NationStates Jolt Archive

according to jesus god IS the perfect father.

And?

How did I say He wasn't?

I said that to say God's relationship to us is the same as that of even a perfect earthly father (if one were to exist, which he didn't) is a damnable error (damnable not damning). God is our Provider, Protector, Teacher, Guardian, and many more things, just as the earthly fathers are supposed to be. But the relationship between an earthly father and his child and the heavenly Father and his children are not the same (especially in the area of discipline).

Or at least that's what I was trying to say. I'm sorry if I'm contradicting myself.

I'm really bored with this. You're all saying the same things repeatedly. I'm saying the same things repeatedly. You're not changing my mind. And I'm not changing your minds.

If you want to discuss this more, feel free to TG me, but otherwise I'll see you in other threads.

Who said the majority would perish? I see no evidence of that in Scripture. Certainly there were times and will be times when at a single point in time the reprobate outnumber the elect, but if you add everyone together, I don't know that the majority would not be elect. That is speculating further than the Bible reveals.

you mean you think that there is a good chance that all the moslems, hindus, buddhists, animists, jews, pagans and atheists will end up in heaven?

And?

How did I say He wasn't?

I said that to say God's relationship to us is the same as that of even a perfect earthly father (if one were to exist, which he didn't) is a damnable error (damnable not damning). God is our Provider, Protector, Teacher, Guardian, and many more things, just as the earthly fathers are supposed to be. But the relationship between an earthly father and his child and the heavenly Father and his children are not the same (especially in the area of discipline).

Or at least that's what I was trying to say. I'm sorry if I'm contradicting myself.


what else are you saying when you suggest that there are people who are not among "the elect" who have zero chance to get into heaven because god did not choose to do whatever it is he does to elect them? THOSE children of god are asking for bread and are being given a stone.

I just don't like the name Calvin.



+1 pointless post

No, it's like punching a man in the face because he can't tell you the color of his shirt because he gouged his own eyes out.


I know you're leaving the thread, but just for the record it's more like Adam and Eve gouged them out for me. And it doesn't change the fact that the people getting saved are only able to be saved because God choose to give them an advantage over the rest of the human race.

By the way, I looked up 'Benevolence'

be‧nev‧o‧lence  /bəˈnɛvələns/ Pronunciation[buh-nev-uh-luhns]
–noun
1. desire to do good to others; goodwill; charitableness: to be filled with benevolence toward one's fellow creatures.
2. an act of kindness; a charitable gift.
3. English History. a forced contribution to the sovereign.

Definition 2 deserves looking at: Benevolence does mean being nice.

Of course I don't believe God to be the way Calvinism portrays him. But if I go to heaven, and I find out that he is that way, then I'll wish I'd gone to Hell.

I've never heard evil defined that way, but even by that definition, I still don't believe that they would need to understand evil, especially not to exist properly.
Then you would admit that humans need to be taught right from wrong. And god didn't do that.


And I never said it was based on God's whim. Whim implies there is no purpose. Just because we can't see the purpose doesn't mean it's not there.
Just because you claim there's a purpose doesn't mean there is.


And how could they not understand? How can't anyone understand "DO NOT..."?
But why shouldn't they have? They didn't even know what death was. It's the same as this: "Why is the sky blue?" "Because." "Because why?" "BECAUSE!"

You've still not managed to extricate yourself from the fact that the omniscient creator being created everyone to do what he knew they would do. So we have no free will, period. So there is no such thing as morality, and the salvation thing is just a sick joke perpetrated by a sadistic monster.

I think Calvinism is just a bunch of confusion... this thread puts it about 1500 ways...

Cthulhu-Mythos;11601324']I have to admit that "Free Will" is a strong part of my beliefs.
And so far nobody has mentioned any sort of arbitrary selection for Salvation...
It seemed to be UNIVERSAL SALVATION with only acceptance required.

Is it possible that there might be a NON-Calvinist version of Presbyterian?

