gbfnorwalk, with regard to your conversation with cballen I can clearly see that you have not thoroughly reviewed the westminster confession of faith and are not aware what we as reformed believe. God not being the author of sin. Please read chapter 3 part 1. You are strongly in error.
I am farmiliar with the confession. It is erronious. It does not matter what it says that God is not the author of evil as true seconadary ontilogical causes are not established in how Calvinsm teaches how God knows. God causes evil in Calvinism and there is no other true will outside of Gods or they argue there is a dualism, thus God in Calvinism is the author of evil.
To ARMINIANS -Romans 11:32 "for God has shut up all to unbelief, that he might have mercy on all".
To CALVINISTS -1 Timothy 4:10"for for this we both labour and are reproached, because we hope on the living God, who is Saviour of ALL MEN ESPECIALLY y of those believing."
DOUBTERS I Cor. 15:23-28"But every man in his own order:..For He must reign until He has put all enemies under His feet..last enemy...destroyed is DEATH... Son also Himself be subject unto Him..that God may be ALL IN ALL"
So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills. You will say to me then, "Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?" But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, "Why have you made me like this?" Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use?
Unconditional Election to either life or death ie. (Reprobation) is not a terrible doctrine. The unconditional aspect for believers shows the UNCONDITIONAL LOVE that God has for US! We are HIS PRECIOUS SHEEP!!!!! IT should make your heart pound to know that God loves you without cause. Look what Paul says
1Th 5:9 For God has not destined us for wrath, but to obtain salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ,
That verse implies that there are some who are destined to wrath.
If you were a Sovereign Holy Omnipotent Righteous God whose Glory & Majesty was greater than human comprehension, and you wanted to show your love for a group of evil vile sinners how else would your love be but to make an example out of the rest of mankind of the wrath that they deserve.
God is in no way obligated to love anyone. Just as God told Moses after He destroyed Pharoah and his army, I WILL HAVE MERCY ON WHOM I WILL! God freely choses who He will love.
Dan 4:35 all the inhabitants of the earth are accounted as nothing, and he does according to his will among the host of heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth; and none can stay his hand or say to him, "What have you done?"
Wo. This is not a place for you to post your book report. If you can form an argument then we can talk. You form a comment and I answer thats how I roll here.
Calvinists do not believe God died for hte sins of the world. Are you a Calvinst?
@GBFNorwalk I am a John Calvin Calvinist. If you read Calvin's work you will see that he clearly taught the Bible. I don't agree with his infant baptism, but I understand his argument for it. Every "Christian" that I know that bashed Calvin, never knew what Calvin taught they only know what others say what he taught. It would be very wise to read his Institutes before you bash Calvin. I have great respect for him. God used him mightedly
If you studied Calvinism closely you would know John Calvin did not believe as you said (The Lord died for all the sin of the world). Calvinism holds to Limited Atonement one of the 5 points of Calvinism. I have studied Calvinism. I just dont agree with it. I hope you are also posting your concerns on those Calvinist who are bashing non Calvinists on YouTube.
Isa 53:11 Out of the anguish of his soul he shall see and be satisfied; by his knowledge shall the righteous one, my servant, make many to be accounted righteous, and he shall bear their iniquities.
Isa 53:12 Therefore I will divide him a portion with the many, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong, because he poured out his soul to death and was numbered with the transgressors; yet he bore the sin of many, and makes intercession for the transgressors.
@GBFNorwalk Mat 26:28 for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.
Here is Jesus saying his blood is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.
I understand that he also died for all, but he did not die for the forgiveness of sin for all. I showed you scripture to back up my claim. In proverbs it says everything has a purpose even the wicked for the day of trouble.
@GBFNorwalk You ought to read what Calvin taught himself. Forget "Calvinism". John Calvin taught that Christ died for the sins of the world as the Bible teaches us. But he also taught a deffinate atonement. Christ actually died for people not just to make salvation possible. He bore the sins of many for the forgiveness of sin but not all. He did not die to make all righteous only many. It is called ELECTION.
@GBFNorwalk It's not LIMITED ATONEMENT, but the more precise view would be Particular Redemption. Calvinist's or true Calvinist believe that Christ died for REAL people not just some mystical body of faceless unkown people. If you are a true believer, then when Christ hung on that cross he knew your sin he made atonement for your sin. Christ died for REAL people that actually were chosen before the foundation of the world.
Thank you for the reference. I will use it for the Limeted Atonement crowd.
So if Christ only died for real people that were actually chosen before the foundations of the world to redemption, then it logically follows that He reprobated those for hell before the foundations of the world unconditionaly and rresistably. Real people for a particular damnation, before they ever sinned.
@GBFNorwalk But in one sense it is a limited atonement. Wherever the Spirit goes acording to God's purpose of election will stand. Salvation is indeed for all people, but as Calvin says in his commentary on Romans 1:16, 17, it is only manifested where the Spirit is opperating.
@GBFNorwalk This is a excerpt from Calvin on Romans 1:16 At the same time, as he works not effectually in all, but only where the Spirit, the inward Teacher, illuminates the heart, he subjoins, To every one who believeth. The gospel is indeed offered to all for their salvation, but the power of it appears not everywhere: and that it is the savor of death to the ungodly, does not proceed from what it is, but from their own wickedness
@GBFNorwalk The only way that you can claim that God did not elect people before time is to be an OPEN THEIST,and then God's attributes and scripture mean nothing,those are traded for the "emotional gospel" where man is king and God must wait to see what man will do next so he can react.It you do believe God is omnipotent,then you also must believe He elected people to save before time and He also chose to leave the rest in their sin,in essence creating them for Hell.Is it mans way or God's way?
The only other answer is open theism? You are obviously unlearned on Gods presceince. If God has caused everythign that ocurs before time then it is impossible that he has merely left men in thier sins. The truth in Calvinism is God is tha cause of mans sins and evil before the foundations of the world. Man is merely obeying God by committing the sins God causes. Romans 9 does not say God leaves man in sin but fits them for sin.
@GBFNorwalk God knows all things,He knew both groups before time,He created one group who would not ever be saved and allowed their birth.God is not trying fruitlessly to save these,He's not being patient wringing His hands hoping they'll choose Jesus,He' knows all things,He's not ignorant of anything,can you understand?
No in Calvinism God reprobated the lost unconditionally and irresistably. He made the vessels for dishonor. It is not as you said he did not elect them it floows God in Calvinism elected men for reprobation.
@GBFNorwalk God has predetermined both,that's right.The word of the Lord never returns to Him void,it always accomplishes HIS HOLY WILL.....It converts the ELECT and damns the Goats at the same time.Being a preacher one would think that you would understand and submit to scripture.Again,why do you believe God is trying but failing to save the group that He's chosen to leave in their sins?Don't forget,He's Omnipotent.
@GBFNorwalk If God chose to leave them in sin and use them and their sin for His purposes,what's that to us?Aren't we all God's pots?God is either causing you to believe as you do right now,to humble you later or reprobate you,but which ever it is,is an example to others who know or see what you teach.Even when false prophets give a false prophecy,it's from the Lord,He sends spirits to be lying spirits in their mouth and then destroys them because that's what their heart most wants.
I just said plesae quit saying God in Calvinism leaves men n thier sin. HE CAUSES THEIR SIN in Calvinism and MAKES them vessels of dishonor. So it has nothing to do with what thier heart most wants. It is God that wants them in hell for His pleasure in Calvinism.
@GBFNorwalk Jos 11:19 There was not a city that made peace with the people of Israel except the Hivites, the inhabitants of Gibeon. They took them all in battle.
Jos 11:20 For it was the LORD's doing to harden their hearts that they should come against Israel in battle, in order that they should be devoted to destruction and should receive no mercy but be destroyed, just as the LORD commanded Moses.
@GBFNorwalk Mal 1:2 "I have loved you," says the LORD. But you say, "How have you loved us?" "Is not Esau Jacob's brother?" declares the LORD. "Yet I have loved Jacob
Mal 1:3 but Esau I have hated. I have laid waste his hill country and left his heritage to jackals of the desert."
Mal 1:4 If Edom says, "We are shattered but we will rebuild the ruins," the LORD of hosts says, "They may build, but I will tear down, and they will be called 'the wicked country,'
@NB3K You still owe me the reference from John Calvins writings for this comment that you made.
(You ought to read what Calvin taught himself. Forget "Calvinism". John Calvin taught that Christ died for the sins of the world as the Bible teaches us.)
Also, you give me an exegesis yourself and I will resond if I think your right.
Dan 4:34 At the end of the days I, Nebuchadnezzar, lifted my eyes to heaven, and my reason returned to me, and I blessed the Most High, and praised and honored him who lives forever, for his dominion is an everlasting dominion, and his kingdom endures from generation to generation;
The Lord died for all the sin of the world. So therefore he can do whatever he wants with every human being on this earth. We are clay in the potter's hands. So instead of debateing whether or not Calvinism is true or false, go to the Bible and see how the Lord treats man. He will do any thing He wants.
What do you think the definition of 'cause' is?The Westminster confession states unequivocally 'God is NOT the author of sin'.
So, it logically follows you don't know what the word 'cause' means. if God is Sovereign, then all that happens, happens because HE allows it to happen. Then it logically follows, God 'allowing' or 'permitting' something is what in fact 'causes' it to happen.
You fail to understand, that the word 'cause' from an Absolute Sovereign position, includes 'allow'.
That is an Interesting comment coming from a Calvinist. It is Arminian that God allows what happens and therefore has permitted it to happen. In Calvinism what God knows God causes. Are you sure you are a Calvinist? Or perhaps misinformed.
So must admit then by your own argument, that I can assume you would agree, that in salvation, God knew I would get saved and permitted it? Since you have already defined Gods foreknowledge as permitting, you cannot have it both ways.
@GBFNorwalk "It is Arminian that God allows what happens and therefore has permitted it to happen."
You didn't address my point, nor answer my question. Then you make strange assertions. I never defined 'God's foreknowledge'. Do you have reading problems?
So again, I ask you, what does the word 'cause' mean as it was intended in the Westminster Confession? And how do you reconcile that term, with the statement 'nor is God the author of sin' in the Westminster confession?
