3:10-12), is helpless and ungodly (Rom. 5:6), is dead in his trespasses and sins (Eph. 2:1), and is by nature a child of wrath (Eph. 2:3). Man cannot understand spiritual things (1 Cor. 2:14), but is a slave of sin (Rom. 6:16-20). Man will continually reject God unless God
2row777 5 months ago
@JackMWolfe
(2) God draws people to Himself (John 6:44,65), creates a clean heart (Psalm 51:10), appoints people to believe (Acts 13:48), works faith in the believer (John 6:28-29), chooses who is to be holy and blameless (Eph. 1:4), chooses us for salvation (2 Thess. 2:13-14), grants the act of believing (Phil. 1:29), grants repentance (2 Tim. 2:24-26), calls according to His purpose (2 Tim. 1:9),
2row777 5 months ago
@2row777 Great video. The Arminians want to boast that they choose God, instead of God choosing his people for eternal life. They have it backwards.
JesusIsTheOneWay 2 months ago
@JesusIsTheOneWay
Thank you :) And yup! Unfortunately, they do.
2row777 2 months ago
@2row777 lolz you cant just make theology by quoting verses from here and there, in this way i can even prove the theology of the jehovahs witnesses to be biblical, stop acting like robots, and start thinking like humans
paulomi123 2 months ago
@paulomi123
If we can't develop a theology from the bible then where should we get it from? Our own sin darkened depraved minds?
Man developing theology by thinking for themselves is what has given us Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, Hindus, Muslims, etc., etc.
Jer. 9:24
"but let him who boasts boast in this, that he understands and knows Me, that I am the Lord who practices steadfast love, justice, and righteousness in the earth. For in these things I delight, declares the Lord.”
Bill244888 2 months ago
@Bill244888 you develop theology from the entire context of the bible not from a few verses here and there, lolz you seem to be prooftexting even what i am saying, the jehovah's witnesses have developed their theology entirely from the bible, try debating a jw and you will realise he will use a few verses here and there to prove his teaching
paulomi123 2 months ago
@paulomi123 to @Bill244888" lolz you seem to be prooftexting even what i am saying,"
It's a bit hypocritical to say that when you're guilty of doing the same with the church fathers, by the way. Just wanted to throw that in there. Anyway, take care!
SaintsEdified 2 months ago
@SaintsEdified well i didnt intend to do that, i simply gave you a part of the quote so that you would read the rest, i dont expect you to build your 'theology' on these quotes, i mean seriously its obviously impossible to post the entire letter ,
paulomi123 2 months ago
@paulomi123
"you develop theology from the entire context of the bible not from a