No, "free will" is as much a part of historic calvinism as anything else.

Most of the contenders are espousing elements gathered from hyper-calvinism.

Calvinists do in fact believe man's will is "free", and that men make their own choices independent of outside force; which is typically reffered to as "free agency" in the doctrine.

well i considered wahabism,mixt with quaker,
i feld good
i feel good

LOL

No, "free will" is as much a part of historic calvinism as anything else.

Most of the contenders are espousing elements gathered from hyper-calvinism.

Calvinists do in fact believe man's will is "free", and that men make their own choices independent of outside force; which is typically reffered to as "free agency" in the doctrine.

The problem with the Calvinist version of "free will" is that it is the same as the Augustinian one. It is not true free will, because human beings cannot possibly choose the "right" course of action without first being granted grace - something they have no control over whatsoever. The idea is basically that human beings are depraved and can thus choose all sorts of "wrong" courses of action. They can never, however, choose the right path unless God first grants them grace.

I heard it described once much like this:
Every single human being on this planet is on a walkway that leads towards hell. No matter what choices they make, they cannot choose to step off that path. They will continue to walk towards hell. God occasionally points to someone in line (one of the "elect") and gives them the ability to step off that path and follow a new path, something they automatically do.

There is no choice involved here for either the elect or the non-elect. The non-elect are going to hell, regardless of any choice they make, no matter how much they want to be good or to follow God. The elect are going to heaven. They cannot choose a path that would lead them away from God (ie. to hell) because they have been granted grace - something they did nothing to receive.

I have not researched it seriously. From what I have read, however, I reject it.

Firstly, I hold that I do indeed have free will.

Secondly, I don't believe in any god, and certainly not in one that controls everything.

Thirdly, I don't accept the legitimacy of a system that arbitrarily selects people to be granted salvation.

Well said. Same here.

Has anyone read Schopenhauer's "Freedom of the Will"?

Not much of a religous person anyway but I did study in secondary school-just cos the teachers felt we needed to be 'worldly in our religious knowledge' and know that all other religions were followed by a sinful bunch of heathens!

But besides that Calvanism is a bit too em crazy for me!

It is not possible for a rational agent to be a Calvinst.

There is no choice involved here for either the elect or the non-elect. The non-elect are going to hell, regardless of any choice they make, no matter how much they want to be good or to follow God. The elect are going to heaven. They cannot choose a path that would lead them away from God (ie. to hell) because they have been granted grace - something they did nothing to receive.

In the sense of God's bestowing of grace, yes, no choice involved (if there were, then it would not be by definition a grace). Calvinism has alot to do with the "will" of the person.... The non-elect do not "want" to be good or to follow "God", so there is no damnation apart from their own will.

Calvinistic/Augustinian free will recognizes that the agency of the persons will operates in its own course of the nature of the persons heart, but in any case is "free" in its operation, and that the person is never forced into doing anything against their own will, whether you're talking of the elect or the non-elect.

The non-elect do not want to be good, and do not want to follow God... That is the point... The elect want to be good and want to follow God... Which is about as far as it can be taken in this discourse on this particular soterology... Since no one on earth can define the particular persons making up the elect or non-elect apart from God.

In the sense of God's bestowing of grace, yes, no choice involved (if there were, then it would not be by definition a grace).

Why would it cease to be grace if a person had to ask for it? If someone asks me for something, and I freely give it, can it not still be considered a gift?

Calvinism has alot to do with the "will" of the person.... The non-elect do not "want" to be good or to follow "God", so there is no damnation apart from their own will.

But this is incorrect. According to Calvinism, the reason that the non-elect do not want to be good - do not even have the choice to try and be good - is the actions of others. It isn't a matter of using their will to not want to be good. They don't want to be good because someone else screwed up, and God has decided to have the actions of another send them to hell.

Calvinistic/Augustinian free will recognizes that the agency of the persons will operates in its own course of the nature of the persons heart, but in any case is "free" in its operation, and that the person is never forced into doing anything against their own will, whether you're talking of the elect or the non-elect.