The confession is in contradiction. So are you. It is not scripture so it has no authority here. The Westminster Confession on decrees is concerning Gods foreknowledge. Your comment concerns foreknowledge or Gods prescience. So how can we not discuss it and the decree at the same time? You defined how God knows.You are in error if you are Calvinist. Morey, fivepointbaptist, especially your Dutch Reformed friends, do not believe, what God knows, God permits and allows.
It does not matter what the confession intends if it is in contradiction. The Westminster confession invokes a contradiction in that God causes all that comes to pass yet is not the author of sin. You must be incapable of understanding the logic behind your question presupposes how God knows. Therefore it must be worked out logically in how God knows. In Calvinism God knows causally thus is the author of evil and the primary cause of sin.
The West.Conf. is a model of what Calvinists believe. Therefore, logically, when discussing what Calvinists believe, referencing the Confession is reliable source of what they profess. Duh?
So, instead of reconciling the term 'cause' with God not being the 'author of sin', you merely speciously assert it's a contradiction.
The fact is, it's YOUR definition & pusil understanding of the meaning of the word 'cause'. So, you're only arguing with YOUR OWN fallacious semantic.
I reconciled the word cause with A W Pink and his definitions found in his writings titled “The Knowledge of God” Knowledge! And he defines this with how God causes. There is your definition.
If my comment iis a non sequitor then so is A W Pink in his comment concerning quote, “Devine knowledge”, states quote:
…”and what He has designed (cause) must be effectuated” (effect). Got logic?
@GBFNorwalk "and what He has designed (cause) must be effectuated” (effect). Got logic?" What about what God did NOT design? Did He 'cause' that too? Again, you're only arguing with yourself & YOUR OWN fallacious ideas of what you think Calvinists believe. Pink's comments are limited & not of the context in which I speak.
If you planted tomatoes, but chose not to harvest them, did you 'cause' them to fall and rot on the ground? If you chose not to water them, did you 'cause' their wilting?
You said: If you planted tomatoes, but chose not to harvest them, did you 'cause' them to fall and rot on the ground? If you chose not to water them, did you 'cause' their wilting?
This is straight up Arminian? You may want to go back to the drawing board or even better pick a new topic.
Please provide one Calvinist definition that this is how God causes in Calvinism.
Romans 9 viewed Calvinistically does not say that God chooses not to harvest it say’s God fitted man for destruction” vs.22 , I believe. This is not passing over man but making the vessels for wath. This is a causal fatal necessity.
@GBFNorwalk No what you are infering to as a contradiction should be spoken as a paradox. Or refered to as a mystery of mass proportions. Just think of it this way. History as we know it is God's revealed will. The word of God is GOd's instructed will. When we see God is the Mighty Omnipotent Ruler sitting on His Throne of Glory ruleing with unstoppable Imperial sway over His creation, we must fall to the ground and beg for mercy.
Now the Divine knowledge of the future is not a mere abstraction, but something which is inseparably connected with and accompanied by His purpose. God has Himself designed whatsoever shall yet be, and what He has designed must be effectuated. As His most sure Word affirms, "He doeth according to His will in the army of heaven, and the inhabitants of the earth: and none can stay His hand"
Thus God caused sin and evil and Adam could not do otherwise.
You're still avoiding the point, like a typical Arminian nitwit.
Let's try it this way, that is, if you're capable of staying on subject:
What is the difference between God 'allowing' something from His Position of Absolute Sovereignty and Him 'causing' something. Please be specific & unambiguous, if you can.
You still haven't yet defined 'cause'. Are you stupid or something?
Pink's comments are not a 'Confession of Faith' that all Calvinists agree with.
Now if future events are foreknown to God, they cannot by any possibility take a turn contrary to His knowledge. If the course of future events is foreknown, history will follow that course as definitely as a locomotive follows the rails from New York to Chicago…….the theistic basis for foreknowledge. Common sense tells us that no event can be foreknown unless by some means, either physical or mental, it has been predetermined.
This is from Gruman Systematic Theology. (Calvinist)
"If we assume that God's knowledge of the future is true (which evangelicals all agree upon), then it is absolutely certain that person A will believe and person B will not. There is no way their lives could turn out any differently than this. Therefore it is fair to say that their destinies are still determined, for they could not be otherwise.
These are all your guys on cause and effect. What more can I do?
Let me reword Gruman’s for you concerning the fall with the same rules for foreknowledge. All Caps emphasized.
"If we assume that God's knowledge of the future is true (which evangelicals all agree upon), then it is absolutely certain that ADAM WOULD FALL. There is no way ADAM could turn out any differently than this. Therefore it is fair to say that ADAM’S destiniy IS determined, for ADAM could not DO otherwise.
@GBFNorwalk "Simple Calvinist cause and effect." It is not, and you're a liar. You're missing the point and convolute it with your OWN idea that this means God 'makes' and 'coerces' men to sin. ti doesn't, and is a straw man grasp for an argument that doesn't exist.
Your problem begins with the FACT you don't understand what 'cause' means, & then proceed to build a sophist argument based upon your misconception.
How else could Adam have fallen, if God did not know He was going to?
Doesnt God in Calvinism from Romans 9 say that God fitted man for destruction and made vessels of dishonor before they did good or bad? How is this not God causing them to sin.
Yes I blocked RefutingSkellyism. He is not demonstrating the fruit of the Spirit. Please go through the comments and you will see an irrational, irate person who ultimately threatens to visit our outreach fellowship to divide it. He uses an anonymous account to hide behind and has not proven anything. Please read through the comments yourselves and see what type of persons I deal with on a regular basis. Also you will see his faulty arguments. You decide for yourselves.
He makes this favor common to all, because it is propounded to all, and not because it is in reality extended to all; for though Christ suffered for the sins of the whole world, and is offered through God’s benignity indiscriminately to all, yet all do not receive him.
This is a piece from Calvin's Commentary on Romans
He makes this favor common to all, because it is propounded to all, and not because it is in reality extended to all; for though Christ suffered for the sins of the whole world, and is offered through God’s benignity indiscriminately to all, yet all do not receive him.
This is a piece from Calvin's Commentary on Romans
God created man with free will and he used it to go along with Satan in the Garden. Adam's sin brought spiritual death to all of his posterity except Jesus, who was born without a human father. God has chosen to redeem some of the lost sinners but not all. He chose us before we were born, in eternity. Jesus accomplished our salvation, ours, but not the rest who are not chosen. They are left to die in their sins.
It is God's decision and man who are you to question God?
It cannot be true in Calvinism that Adam had a free will in how Calvinism defines foreknowledge. In Calvinism what God knows God causes. Since God knew Adam would fall then God in Calvinism did not just allow evil, but caused it by decree. Therefore in Calvinism God is the author and finisher of evil.
@GBFNorwalk God gave Adam free will but not his Holy Spirit. When tempted, Adam fell because God allowed it. God knew Adam would fall without his Holy spirit in him so God had the plan of redemption for his chosen people. Jesus became the man that Adam wasn't. I wouldn't say that for evil to happen that God must decree it. Evil will happen when independent entities without God's spirit and allowed by God to exist, yes, and for a purpose that serves to glorify God.
darn wish I could take that thumbs down. At first I thought you were FOR/pro Calvinism. for if Calvinism were true then Jesus wouldn't need to die for us as were all damned/saved already according to these idea's and thus are simple creatures or animals created simply for his amusement and automation.
@remieres God did foreordain and devise a plan from the foundation of the world by which He would save man (thru' Jesus), and further, He did foreordain from the beginning, all men throughout the ages who would accept and be willing to conform to this plan, should be saved; so that everyone in harmony with His power and liberty of choice who shall choose eternal life though God’s plan was foreordained to eternal salvation. The complete solution of sin is not possible to man in his earthly life.
He created Satan/Lucifer with sin nature. Yahweh would never have condoned DEATH besides that which was written in the bible as being destroyed by his hand. You would have my heavenly father (also known as LOVE) to be the most dispicable plotter against man to save man. of course I can see that in your comment you would have nothing of debate or education so I will not bother reading anymore of your posts. Just plz don't insult Jesus.
@remieres You contradict yourself: "He created Satan/Lucifer with sin nature? Love did that? So that the serpent could tempt Eve and Adam to sin against God? God is Light and in Him there is no darkness (evil) at all. 1 John 1:5. "This is the basis how the judgment works: the Light has come into the world and men loved darkness rather than the Light because their deeds were evil." John 3:19. "Men loved darkness" = they chose darkness/evil. God real desire is none to perish.He offered up His Son.
I'm sorry you do NOT have a relationship with jesus. I'm sorry you are paranoid of the one who loves us and gave his life for us. I'm sorry you feel it is your need to argue about something you know nothing about. I'm sorry you Blaspheme against god by saying he is the foundation of sin and as you imply is neither love nor hate. I pity you for you are now by blaspheming here of the people in the bible to be Unforgivable. He as I do now still love you but you now need salvation.
You would side with Lucifer who tried to offer to Jesus the kingdom of earth upon the hill when Jesus returned which was already Jesus' creation. You would side with Lucifer who see's himself as a being that can become god and use humans to overthrow Yahweh?. or would you imply with your own fabricated belief that he even in his Lies, theft, Murder, corruption, that Lucifer is still a part of some elaborate plan which is NOT written in the bible. again I pitty you.
@remieres You obviously do not understand what I was talking about. I do not know why you are angry, bitter and full of hatred. Get help. Come out from that fantasy/cartoon world. They're deceitful, and not real. Flee from youthful lust. Talk to Pastor Steve Tassi and maybe he can help lead you to the Truth...
I honestly don't care how you see it, if you are a Calvanist here promoting what this video is against then you are a part of the problem (sin) not the solution (salvation) and if you feel the need to spread lies about Yahweh seeding creation with the idea that Sin is necesary for man to love him ending with logic showing NO free will then you are deluted.
I have no need to see your choice in biblical leaders when I know enough to see through your own confusion.
show me where in the bible it says anything about Yahweh in any way expecting, controlling, or creating Lucifer for the sole purpose to decieve Adam and Eve? I don't care what it says in the bible about Lucifer's role later on that is not addressing this. You have to come to this conclusion on your own. Lucifer is the Prosecutor of the state when we face judgement. True it is Lucifer's job to tempt us but this is basically Duty for his crimes in heaven.
I read NOwhere in the bible saying that Yahweh created Lucifer/Satan with sin in mind and in destiny. For if he did then Yahweh would not be sending Lucifer to the lake of fire when this earth is destroyed.
In fact if it was predestined by god that Lucifer would be the one to be the first betrayer and sinner then you are saying in your heart that god has sin in him and wanted us all to die and it is alright to sin. Otherwise you'd be saying that god is against sin and hates it "not hates that he created it" but hates that it exists and spoils his Eden, with the creatures he made with free will. But we see that he punished Satan for the sin nature he spawns. Not for doing whats planed
@remieres Predestination doctrine does not apply to angels. God is infinitely wise, always knows what is best; always adopts means which will best accomplish His purposes. The foreknowledge of God is also absolute. How the foreknowledge of God is to be reconciled with man’s free agency and moral accountability is indeed to men in the world a dark problem, but in the Scriptures both are clearly taught, and faith accepts what reason cannot reconcile.
@remieres Some of the churches on earth have denied man’s moral freedom. Others maintain that God in the exercise of His omniscience, like His omnipotence, abstains from interfering what His creatures will do under certain given circumstances, but the foreknowledge of God itself, unrevealed to men, does not impose nor even hint to me any course of conduct whatever; it in no degree affects His liberty of action.
So then in Calvinism sin is Gods will and cause. Also sin is irresistibly given to men by God and the evil they do is logically unmerited. Men are merely the instruments in which God causes evil to accomplish His will which in Calvinism would be murder and all the evil of the world is Gods will. All glory to the Calvinist god.
@remieres Man neither sins nor follows holiness, as the result of God’s foreknowledge; so notwithstanding God’s foreknowledge, He has made man in His image, a free moral being. Sin does exist on earth, and God permits it for reasons of His own, not fully revealed to men. In Heaven it could not be so. No taint of sin can ever enter the gates of the City of the Great King. If an angel should again sin God would instantly cast him down to hell.
You need to nuance your argument since Infralapsariansim and Supralapsarianism don't agree with each other on this point. I do like your use of "unmerited and irresistible evil."
Calvinism is a doctrine of man and makes the Gospel of Christ of no effect. It is not only an insult to the God of Love but also to the saving Gospel of Christ.
Calvinist free will is that man is free to do only what God has decreed for him which is a logical contradiction. This in reality makes man not free at all.
Your description of Calvinism reveals it as an inversion of OT values. Thus it is a non christian inclusion into Christianity.Dressed up as an intellectual puzzle to set Christian against Christian.The infiltrator religion is based on a secret holy book that inverts the OT. Surprise Surpise
All have sin and fallen short of the glory of God. God does not attempt, God does not lie. God gave man free will, choice. Satan way of this world, which he controls or God way thru Jesus Christ alone is finall door, which one must go thru in order to enter eternality. Jesus is the only way and truth. God gives man free will, he will not force individual to come to Him, satan other hand will deceive and take their soul. His job is to lie and to deceive.
I did not think you would form an argument. Look, you are trying to set up your strawman you think you will knock down later. You have seen the video. You say it has fallacy. Now prove it by making an argument. I know all of the different terms for free will that you are going to postulate, so just get to the point. I am freely of my own volition typing this comment. My favorite color is blue.
I dont give you a definition because I have free will not to as you should learn the definitions yourself. You should be able to form an argument. Why cant you? What is the fallacy in the video?
Did you make both of the last comments under different users? Are you both the same guy? A false idol? Perhaps you are a hyper Calvinist. The answer to your definition is no. Please define foreknowledge for me then we can talk more about Biblical free will. Sorry as it appears I have been evasive but I am posting on several videos and blogs. Also we will see you yes you have been setting up a strawman.
So you have not sinned out of a free will. How convenient. All glory to God for your sin right? This is the true motive in Calvinism. Since there is no free will you have not truly sinned of your own merit or unmerited evil. Sin is all of Gods and not of yourself.
You have not sinned of a free will therefore you have not truly repented and if you have since God made you do that also, you have only repented that God has willed your evil. So in essence God has done a sorry thing and you have done no evil of yourself or you have only done evil irresistibly.
"So you have not sinned out of a free will. How convenient. All glory to God for your sin right? This is the true motive in Calvinism."
when are you going to stop assuming?i'm accountable for my sins to God,i don't know exactly what type of theology training you have but you keep misrepresenting Calvinism and equate it with Greek philosophy..maybe you should read the Institutes and then apologize for your strawmen?
Its not Greek philosophy it is the science of ontology and epistemology. We need to only look at how you view salvation. In Calvinism you have not had your own faith for salvation so it is all of God and not of yourself right? So it logically follows in your Calvinistic philosophy that you did not have your own faith in evil so it is all of God and not of yourself.
"You cannot have it both ways. That is called a contradiction...etc"
unless you start being honest and define this 'free will' of yours we will not get very far,your assumptions are unfounded and you are confusing Greek philosophy with Calvinism
Stevie Wonder could see we have been discussing and defining free will all along. Your Greek comments are a bit desperate. You want me to give you a definition of faith so we have two terms but then you tell me that to just hold to two terms is a false dilemma. Please quit contradicting yourself. So we have learned that you have not sinned of your own faith because you dont have a free will. You have been given rresistable evil so you have not meritted sin it is all of God
"Your Greek comments are a bit desperate. You want me to give you a definition of faith so we have two terms but then you tell me that to just hold to two terms is a false dilemma."
i've been asking u to define 'free will' NOT faith,read my replies and stop misrepresenting me too!
as for my "Greek comments" merely asserting something does NOT mean you've proven your point
again you have presented the Greek FALSE DILLEMA that if we don't have free will we are not accountable
but unfortunatelly for you and the philosophers we have GOD's Revelation...GOD is Sovereign and we are accountable to HIM for our sins without your undefined 'free will'!
Of course I meant free will. Ok well if you not having faith by free will for salvation is all Gods doing and not of yourself, then how can you then say evil is not all of God and not of yourself. This is scientific philosophy. Is it Greek that a contradiction is error? Are you saying we must accept your contradiction? God is truth. Therefore we have a logical precondition in systematic theology.
"Gods doing and not of yourself, then how can you then say evil is not all of God and not of yourself."
i told you that i am accountable for my sins,i'm the sinner that has transgresed the Law of God,James 1:13 says that God "tempts NO ONE" so i don't need to go into the false dillemas that the philosophers tried as a way out of their accountability
You confess you are accountable with your mouth but your definitions prove you do not believe it in your heart. You actually are the one denying James 1. It is a false dilemma to post James 1 and say you have no free will at the same time.
Free will is not Greek it goes back to Genesis 2:16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
So was God lying? So Adam did not have a free will? This would be God tempting Adam. James 1:13 Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:
My definition of free will is that sin is all of mine as I have sinned of a free will. You on the other hand must give God all that glory for your sin.
"My definition of free will is that sin is all of mine as I have sinned of a free will. You on the other hand must give God all that glory for your sin"
AGAIN,I'm accountable for my sins(even though I DO NOT BELIEVE IN 'FREE WILL') so STOP misrepresenting my position,please realize that your making a logical fallacy every time you post in regards to my position!!!!!!!
"My definition of free will is that sin is all of mine as I have sinned of a free will"
u still have not define what is this 'free will'!
is your 'will' free from God and His grace ? one has to be 'free' from something to something else(i.e free from slavery;free from debt;free from God and His commadments)
having the banner,above ones head(as you do), with 'free will' written on it and 'forgetting' to say what your 'will' is free from is just a mantra !!!
My definition of free will is James 1:13,14. You cannot hold to this definition. So Adam could chose trees by free will or not? You have now made another contradiction. You are saying that Adam has free will. You have spent days telling me that man does not have free will.
You said:
Adam was LIMITED and his so called 'free will' was BOUND by God's comandment NOT to eat from ONE specific tree
Sorry I blocked martalog12l. He was predestined to be blocked i guess. I will talk to anyone but same thing over and over I dont have time for. Read the comments we had and then take it or leave it. He was very respectful.
"Stevie Wonder could see we have been discussing and defining free will all along."
i was the one that gave a definition you did not agree with so i'm wondering what is it that you mean by 'free will' as a matter of fact i'm very curious to know but i see you're too scared to define your idol
is it because it(free will) goes back to the Greek philosophers?i wonder....LOL
Free to only do evil (as you admit Calvinism teaches) is a contradiction of terms as it is logically impossible to be true. So I reject it based upon, God is truth.
In Calvinism everything good that happens is all due to God's decree therefore God is praised for causing that Good because He is the cause of it.
In Calvinism everything evil that happens is all due to God's decree, yet God is not responsible. No! Man who can only do what God decrees for Him to do is responsible.
Then this "just" God punishes men for doing what their creator caused the creation to do.
Do you hace a resource for any of this or is this going to be hear is what i say and whatever i say is the truth. Hobbes was a heretic. Not shure where u are getting these ideas from? As a baptist who also happens to be a Calvinist-God does not author sin and Election is only to salvation while God lets those not elected continue in their rebellion against God that man desires to do anyways. Thanks for defining my beliefs for me though God created me with a brain to think with
Excellent video. Calvinism on the shallow end is believable at first but taking Calvinism out to it's illogical conclusions shows how false it is. Thank you for the vid GBF
Tehre's no such thing as unconditional reprobation. Reprobation is on the basis of something the sinner earned or merited because of their sins. That's conditional.
But election is not based on something the sinner earned or merited. That's unconditional.
The two: Election and reprobation, are not symmetrical.
Are we speaking again skalapunk? No such thing as Unconditional Reprobation? Do you not hold that in Romans 9 God forms one vessel for honor and another for dishonor? And if He formed it for dishonor how is it conditional? Also Romans 9 if it is concerning soteriology then it does establish the conditioning to be symmetrical.