Except, of course, for the fact that the non-elect absolutely can never do good. And the elect, once granted grace, will never want to do evil. Sounds pretty forced to me.

The non-elect do not want to be good, and do not want to follow God... That is the point... The elect want to be good and want to follow God... Which is about as far as it can be taken in this discourse on this particular soterology... Since no one on earth can define the particular persons making up the elect or non-elect apart from God.

The problem here is that God decides who is and is not elect. Thus, there is no free will involved - no choice on the part of the person. If the non-elect do not want to follow God, it is only because God has not chosen them. If the elect do want to follow God, it is only because God has chosen them. God, by choosing a person to be elect and offering them grace, makes them want to follow. God also, by not granting grace to the non-elect, prevents them from wanting to follow (or at the very least, prevents them from being able to do so).

Why would it cease to be grace if a person had to ask for it? If someone asks me for something, and I freely give it, can it not still be considered a gift?

Grace is an undeserved gift, attaching qualifiers to a gift for its acceptance, means it no longer fits the definition.


But this is incorrect. According to Calvinism, the reason that the non-elect do not want to be good - do not even have the choice to try and be good - is the actions of others. It isn't a matter of using their will to not want to be good. They don't want to be good because someone else screwed up, and God has decided to have the actions of another send them to hell.

This shows you have a completely poor understanding of calvinistic soterology. Even the non-elect have the choice available to them, they simply will not take it. Whereas the elect take it because by the grace of God, He has grafted in them a new heart... God does not send someone to hell because of the error of another... People are not sent to hell because of the sin of Adam and Eve, they are sent to hell because of the sin perpetuated in their own hearts... The theologic idea that people are damned from Adam and Eve's sin is Roman Catholic, not Calvinistic, thus your attempt to blend the two under the idea to defeat calvinism is a "straw-man" argument.


Except, of course, for the fact that the non-elect absolutely can never do good. And the elect, once granted grace, will never want to do evil. Sounds pretty forced to me.

No, the non-elect absolutely will never do good*, though they have the capacity to do it... Thus they "can" do it, but choose not to... Whereas the elect can and will do good* because they want to through the grace of God.

"Can" and "will" are seperate words with seperate centers of meaning.

*-As towards salvation.


The problem here is that God decides who is and is not elect. Thus, there is no free will involved - no choice on the part of the person. If the non-elect do not want to follow God, it is only because God has not chosen them. If the elect do want to follow God, it is only because God has chosen them. God, by choosing a person to be elect and offering them grace, makes them want to follow. God also, by not granting grace to the non-elect, prevents them from wanting to follow (or at the very least, prevents them from being able to do so).

Once again you show a complete lack of capacity to differentiate between "will" and "ability", slewing the two at every chance you get to be the same thing. Ones ability, that is, in this case, their capacity to perform acts, and make decisions between various options presented to them is the same between the elect and the non-elect, its is based upon their possession of a mind, a heart, and other such physical attributes which have been born to every person.... A will on the other hand is something different, but merely that nebulous concept of drviing force behind the choices we make as people. A person may hate banannas, and as such will not choose to eat them, that they hate them in no way forces them not to choose to eat them, and while they may never eat them, they still have the capacity, and thus are able to eat them, but they will not to do so.... The non-elect hate God, thus they will not love or obey Him, they have a heart, thus are capable of love, and they have a mind in which they are capable of obedience to Him, but they will not do so.... The elect through the grace of God, transmitted through His Spirit answer back in love to their master, possessing the capacity of heart and mind as that of the non-elect, but will also to perform out of love and obedience to God.

I'm an atheist.

Grace is an undeserved gift, attaching qualifiers to a gift for its acceptance, means it no longer fits the definition.

Asking for it doesn't suddenly make you deserve it.

This shows you have a completely poor understanding of calvinistic soterology. Even the non-elect have the choice available to them, they simply will not take it.