In Romans 9, notice Paul says that the vessels of honor and dishonor were formed "from the same lump". We would say this "lump" was the lump of fallen, guilty, sinful humanity
No where have we ever implied that this lump was "innocent", sinless people.
That's how it's not unconditional. It's conditioned on them being sinners. The lump of sinners is formed either into vessels of honor or dishonor.
Does not Romans 9 say they were fitted for destruction and also before they did good or bad? Thus unconditional and irresistable reprobation if salvation were analagously unconditional.
No skalapunk, you have never been honest about this. In Calvinism you have sinned out of irresistible evil caused for man by God before the foundations of the world. Your just playing games with words. You make your contradiction that you sin freely because your not free to do otherwise. This is proof that in Calvinsm you are merely blaming God for your sins. If Romans 9 is Calvinistic then God has fitted reprobation thus unconditional reprobaion.
Romans 9:22 [What] if God, willing to shew [his] wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:
Does not Romans 9 say they were fitted for destruction? So if Romans 9 is Calvinistic then man is unconditionally reprobated whether or not you admit it, you believe it. This is no strawman.
Your argument is the strawman as Romans 9 does not allow for a conditional reprobation. He was formed before he did good or bad. He was made for dishonor. He was fitted for destruction. Perhaps you could deal with this argument directly. Was he fitted or not? Also since man was formed from the same lump and Calvinistic foreknowledge is causal before the foundations of the world then the reprobate were formed unconditionally also.
He was fitted, but he was a sinner that was fitted. Even though he wasn't yet born, in God's mind he was a sinner, because all people are born as sinners, due to the doctrine of Original Sin.
Are you denying this orthodox doctrine? That makes you a Pelagian, which is heresy. Please consider the implications of denying original sin.
Calvinist foreknowledge does not hold that Gods knowing is anything but He has caused it including sin and evil thus evil is irresistable in Calvinism. This leads to Unconditional Reprobation as man does not potentially sin but causally sins in Calvinism.
Now if future events are foreknown to God, they cannot by any possibility take a turn contrary to His knowledge. If the course of future events is foreknown, history will follow that course as definitely as a locomotive follows the rails from New York to Chicago.
Though I dissagree with Calvernism, have problems with tulip and cannot accept it, I also dissagree with pelagianists no point in arguing with people or debating with those who are stuck in a system, their is nothing I can say or do.
You make some good arguments in the video, GBFNorwalk. I think a Calvinist might argue a couple of them, like they are using predestination so they can blame God for their sins and not themselves, just because it seems to degrade their character. Still, I'm not here to defend Calvinism. In future, try to know your material and have the jist of it memorized before you do the video, because the monotone voice from plainly reading what you've already written takes away from the content a bit.
gbfnorwalk, with regard to your conversation with cballen I can clearly see that you have not thoroughly reviewed the westminster confession of faith and are not aware what we as reformed believe. God not being the author of sin. Please read chapter 3 part 1. You are strongly in error.
reformedman 1 month ago
@reformedman
I am farmiliar with the confession. It is erronious. It does not matter what it says that God is not the author of evil as true seconadary ontilogical causes are not established in how Calvinsm teaches how God knows. God causes evil in Calvinism and there is no other true will outside of Gods or they argue there is a dualism, thus God in Calvinism is the author of evil.
GBFNorwalk 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
To ARMINIANS -Romans 11:32 "for God has shut up all to unbelief, that he might have mercy on all".
To CALVINISTS -1 Timothy 4:10"for for this we both labour and are reproached, because we hope on the living God, who is Saviour of ALL MEN ESPECIALLY y of those believing."
DOUBTERS I Cor. 15:23-28"But every man in his own order:..For He must reign until He has put all enemies under His feet..last enemy...destroyed is DEATH... Son also Himself be subject unto Him..that God may be ALL IN ALL"
motibi 6 months ago
Then there is the bombshell of ROMANS 9
So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills. You will say to me then, "Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?" But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, "Why have you made me like this?" Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use?
NB3K 1 year ago
Unconditional Election to either life or death ie. (Reprobation) is not a terrible doctrine. The unconditional aspect for believers shows the UNCONDITIONAL LOVE that God has for US! We are HIS PRECIOUS SHEEP!!!!! IT should make your heart pound to know that God loves you without cause. Look what Paul says
1Th 5:9 For God has not destined us for wrath, but to obtain salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ,
That verse implies that there are some who are destined to wrath.
NB3K 1 year ago
I always say that if God does not save a sinner than he never loved them. Because Jesus says in John 6
Joh 6:39 And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day.
Joh 17:9 I am praying for them. I am not praying for the world but for those whom you have given me, for they are yours.
Joh 17:10 All mine are yours, and yours are mine, and I am glorified in them.
THIS IS A DIFFERENT GOSPEL THAN WHAT WE HEAR
NB3K 1 year ago
If you were a Sovereign Holy Omnipotent Righteous God whose Glory & Majesty was greater than human comprehension, and you wanted to show your love for a group of evil vile sinners how else would your love be but to make an example out of the rest of mankind of the wrath that they deserve.
God is in no way obligated to love anyone. Just as God told Moses after He destroyed Pharoah and his army, I WILL HAVE MERCY ON WHOM I WILL! God freely choses who He will love.
NB3K 1 year ago
Dan 4:35 all the inhabitants of the earth are accounted as nothing, and he does according to his will among the host of heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth; and none can stay his hand or say to him, "What have you done?"
NB3K 1 year ago
@NB3K
Wo. This is not a place for you to post your book report. If you can form an argument then we can talk. You form a comment and I answer thats how I roll here.
Calvinists do not believe God died for hte sins of the world. Are you a Calvinst?
GBFNorwalk 1 year ago
@GBFNorwalk I am a John Calvin Calvinist. If you read Calvin's work you will see that he clearly taught the Bible. I don't agree with his infant baptism, but I understand his argument for it. Every "Christian" that I know that bashed Calvin, never knew what Calvin taught they only know what others say what he taught. It would be very wise to read his Institutes before you bash Calvin. I have great respect for him. God used him mightedly
NB3K 1 year ago
@NB3K
If you studied Calvinism closely you would know John Calvin did not believe as you said (The Lord died for all the sin of the world). Calvinism holds to Limited Atonement one of the 5 points of Calvinism. I have studied Calvinism. I just dont agree with it. I hope you are also posting your concerns on those Calvinist who are bashing non Calvinists on YouTube.
GBFNorwalk 1 year ago
@GBFNorwalk
Isa 53:11 Out of the anguish of his soul he shall see and be satisfied; by his knowledge shall the righteous one, my servant, make many to be accounted righteous, and he shall bear their iniquities.
Isa 53:12 Therefore I will divide him a portion with the many, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong, because he poured out his soul to death and was numbered with the transgressors; yet he bore the sin of many, and makes intercession for the transgressors.
NB3K 1 year ago
@GBFNorwalk Mat 26:28 for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.
Here is Jesus saying his blood is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.
I understand that he also died for all, but he did not die for the forgiveness of sin for all. I showed you scripture to back up my claim. In proverbs it says everything has a purpose even the wicked for the day of trouble.
NB3K 1 year ago
@GBFNorwalk You ought to read what Calvin taught himself. Forget "Calvinism". John Calvin taught that Christ died for the sins of the world as the Bible teaches us. But he also taught a deffinate atonement. Christ actually died for people not just to make salvation possible. He bore the sins of many for the forgiveness of sin but not all. He did not die to make all righteous only many. It is called ELECTION.
NB3K 1 year ago
@NB3K
What reference from Institutes is this from? I would like to have it.
So what is your problem with my video you have posted on?
GBFNorwalk 1 year ago
@GBFNorwalk It's not LIMITED ATONEMENT, but the more precise view would be Particular Redemption. Calvinist's or true Calvinist believe that Christ died for REAL people not just some mystical body of faceless unkown people. If you are a true believer, then when Christ hung on that cross he knew your sin he made atonement for your sin. Christ died for REAL people that actually were chosen before the foundation of the world.
NB3K 1 year ago
@NB3K
Thank you for the reference. I will use it for the Limeted Atonement crowd.
So if Christ only died for real people that were actually chosen before the foundations of the world to redemption, then it logically follows that He reprobated those for hell before the foundations of the world unconditionaly and rresistably. Real people for a particular damnation, before they ever sinned.
GBFNorwalk 1 year ago
@GBFNorwalk But in one sense it is a limited atonement. Wherever the Spirit goes acording to God's purpose of election will stand. Salvation is indeed for all people, but as Calvin says in his commentary on Romans 1:16, 17, it is only manifested where the Spirit is opperating.
NB3K 1 year ago
@GBFNorwalk This is a excerpt from Calvin on Romans 1:16 At the same time, as he works not effectually in all, but only where the Spirit, the inward Teacher, illuminates the heart, he subjoins, To every one who believeth. The gospel is indeed offered to all for their salvation, but the power of it appears not everywhere: and that it is the savor of death to the ungodly, does not proceed from what it is, but from their own wickedness
NB3K 1 year ago
@GBFNorwalk The only way that you can claim that God did not elect people before time is to be an OPEN THEIST,and then God's attributes and scripture mean nothing,those are traded for the "emotional gospel" where man is king and God must wait to see what man will do next so he can react.It you do believe God is omnipotent,then you also must believe He elected people to save before time and He also chose to leave the rest in their sin,in essence creating them for Hell.Is it mans way or God's way?
CBALLEN 1 year ago
@CBALLEN
The only other answer is open theism? You are obviously unlearned on Gods presceince. If God has caused everythign that ocurs before time then it is impossible that he has merely left men in thier sins. The truth in Calvinism is God is tha cause of mans sins and evil before the foundations of the world. Man is merely obeying God by committing the sins God causes. Romans 9 does not say God leaves man in sin but fits them for sin.
GBFNorwalk 1 year ago
@GBFNorwalk God knows all things,He knew both groups before time,He created one group who would not ever be saved and allowed their birth.God is not trying fruitlessly to save these,He's not being patient wringing His hands hoping they'll choose Jesus,He' knows all things,He's not ignorant of anything,can you understand?
CBALLEN 1 year ago
@CBALLEN
No in Calvinism God reprobated the lost unconditionally and irresistably. He made the vessels for dishonor. It is not as you said he did not elect them it floows God in Calvinism elected men for reprobation.
GBFNorwalk 1 year ago
@GBFNorwalk God has predetermined both,that's right.The word of the Lord never returns to Him void,it always accomplishes HIS HOLY WILL.....It converts the ELECT and damns the Goats at the same time.Being a preacher one would think that you would understand and submit to scripture.Again,why do you believe God is trying but failing to save the group that He's chosen to leave in their sins?Don't forget,He's Omnipotent.
CBALLEN 1 year ago
@CBALLEN
So quit saying God leaves men in sin. So you are a universalist right?
GBFNorwalk 1 year ago
@GBFNorwalk If God chose to leave them in sin and use them and their sin for His purposes,what's that to us?Aren't we all God's pots?God is either causing you to believe as you do right now,to humble you later or reprobate you,but which ever it is,is an example to others who know or see what you teach.Even when false prophets give a false prophecy,it's from the Lord,He sends spirits to be lying spirits in their mouth and then destroys them because that's what their heart most wants.
CBALLEN 1 year ago
@CBALLEN
I just said plesae quit saying God in Calvinism leaves men n thier sin. HE CAUSES THEIR SIN in Calvinism and MAKES them vessels of dishonor. So it has nothing to do with what thier heart most wants. It is God that wants them in hell for His pleasure in Calvinism.
GBFNorwalk 1 year ago
@GBFNorwalk Everyone wants to go to Hell,no one wants God to be over them,and if not for God having mercy on some,they'd all go to Hell.
CBALLEN 1 year ago
@GBFNorwalk Jos 11:19 There was not a city that made peace with the people of Israel except the Hivites, the inhabitants of Gibeon. They took them all in battle.
Jos 11:20 For it was the LORD's doing to harden their hearts that they should come against Israel in battle, in order that they should be devoted to destruction and should receive no mercy but be destroyed, just as the LORD commanded Moses.
Could you exegete this?
NB3K 1 year ago
@GBFNorwalk Mal 1:2 "I have loved you," says the LORD. But you say, "How have you loved us?" "Is not Esau Jacob's brother?" declares the LORD. "Yet I have loved Jacob
Mal 1:3 but Esau I have hated. I have laid waste his hill country and left his heritage to jackals of the desert."
Mal 1:4 If Edom says, "We are shattered but we will rebuild the ruins," the LORD of hosts says, "They may build, but I will tear down, and they will be called 'the wicked country,'
Could you exegete this?
NB3K 1 year ago
@NB3K You still owe me the reference from John Calvins writings for this comment that you made.
(You ought to read what Calvin taught himself. Forget "Calvinism". John Calvin taught that Christ died for the sins of the world as the Bible teaches us.)
Also, you give me an exegesis yourself and I will resond if I think your right.
GBFNorwalk 1 year ago
Dan 4:34 At the end of the days I, Nebuchadnezzar, lifted my eyes to heaven, and my reason returned to me, and I blessed the Most High, and praised and honored him who lives forever, for his dominion is an everlasting dominion, and his kingdom endures from generation to generation;
NB3K 1 year ago
The Lord died for all the sin of the world. So therefore he can do whatever he wants with every human being on this earth. We are clay in the potter's hands. So instead of debateing whether or not Calvinism is true or false, go to the Bible and see how the Lord treats man. He will do any thing He wants.
NB3K 1 year ago
Psa 115:3 Our God is in the heavens; he does all that he pleases.
Pro 19:21 Many are the plans in the mind of a man, but it is the purpose of the LORD that will stand.
Pro 16:4 The LORD has made everything for its purpose, even the wicked for the day of trouble.
Pro 16:9 The heart of man plans his way, but the LORD establishes his steps.
Pro 16:33 The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the LORD.
The Bible teaches that the Lord will do whatever he pleases!
NB3K 1 year ago
What do you think the definition of 'cause' is?The Westminster confession states unequivocally 'God is NOT the author of sin'.
So, it logically follows you don't know what the word 'cause' means. if God is Sovereign, then all that happens, happens because HE allows it to happen. Then it logically follows, God 'allowing' or 'permitting' something is what in fact 'causes' it to happen.
You fail to understand, that the word 'cause' from an Absolute Sovereign position, includes 'allow'.
RefutingSkellyism 1 year ago
@RefutingSkellyism
That is an Interesting comment coming from a Calvinist. It is Arminian that God allows what happens and therefore has permitted it to happen. In Calvinism what God knows God causes. Are you sure you are a Calvinist? Or perhaps misinformed.
So must admit then by your own argument, that I can assume you would agree, that in salvation, God knew I would get saved and permitted it? Since you have already defined Gods foreknowledge as permitting, you cannot have it both ways.
GBFNorwalk 1 year ago
@GBFNorwalk "It is Arminian that God allows what happens and therefore has permitted it to happen."
You didn't address my point, nor answer my question. Then you make strange assertions. I never defined 'God's foreknowledge'. Do you have reading problems?
So again, I ask you, what does the word 'cause' mean as it was intended in the Westminster Confession? And how do you reconcile that term, with the statement 'nor is God the author of sin' in the Westminster confession?
RefutingSkellyism 1 year ago
@RefutingSkellyism
The confession is in contradiction. So are you. It is not scripture so it has no authority here. The Westminster Confession on decrees is concerning Gods foreknowledge. Your comment concerns foreknowledge or Gods prescience. So how can we not discuss it and the decree at the same time? You defined how God knows.You are in error if you are Calvinist. Morey, fivepointbaptist, especially your Dutch Reformed friends, do not believe, what God knows, God permits and allows.
GBFNorwalk 1 year ago
@GBFNorwalk
Let's try again for the third time:
What does the word 'cause' mean, as it was intended by the Westminster Confession? and how do you reconcile it with 'nor is God the Author of sin'?
God's foreknowledge is non-sequitur. or, unless you're asserting the notion God did not 'cause' anything in the past?
No one said the West. Conf. has any authority. You're awfully presumptuous. Or, is it your reading problem again.
Are you capable of staying on topic?
RefutingSkellyism 1 year ago
@RefutingSkellyism
It does not matter what the confession intends if it is in contradiction. The Westminster confession invokes a contradiction in that God causes all that comes to pass yet is not the author of sin. You must be incapable of understanding the logic behind your question presupposes how God knows. Therefore it must be worked out logically in how God knows. In Calvinism God knows causally thus is the author of evil and the primary cause of sin.
GBFNorwalk 1 year ago
@GBFNorwalk
The West.Conf. is a model of what Calvinists believe. Therefore, logically, when discussing what Calvinists believe, referencing the Confession is reliable source of what they profess. Duh?
So, instead of reconciling the term 'cause' with God not being the 'author of sin', you merely speciously assert it's a contradiction.
The fact is, it's YOUR definition & pusil understanding of the meaning of the word 'cause'. So, you're only arguing with YOUR OWN fallacious semantic.
RefutingSkellyism 1 year ago
@RefutingSkellyism
I reconciled the word cause with A W Pink and his definitions found in his writings titled “The Knowledge of God” Knowledge! And he defines this with how God causes. There is your definition.
If my comment iis a non sequitor then so is A W Pink in his comment concerning quote, “Devine knowledge”, states quote:
…”and what He has designed (cause) must be effectuated” (effect). Got logic?
A) what God knows in Calvinism
B) God effectually causes.
C) Author of sin
GBFNorwalk 1 year ago
@GBFNorwalk "and what He has designed (cause) must be effectuated” (effect). Got logic?" What about what God did NOT design? Did He 'cause' that too? Again, you're only arguing with yourself & YOUR OWN fallacious ideas of what you think Calvinists believe. Pink's comments are limited & not of the context in which I speak.
If you planted tomatoes, but chose not to harvest them, did you 'cause' them to fall and rot on the ground? If you chose not to water them, did you 'cause' their wilting?
RefutingSkellyism 1 year ago
@RefutingSkellyism
You said: If you planted tomatoes, but chose not to harvest them, did you 'cause' them to fall and rot on the ground? If you chose not to water them, did you 'cause' their wilting?
This is straight up Arminian? You may want to go back to the drawing board or even better pick a new topic.
Please provide one Calvinist definition that this is how God causes in Calvinism.
(continued)
GBFNorwalk 1 year ago
@RefutingSkellyism
Romans 9 viewed Calvinistically does not say that God chooses not to harvest it say’s God fitted man for destruction” vs.22 , I believe. This is not passing over man but making the vessels for wath. This is a causal fatal necessity.
GBFNorwalk 1 year ago
@GBFNorwalk No what you are infering to as a contradiction should be spoken as a paradox. Or refered to as a mystery of mass proportions. Just think of it this way. History as we know it is God's revealed will. The word of God is GOd's instructed will. When we see God is the Mighty Omnipotent Ruler sitting on His Throne of Glory ruleing with unstoppable Imperial sway over His creation, we must fall to the ground and beg for mercy.
NB3K 1 year ago
@RefutingSkellyism
A W Pink (Calvinist)
Now the Divine knowledge of the future is not a mere abstraction, but something which is inseparably connected with and accompanied by His purpose. God has Himself designed whatsoever shall yet be, and what He has designed must be effectuated. As His most sure Word affirms, "He doeth according to His will in the army of heaven, and the inhabitants of the earth: and none can stay His hand"
Thus God caused sin and evil and Adam could not do otherwise.
GBFNorwalk 1 year ago
@GBFNorwalk
You're still avoiding the point, like a typical Arminian nitwit.
Let's try it this way, that is, if you're capable of staying on subject:
What is the difference between God 'allowing' something from His Position of Absolute Sovereignty and Him 'causing' something. Please be specific & unambiguous, if you can.
You still haven't yet defined 'cause'. Are you stupid or something?
Pink's comments are not a 'Confession of Faith' that all Calvinists agree with.