......because they cannot without grace, which God has not chosen to give to them. And if they cannot do it without grace, then the option is not really open to them. It's like telling me I have the option to jump off the ground and fly, but I simply don't have wings. Guess what? That means I cannot actually jump off the ground and fly.

Whereas the elect take it because by the grace of God, He has grafted in them a new heart... God does not send someone to hell because of the error of another... People are not sent to hell because of the sin of Adam and Eve, they are sent to hell because of the sin perpetuated in their own hearts...

.....which is a direct result of the sin of Adam and Eve, corrupting the hearts of all human beings and making it impossible for them *not* to sin.

The theologic idea that people are damned from Adam and Eve's sin is Roman Catholic, not Calvinistic, thus your attempt to blend the two under the idea to defeat calvinism is a "straw-man" argument.

Calvin drew his theology from Augustine, and the idea of Original Sin was not thrown out.

No, the non-elect absolutely will never do good*, though they have the capacity to do it... Thus they "can" do it, but choose not to... Whereas the elect can and will do good* because they want to through the grace of God.

If the grace of God is necessary, but it is only offered to the elect, then how can the non-elect have the capacity to do good? If God must first grant grace, but does not, then the capacity simply isn't there for those without grace.

Once again you show a complete lack of capacity to differentiate between "will" and "ability", slewing the two at every chance you get to be the same thing. Ones ability, that is, in this case, their capacity to perform acts, and make decisions between various options presented to them is the same between the elect and the non-elect, its is based upon their possession of a mind, a heart, and other such physical attributes which have been born to every person....

Wrong. According to Calvinism, all human beings are corrupt. None of us can do good (ie towards salvation) except by the grace of God. Said grace is only granted to the elect - and the elect are chosen by God. As such, the non-elect do not have the ability to do so. That ability is granted only when grace is granted, and grace has not been granted to the non-elect.

A will on the other hand is something different, but merely that nebulous concept of drviing force behind the choices we make as people. A person may hate banannas, and as such will not choose to eat them, that they hate them in no way forces them not to choose to eat them, and while they may never eat them, they still have the capacity, and thus are able to eat them, but they will not to do so.... The non-elect hate God, thus they will not love or obey Him, they have a heart, thus are capable of love, and they have a mind in which they are capable of obedience to Him, but they will not do so.... The elect through the grace of God, transmitted through His Spirit answer back in love to their master, possessing the capacity of heart and mind as that of the non-elect, but will also to perform out of love and obedience to God.

But the will not do so only because they have not been granted grace. You even say it in the very next sentence: "The elect through the grace of God......." The elect love God only because God has granted them grace. The non-elect do not love God because God has not granted them grace. The choice to love and obey God is not open to the non-elect because they have not been granted the grace of God. And if they were granted such grace, they would love and obey. But, once again, the choice is God's, not the human being's.

You are missing a main point of Calvinism, which is that someone can use their will to obey God if and only if God has first granted them grace. As such, human beings, by default, do not actually have that ability. They have it if and only if grace has been bestowed upon them. Otherwise, they would be able to be saved based on their own acts, rather than the grace of God. Neither the elect nor the non-elect actually have the ability to obey God. God must bestow that ability upon them through grace. And God does so only for the elect, choosing not to do so for the non-elect.

One of the more virulent and hairbrained sorts of christian hoodoo.

The few calvinists I've known have been particularly unsavory people, and imbeciles to boot.

One of the more virulent and hairbrained sorts of christian hoodoo.

The few calvinists I've known have been particularly unsavory people, and imbeciles to boot.

I know one who is a wonderful person. Of course, she believes in a form of Calvinism that Calvin himself would have rejected out of hand. Basically, in her version, the way I understand it, everyone is predestined to go to heaven, and no one is predestined to go to hell.

I researched it for some background info on the Netherlands, the only reason I really like it is cos it's associated with the Netherlands.