RefutingSkellyism 1 year ago
@RefutingSkellyism
How about Loraine Boettner (Calvinist)
Now if future events are foreknown to God, they cannot by any possibility take a turn contrary to His knowledge. If the course of future events is foreknown, history will follow that course as definitely as a locomotive follows the rails from New York to Chicago…….the theistic basis for foreknowledge. Common sense tells us that no event can be foreknown unless by some means, either physical or mental, it has been predetermined.
GBFNorwalk 1 year ago
@RefutingSkellyism
This is from Gruman Systematic Theology. (Calvinist)
"If we assume that God's knowledge of the future is true (which evangelicals all agree upon), then it is absolutely certain that person A will believe and person B will not. There is no way their lives could turn out any differently than this. Therefore it is fair to say that their destinies are still determined, for they could not be otherwise.
These are all your guys on cause and effect. What more can I do?
GBFNorwalk 1 year ago
@RefutingSkellyism
Let me reword Gruman’s for you concerning the fall with the same rules for foreknowledge. All Caps emphasized.
"If we assume that God's knowledge of the future is true (which evangelicals all agree upon), then it is absolutely certain that ADAM WOULD FALL. There is no way ADAM could turn out any differently than this. Therefore it is fair to say that ADAM’S destiniy IS determined, for ADAM could not DO otherwise.
Simple Calvinist cause and effect.
GBFNorwalk 1 year ago
@GBFNorwalk "Simple Calvinist cause and effect." It is not, and you're a liar. You're missing the point and convolute it with your OWN idea that this means God 'makes' and 'coerces' men to sin. ti doesn't, and is a straw man grasp for an argument that doesn't exist.
Your problem begins with the FACT you don't understand what 'cause' means, & then proceed to build a sophist argument based upon your misconception.
How else could Adam have fallen, if God did not know He was going to?
RefutingSkellyism 1 year ago
@RefutingSkellyism
Doesnt God in Calvinism from Romans 9 say that God fitted man for destruction and made vessels of dishonor before they did good or bad? How is this not God causing them to sin.
GBFNorwalk 1 year ago
@GBFNorwalk If your not going to answer my questions, why should I continue to reply to you?
Before we go on to a new topic. Please answer my question, and stop avoiding the answer like a typical Arminian heretic.
Answer up, clearly and cogently, or this conversation is over:
How else could Adam have sinned, if God did not know He was going to?
and
Did you, or did you not, cause the tomatoes to rot & wilt, if you chose not to harvest or not to water?
RefutingSkellyism 1 year ago
@RefutingSkellyism
It is dishonest to say I have avoided anything. I am answering with how Calvinists interpret Romans 9.
Rom 9:21 make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor?
This says God made (make) vessels for dishonor.
Rom 9:22 vessels of wrath prepared for destruction,
This says prepared for destruction.
9:10 says, before they did good or bad.
GBFNorwalk 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@GBFNorwalk
Last chance:
Answer up, clearly and cogently, or this conversation is over:
How else could Adam have sinned, if God did not know He was going to?
and
Did you, or did you not, cause the tomatoes to rot & wilt, if you chose not to harvest or not to water?
Put up an answer to the question. Or say goodbye.
RefutingSkellyism 1 year ago
@GBFNorwalk
Yes I blocked RefutingSkellyism. He is not demonstrating the fruit of the Spirit. Please go through the comments and you will see an irrational, irate person who ultimately threatens to visit our outreach fellowship to divide it. He uses an anonymous account to hide behind and has not proven anything. Please read through the comments yourselves and see what type of persons I deal with on a regular basis. Also you will see his faulty arguments. You decide for yourselves.
GBFNorwalk 1 year ago
@GBFNorwalk Rom 5:18
He makes this favor common to all, because it is propounded to all, and not because it is in reality extended to all; for though Christ suffered for the sins of the whole world, and is offered through God’s benignity indiscriminately to all, yet all do not receive him.
This is a piece from Calvin's Commentary on Romans
NB3K 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@GBFNorwalk Rom 5:18
He makes this favor common to all, because it is propounded to all, and not because it is in reality extended to all; for though Christ suffered for the sins of the whole world, and is offered through God’s benignity indiscriminately to all, yet all do not receive him.
This is a piece from Calvin's Commentary on Romans
NB3K 1 year ago
God created man with free will and he used it to go along with Satan in the Garden. Adam's sin brought spiritual death to all of his posterity except Jesus, who was born without a human father. God has chosen to redeem some of the lost sinners but not all. He chose us before we were born, in eternity. Jesus accomplished our salvation, ours, but not the rest who are not chosen. They are left to die in their sins.
It is God's decision and man who are you to question God?
NewDirection4us 1 year ago
@NewDirection4us
It cannot be true in Calvinism that Adam had a free will in how Calvinism defines foreknowledge. In Calvinism what God knows God causes. Since God knew Adam would fall then God in Calvinism did not just allow evil, but caused it by decree. Therefore in Calvinism God is the author and finisher of evil.
GBFNorwalk 1 year ago
@GBFNorwalk God gave Adam free will but not his Holy Spirit. When tempted, Adam fell because God allowed it. God knew Adam would fall without his Holy spirit in him so God had the plan of redemption for his chosen people. Jesus became the man that Adam wasn't. I wouldn't say that for evil to happen that God must decree it. Evil will happen when independent entities without God's spirit and allowed by God to exist, yes, and for a purpose that serves to glorify God.
NewDirection4us 1 year ago
@GBFNorwalk Evil unsaved men will take evil as far as God will allow them. The Holy Spirit restrains evil right now to a certain degree.
NewDirection4us 1 year ago
Isaiah 57:19
Creating praise on the lips of the mourners in Israel. Peace, peace, to those far and near, "says the Lord. "And I will heal them."
MODERATECALVINISM 1 year ago
darn wish I could take that thumbs down. At first I thought you were FOR/pro Calvinism. for if Calvinism were true then Jesus wouldn't need to die for us as were all damned/saved already according to these idea's and thus are simple creatures or animals created simply for his amusement and automation.
remieres 1 year ago
@remieres God did foreordain and devise a plan from the foundation of the world by which He would save man (thru' Jesus), and further, He did foreordain from the beginning, all men throughout the ages who would accept and be willing to conform to this plan, should be saved; so that everyone in harmony with His power and liberty of choice who shall choose eternal life though God’s plan was foreordained to eternal salvation. The complete solution of sin is not possible to man in his earthly life.
Matrixqc 1 year ago
@Matrixqc I"m sorry but you are absolutely wrong.
He created Satan/Lucifer with sin nature. Yahweh would never have condoned DEATH besides that which was written in the bible as being destroyed by his hand. You would have my heavenly father (also known as LOVE) to be the most dispicable plotter against man to save man. of course I can see that in your comment you would have nothing of debate or education so I will not bother reading anymore of your posts. Just plz don't insult Jesus.
remieres 1 year ago
@remieres You contradict yourself: "He created Satan/Lucifer with sin nature? Love did that? So that the serpent could tempt Eve and Adam to sin against God? God is Light and in Him there is no darkness (evil) at all. 1 John 1:5. "This is the basis how the judgment works: the Light has come into the world and men loved darkness rather than the Light because their deeds were evil." John 3:19. "Men loved darkness" = they chose darkness/evil. God real desire is none to perish.He offered up His Son.
Matrixqc 1 year ago
@Matrixqc
I'm sorry you do NOT have a relationship with jesus. I'm sorry you are paranoid of the one who loves us and gave his life for us. I'm sorry you feel it is your need to argue about something you know nothing about. I'm sorry you Blaspheme against god by saying he is the foundation of sin and as you imply is neither love nor hate. I pity you for you are now by blaspheming here of the people in the bible to be Unforgivable. He as I do now still love you but you now need salvation.
remieres 1 year ago
@Matrixqc
You would side with Lucifer who tried to offer to Jesus the kingdom of earth upon the hill when Jesus returned which was already Jesus' creation. You would side with Lucifer who see's himself as a being that can become god and use humans to overthrow Yahweh?. or would you imply with your own fabricated belief that he even in his Lies, theft, Murder, corruption, that Lucifer is still a part of some elaborate plan which is NOT written in the bible. again I pitty you.
remieres 1 year ago
@remieres You obviously do not understand what I was talking about. I do not know why you are angry, bitter and full of hatred. Get help. Come out from that fantasy/cartoon world. They're deceitful, and not real. Flee from youthful lust. Talk to Pastor Steve Tassi and maybe he can help lead you to the Truth...
Matrixqc 1 year ago
@Matrixqc
I honestly don't care how you see it, if you are a Calvanist here promoting what this video is against then you are a part of the problem (sin) not the solution (salvation) and if you feel the need to spread lies about Yahweh seeding creation with the idea that Sin is necesary for man to love him ending with logic showing NO free will then you are deluted.
I have no need to see your choice in biblical leaders when I know enough to see through your own confusion.
remieres 1 year ago
@Matrixqc
show me where in the bible it says anything about Yahweh in any way expecting, controlling, or creating Lucifer for the sole purpose to decieve Adam and Eve? I don't care what it says in the bible about Lucifer's role later on that is not addressing this. You have to come to this conclusion on your own. Lucifer is the Prosecutor of the state when we face judgement. True it is Lucifer's job to tempt us but this is basically Duty for his crimes in heaven.
remieres 1 year ago
@Matrixqc
I read NOwhere in the bible saying that Yahweh created Lucifer/Satan with sin in mind and in destiny. For if he did then Yahweh would not be sending Lucifer to the lake of fire when this earth is destroyed.
remieres 1 year ago
@Matrixqc
In fact if it was predestined by god that Lucifer would be the one to be the first betrayer and sinner then you are saying in your heart that god has sin in him and wanted us all to die and it is alright to sin. Otherwise you'd be saying that god is against sin and hates it "not hates that he created it" but hates that it exists and spoils his Eden, with the creatures he made with free will. But we see that he punished Satan for the sin nature he spawns. Not for doing whats planed
remieres 1 year ago
@remieres Predestination doctrine does not apply to angels. God is infinitely wise, always knows what is best; always adopts means which will best accomplish His purposes. The foreknowledge of God is also absolute. How the foreknowledge of God is to be reconciled with man’s free agency and moral accountability is indeed to men in the world a dark problem, but in the Scriptures both are clearly taught, and faith accepts what reason cannot reconcile.
Matrixqc 1 year ago
@remieres Some of the churches on earth have denied man’s moral freedom. Others maintain that God in the exercise of His omniscience, like His omnipotence, abstains from interfering what His creatures will do under certain given circumstances, but the foreknowledge of God itself, unrevealed to men, does not impose nor even hint to me any course of conduct whatever; it in no degree affects His liberty of action.
Matrixqc 1 year ago
@Matrixqc God decreed that WICKED men would kill His SON and the very men He chose to do it,did it.
CBALLEN 1 year ago
@CBALLEN
So then in Calvinism sin is Gods will and cause. Also sin is irresistibly given to men by God and the evil they do is logically unmerited. Men are merely the instruments in which God causes evil to accomplish His will which in Calvinism would be murder and all the evil of the world is Gods will. All glory to the Calvinist god.
GBFNorwalk 1 year ago
@GBFNorwalk So you don't believe that God ordained that His Son die at the hands of the very ones who killed Him?
CBALLEN 1 year ago
@remieres Man neither sins nor follows holiness, as the result of God’s foreknowledge; so notwithstanding God’s foreknowledge, He has made man in His image, a free moral being. Sin does exist on earth, and God permits it for reasons of His own, not fully revealed to men. In Heaven it could not be so. No taint of sin can ever enter the gates of the City of the Great King. If an angel should again sin God would instantly cast him down to hell.
Matrixqc 1 year ago
Good job brother, praise Jesus!
billredeemed 1 year ago
You need to nuance your argument since Infralapsariansim and Supralapsarianism don't agree with each other on this point. I do like your use of "unmerited and irresistible evil."
RichardPresley 1 year ago
Calvinism is a doctrine of man and makes the Gospel of Christ of no effect. It is not only an insult to the God of Love but also to the saving Gospel of Christ.
StandForTheFaith 1 year ago
@StandForTheFaith
Thanks for the comment and yes I agree.
GBFNorwalk 1 year ago
I dont have time to argue in circles with anyone. Please form arguments and please stop trying to set up strawmen as your argument.
GBFNorwalk 1 year ago
Calvinist free will is that man is free to do only what God has decreed for him which is a logical contradiction. This in reality makes man not free at all.
GBFNorwalk 1 year ago
Your description of Calvinism reveals it as an inversion of OT values. Thus it is a non christian inclusion into Christianity.Dressed up as an intellectual puzzle to set Christian against Christian.The infiltrator religion is based on a secret holy book that inverts the OT. Surprise Surpise
kimbo99 1 year ago
All have sin and fallen short of the glory of God. God does not attempt, God does not lie. God gave man free will, choice. Satan way of this world, which he controls or God way thru Jesus Christ alone is finall door, which one must go thru in order to enter eternality. Jesus is the only way and truth. God gives man free will, he will not force individual to come to Him, satan other hand will deceive and take their soul. His job is to lie and to deceive.
sungmee45 2 years ago
So you worship at the alter of free wiil then? If Adam was free to pick then isnt that Greek philosphy according to you?
GBFNorwalk 2 years ago
"So you worship at the alter of free wiil then? If Adam was free to ..."
how in Christ's name do you come up with the nonsense you do?do you even take the time to read my replies?
Adam was LIMITED and his so called 'free will' was BOUND by God's comandment NOT to eat from ONE specific tree
martalog121 2 years ago
i gave your definition of the Calvinist's only,so don't assume that i agree with it !
u did not answer my question
define YOUR "free will"
martalog121 2 years ago
So you dont agree with the Calvinist position on the will? Why are you here?
Instead of trying to set up your strawman why dont you just form an argument. You know what I believe.
GBFNorwalk 2 years ago
you keep mentioning 'free will' without giving the definition of it
as for the 'straw man' you are the one that made the fallacy already !
don't assume that i want to make the same mistake you did
martalog121 2 years ago
I did not think you would form an argument. Look, you are trying to set up your strawman you think you will knock down later. You have seen the video. You say it has fallacy. Now prove it by making an argument. I know all of the different terms for free will that you are going to postulate, so just get to the point. I am freely of my own volition typing this comment. My favorite color is blue.
GBFNorwalk 2 years ago
well why not give YOUR definition of YOUR 'free will'
you are the one using it in your video,i'm asking you to define your own term so i now what you are actually saying
assuming that i'm trying to "set up a straw man" is just that ,an assumption !
martalog121 2 years ago
I dont give you a definition because I have free will not to as you should learn the definitions yourself. You should be able to form an argument. Why cant you? What is the fallacy in the video?
GBFNorwalk 2 years ago
too afraid to define this false idol of yours ( "free will")?strange!
let me give you a general definition:
absence of ANY controling agent that will give an individual the equal ability in any situation to choose either of 2 incompatible courses of action
how about giving me a Yes or No answer to my definition,do you think you can at least do that?
as for your philosphical diatribe and the fallacies you're guilty of...patience,i'll get to them!
danoltd 2 years ago
too afraid to define this false idol of yours ( "free will")?strange!
let me give you a general definition:
absence of ANY controling agent that will give an individual the equal ability in any situation to choose either of 2 incompatible courses of action
how about giving me a Yes or No answer to my definition,do you think you can at least do that?
as for your philosphical diatribe and the fallacies you're guilty of...patience,i'll get to them!
martalog121 2 years ago
Did you make both of the last comments under different users? Are you both the same guy? A false idol? Perhaps you are a hyper Calvinist. The answer to your definition is no. Please define foreknowledge for me then we can talk more about Biblical free will. Sorry as it appears I have been evasive but I am posting on several videos and blogs. Also we will see you yes you have been setting up a strawman.
GBFNorwalk 2 years ago
sorry,i\m using a laptop and my buddy was signed in YouTube,after i posted i realized my mistake
as for forknowledge,well let's stick with 'free will' so i'll pretend you never tried the red herring..lol
martalog121 2 years ago
OK sticking to free will did you sin by a free will.
GBFNorwalk 2 years ago
just because i gave u a general definiton for 'free will'(most people would agree with it) i does NOT mean that i believe in such an idol
u did not agree with the definiton i gave so now it's time you define what you mean by 'free will'
and to answer your latest question... i sin because i'm a sinner !
martalog121 2 years ago
So you have not sinned out of a free will. How convenient. All glory to God for your sin right? This is the true motive in Calvinism. Since there is no free will you have not truly sinned of your own merit or unmerited evil. Sin is all of Gods and not of yourself.
GBFNorwalk 2 years ago
You have not sinned of a free will therefore you have not truly repented and if you have since God made you do that also, you have only repented that God has willed your evil. So in essence God has done a sorry thing and you have done no evil of yourself or you have only done evil irresistibly.
GBFNorwalk 2 years ago
i REJECT your false dillema(which is basically Greek philosophy) that if i don't believe in 'free will' i'm not responsible for my sins
how about defining the 'free will' you keep mentioning?maybe is time for you to stop hidding and say what you mean by 'free will',how about it?
martalog121 2 years ago
"So you have not sinned out of a free will. How convenient. All glory to God for your sin right? This is the true motive in Calvinism."
when are you going to stop assuming?i'm accountable for my sins to God,i don't know exactly what type of theology training you have but you keep misrepresenting Calvinism and equate it with Greek philosophy..maybe you should read the Institutes and then apologize for your strawmen?
martalog121 2 years ago
Its not Greek philosophy it is the science of ontology and epistemology. We need to only look at how you view salvation. In Calvinism you have not had your own faith for salvation so it is all of God and not of yourself right? So it logically follows in your Calvinistic philosophy that you did not have your own faith in evil so it is all of God and not of yourself.
GBFNorwalk 2 years ago
You cannot have it both ways. That is called a contradiction. But the reality is that these contradictions are consistent in Calvinism.
GBFNorwalk 2 years ago
"You cannot have it both ways. That is called a contradiction...etc"
unless you start being honest and define this 'free will' of yours we will not get very far,your assumptions are unfounded and you are confusing Greek philosophy with Calvinism
martalog121 2 years ago
"You cannot have it both ways. That is called a contradiction.We need to only look at how you view salvation"
when you limit an answer to ONLY 2 options that's a FALSE DILLEMA!
by the way u should stop trying the red herring(that's another logical fallacy)
martalog121 2 years ago
Stevie Wonder could see we have been discussing and defining free will all along. Your Greek comments are a bit desperate. You want me to give you a definition of faith so we have two terms but then you tell me that to just hold to two terms is a false dilemma. Please quit contradicting yourself. So we have learned that you have not sinned of your own faith because you dont have a free will. You have been given rresistable evil so you have not meritted sin it is all of God
GBFNorwalk 2 years ago
"Your Greek comments are a bit desperate. You want me to give you a definition of faith so we have two terms but then you tell me that to just hold to two terms is a false dilemma."
i've been asking u to define 'free will' NOT faith,read my replies and stop misrepresenting me too!
as for my "Greek comments" merely asserting something does NOT mean you've proven your point
again you have presented the Greek FALSE DILLEMA that if we don't have free will we are not accountable
martalog121 2 years ago
but unfortunatelly for you and the philosophers we have GOD's Revelation...GOD is Sovereign and we are accountable to HIM for our sins without your undefined 'free will'!
martalog121 2 years ago
Of course I meant free will. Ok well if you not having faith by free will for salvation is all Gods doing and not of yourself, then how can you then say evil is not all of God and not of yourself. This is scientific philosophy. Is it Greek that a contradiction is error? Are you saying we must accept your contradiction? God is truth. Therefore we have a logical precondition in systematic theology.
GBFNorwalk 2 years ago
"Gods doing and not of yourself, then how can you then say evil is not all of God and not of yourself."
i told you that i am accountable for my sins,i'm the sinner that has transgresed the Law of God,James 1:13 says that God "tempts NO ONE" so i don't need to go into the false dillemas that the philosophers tried as a way out of their accountability
martalog121 2 years ago
You confess you are accountable with your mouth but your definitions prove you do not believe it in your heart. You actually are the one denying James 1. It is a false dilemma to post James 1 and say you have no free will at the same time.
Free will is not Greek it goes back to Genesis 2:16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
GBFNorwalk 2 years ago
So was God lying? So Adam did not have a free will? This would be God tempting Adam. James 1:13 Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:
My definition of free will is that sin is all of mine as I have sinned of a free will. You on the other hand must give God all that glory for your sin.
GBFNorwalk 2 years ago
"My definition of free will is that sin is all of mine as I have sinned of a free will. You on the other hand must give God all that glory for your sin"
AGAIN,I'm accountable for my sins(even though I DO NOT BELIEVE IN 'FREE WILL') so STOP misrepresenting my position,please realize that your making a logical fallacy every time you post in regards to my position!!!!!!!
martalog121 2 years ago
"So was God lying? So Adam did not have a free will? This would be God tempting Adam."
again, i do NOT ascribe to the FALSE Greek dillema!you shouln't either
martalog121 2 years ago
"My definition of free will is that sin is all of mine as I have sinned of a free will"
so,are you 'free'(due to your 'free will') NOT TO SIN?
if you are then start being sinless for the rest of your life...good luck(even though i do NOT believe in luck,LOL)
if your 'free will' can not allow you NOT to sin then give this idol up!
martalog121 2 years ago
"My definition of free will is that sin is all of mine as I have sinned of a free will"
u still have not define what is this 'free will'!
is your 'will' free from God and His grace ? one has to be 'free' from something to something else(i.e free from slavery;free from debt;free from God and His commadments)
having the banner,above ones head(as you do), with 'free will' written on it and 'forgetting' to say what your 'will' is free from is just a mantra !!!
martalog121 2 years ago
My definition of free will is James 1:13,14. You cannot hold to this definition. So Adam could chose trees by free will or not? You have now made another contradiction. You are saying that Adam has free will. You have spent days telling me that man does not have free will.
You said:
Adam was LIMITED and his so called 'free will' was BOUND by God's comandment NOT to eat from ONE specific tree
That is the Arminian position.
GBFNorwalk 2 years ago
Sorry I blocked martalog12l. He was predestined to be blocked i guess. I will talk to anyone but same thing over and over I dont have time for. Read the comments we had and then take it or leave it. He was very respectful.
GBFNorwalk 2 years ago
"You confess you are accountable with your mouth but your definitions prove you do not believe it in your heart"
whaaaaat? you're funny!
"Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: "
BUT Adam was forbiden to eat from one of the trees...so by this limitation out goes your 'freedom'
martalog121 2 years ago
So Adam was free to pick which trees?
GBFNorwalk 2 years ago
all except one(the one in the middle of the garden)
martalog121 2 years ago
"Of course I meant free will"
what IS IT THAT YOU MEAN BY THIS 'free will'?
who is 'will' and what does he need to be 'freed' from? define it already and stop running scared !
martalog121 2 years ago
"Stevie Wonder could see we have been discussing and defining free will all along."
i was the one that gave a definition you did not agree with so i'm wondering what is it that you mean by 'free will' as a matter of fact i'm very curious to know but i see you're too scared to define your idol
is it because it(free will) goes back to the Greek philosophers?i wonder....LOL
martalog121 2 years ago
care to define "free will" ?
martalog121 2 years ago
Calvinistic freedom is that man is free to only do evil.
GBFNorwalk 2 years ago
i was thinking of your definition of 'free will' not the Calvinist's !
martalog121 2 years ago
Free to only do evil (as you admit Calvinism teaches) is a contradiction of terms as it is logically impossible to be true. So I reject it based upon, God is truth.
GBFNorwalk 2 years ago
Amen! Excellent video. I agree completely.
In Calvinism everything good that happens is all due to God's decree therefore God is praised for causing that Good because He is the cause of it.
In Calvinism everything evil that happens is all due to God's decree, yet God is not responsible. No! Man who can only do what God decrees for Him to do is responsible.
Then this "just" God punishes men for doing what their creator caused the creation to do.
What a contradiction!
shteve77 2 years ago
Do you hace a resource for any of this or is this going to be hear is what i say and whatever i say is the truth. Hobbes was a heretic. Not shure where u are getting these ideas from? As a baptist who also happens to be a Calvinist-God does not author sin and Election is only to salvation while God lets those not elected continue in their rebellion against God that man desires to do anyways. Thanks for defining my beliefs for me though God created me with a brain to think with
daveme7 2 years ago
Excellent video. Calvinism on the shallow end is believable at first but taking Calvinism out to it's illogical conclusions shows how false it is. Thank you for the vid GBF
LatinSkinz 2 years ago
Tehre's no such thing as unconditional reprobation. Reprobation is on the basis of something the sinner earned or merited because of their sins. That's conditional.
But election is not based on something the sinner earned or merited. That's unconditional.
The two: Election and reprobation, are not symmetrical.
skalapunk 2 years ago
Are we speaking again skalapunk? No such thing as Unconditional Reprobation? Do you not hold that in Romans 9 God forms one vessel for honor and another for dishonor? And if He formed it for dishonor how is it conditional? Also Romans 9 if it is concerning soteriology then it does establish the conditioning to be symmetrical.
GBFNorwalk 2 years ago
We're always speaking steve :)
In Romans 9, notice Paul says that the vessels of honor and dishonor were formed "from the same lump". We would say this "lump" was the lump of fallen, guilty, sinful humanity
No where have we ever implied that this lump was "innocent", sinless people.
That's how it's not unconditional. It's conditioned on them being sinners. The lump of sinners is formed either into vessels of honor or dishonor.
skalapunk 2 years ago
Does not Romans 9 say they were fitted for destruction and also before they did good or bad? Thus unconditional and irresistable reprobation if salvation were analagously unconditional.
GBFNorwalk 2 years ago
Are you arguing against me or Romans 9?
skalapunk 2 years ago
So you admit then in Calvinism Romans 9 must also be teaching unconditional reprobation?
GBFNorwalk 2 years ago
Did you not read anything I said? I said reprobation is based on the fact that a man is a sinner. That's not unconditional, that's conditional.
skalapunk 2 years ago
No skalapunk, you have never been honest about this. In Calvinism you have sinned out of irresistible evil caused for man by God before the foundations of the world. Your just playing games with words. You make your contradiction that you sin freely because your not free to do otherwise. This is proof that in Calvinsm you are merely blaming God for your sins. If Romans 9 is Calvinistic then God has fitted reprobation thus unconditional reprobaion.
GBFNorwalk 2 years ago
Can I post a video response to you defeat Calvinism video?
GBFNorwalk 2 years ago
Nothing you say is what Calvinists believe. Therefore I cannot engage your arguments, because they are misrepresentations, strawmen.
skalapunk 2 years ago
Romans 9:22 [What] if God, willing to shew [his] wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:
Does not Romans 9 say they were fitted for destruction? So if Romans 9 is Calvinistic then man is unconditionally reprobated whether or not you admit it, you believe it. This is no strawman.
GBFNorwalk 2 years ago
I don't think you understand what we mean by the words "unconditional", even though I've explained it about a billion times!
Man earned or merited his reprobation by his own sinfulness, hence, it is conditional, because it's conditioned on something man earned.
But election is not conditional, because man cannot earn or merit his election, thus, it is unconditional.
skalapunk 2 years ago
Your argument is the strawman as Romans 9 does not allow for a conditional reprobation. He was formed before he did good or bad. He was made for dishonor. He was fitted for destruction. Perhaps you could deal with this argument directly. Was he fitted or not? Also since man was formed from the same lump and Calvinistic foreknowledge is causal before the foundations of the world then the reprobate were formed unconditionally also.
GBFNorwalk 2 years ago
"Was he fitted or not?"
He was fitted, but he was a sinner that was fitted. Even though he wasn't yet born, in God's mind he was a sinner, because all people are born as sinners, due to the doctrine of Original Sin.
Are you denying this orthodox doctrine? That makes you a Pelagian, which is heresy. Please consider the implications of denying original sin.
skalapunk 2 years ago
You know I am not Pelagian. Thats just misdirection from your logical fallacy.
You said:
Even though he wasn't yet born, in God's mind he was a sinner
That is semi pelagian not Calvinistic. Its funny how Calvinists turn Arminian when they are backed into a corner.
It does not say God knew which is my position it says God fitted which is the truth of Calvinism and thus unconditional reprobation!
GBFNorwalk 2 years ago
Calvinist foreknowledge does not hold that Gods knowing is anything but He has caused it including sin and evil thus evil is irresistable in Calvinism. This leads to Unconditional Reprobation as man does not potentially sin but causally sins in Calvinism.
GBFNorwalk 2 years ago
Loraine Boettner (Calvinist)
Now if future events are foreknown to God, they cannot by any possibility take a turn contrary to His knowledge. If the course of future events is foreknown, history will follow that course as definitely as a locomotive follows the rails from New York to Chicago.
GBFNorwalk 2 years ago
Notice skalapunk admitted thet man is fitted (fated) for destruction. Calvinism is fatalism.
GBFNorwalk 2 years ago
Sinners are fitted for destruction. That's not injustice, because it's owed them.
skalapunk 2 years ago
Plus I believe in the Growing in Grace doctrine.
godsplumbline 2 years ago
openairpreacher is a pelagianist, pelagianism teaches the doctrine of origanal sin is a heresy.
godsplumbline 2 years ago
Why didnt you reply to his comments?
GBFNorwalk 2 years ago
Though I dissagree with Calvernism, have problems with tulip and cannot accept it, I also dissagree with pelagianists no point in arguing with people or debating with those who are stuck in a system, their is nothing I can say or do.
I also dissagree with arminian teaching.
godsplumbline 2 years ago
@fractalfires
Sorry that sermon already belongs to the Calvinist you are a little late ever hear of Jonathan Edwards
1689Baptist 2 years ago
You make some good arguments in the video, GBFNorwalk. I think a Calvinist might argue a couple of them, like they are using predestination so they can blame God for their sins and not themselves, just because it seems to degrade their character. Still, I'm not here to defend Calvinism. In future, try to know your material and have the jist of it memorized before you do the video, because the monotone voice from plainly reading what you've already written takes away from the content a bit.
KingWilliamI 2 years ago