Moses and Jesus taught free will

He does not show favoritism towards those beaten down along the side of the road who are hurt and are in need of salvation either. Jesus told us everyone in need around us is to be considered to be our neighbor. Luke 10:25 Sorry but your doctrine has Jesus like the priest in the parable walking by NOT WILLING to want to be a help.​

Yes when we look at the life of Christ we see the very heart of God at work in His thoughts, actions, words and deeds. :) There is no need to wonder or guess what God is like or what His love looks like as we see it demonstrated in the life of Christ.
 
Yes when we look at the life of Christ we see the very heart of God at work in His thoughts, actions, words and deeds. :) There is no need to wonder or guess what God is like or what His love looks like as we see it demonstrated in the life of Christ.
In English, that would be described as God showing FAVOR (friendly regard shown toward another especially by a superior; gracious kindness - also an act of such kindness; effort in one's behalf or interest; a special privilege or right granted).
 
In English, that would be described as God showing FAVOR (friendly regard shown toward another especially by a superior; gracious kindness - also an act of such kindness; effort in one's behalf or interest; a special privilege or right granted).
Nice try as He never did that. :)
 
Nice try as He never did that. :)
:eek:

Jesus, in his “thoughts, actions, words or deeds”, NEVER demonstrated …
  • friendly regard shown toward another especially by a superior (the Son of God WAS our superior) [Luke 22:31-32]
  • gracious kindness or an act of such kindness [John 8:9-11]
  • effort in someone’s behalf or interest [John 19:30]
  • a special privilege or right granted [Luke 6:13]
What Bible are you reading and what Jesus are you following?
 
Last edited:
:eek:

Jesus, in his “thoughts, actions, words or deeds”, NEVER demonstrated …
  • friendly regard shown toward another especially by a superior (the Son of God WAS our superior)
  • gracious kindness or an act of such kindness
  • effort in someone’s behalf or interest
  • a special privilege or right granted
What Bible are you reading and what Jesus are you following?
Jesus was always acting in love and compassion. He was never unloving. He healed all that came to Him with a sincere heart. He exposed the hypocrites who tried lording themselves over the poor and troddin. That was still an act of love in rebuking them. :). Since He knows what is in mans heart and their thoughts unlike you and I. :)

What jesus are your following ?

hope this helps !!!
 
Yes when we look at the life of Christ we see the very heart of God at work in His thoughts, actions, words and deeds. :) There is no need to wonder or guess what God is like or what His love looks like as we see it demonstrated in the life of Christ.
There's a saying too.....what we behold we're changed into. We're to be conformed to the image of Christ. We are to be transformed into his character or his LOVE example. To me it's like Calvinists come up to a wall in regard to this. Where and what does love mean?
 
wrath, judgement, vengeance, dissention, anger, bitterness, hatred, enemies, persecution come to mind with how Calvin lived his life and treated those who disagreed with Him ( Christians in the body of Christ )- its the exact opposite of Jesus and the Apostles.
 
What jesus are your following ?
I edited the post to add verses for reference to clarify. I follow the Jesus that demonstrated those acts of favor to them and acts of “favor” (loving-kindness) towards me.

  • Since everyone SHOULD repent, everyone should receive God’s favor. [Acts 17:30 - “God overlooked people's ignorance about these things in earlier times, but now he commands everyone everywhere to repent of their sins and turn to him.”
  • Since everyone CAN repent, everyone can receive God’s favor.[Deuteronomy 30:11 - “Now what I am commanding you today is not too difficult for you or beyond your reach.”
  • Since not everyone DOES repent, everyone does not receive God’s favor.[John 3:36 - “Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God's wrath remains on them.”
 
I edited the post to add verses for reference to clarify. I follow the Jesus that demonstrated those acts of favor to them and acts of “favor” (loving-kindness) towards me.

  • Since everyone SHOULD repent, everyone should receive God’s favor. [Acts 17:30 - “God overlooked people's ignorance about these things in earlier times, but now he commands everyone everywhere to repent of their sins and turn to him.”
  • Since everyone CAN repent, everyone can receive God’s favor.[Deuteronomy 30:11 - “Now what I am commanding you today is not too difficult for you or beyond your reach.”
  • Since not everyone DOES repent, everyone does not receive God’s favor.[John 3:36 - “Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God's wrath remains on them.”
And that is the choice each man makes to accept or reject God and has nothing to do with election, predestination or divine determinism.
 
wrath, judgement, vengeance, dissention, anger, bitterness, hatred, enemies, persecution come to mind with how Calvin lived his life and treated those who disagreed with Him ( Christians in the body of Christ )- its the exact opposite of Jesus and the Apostles.
I am not a Calvinist (as you have redefined it). I care nothing for what Augustine or John Calvin believed or wrote and have read virtually nothing from either. I believe what I believe from reading the Bible … Jesus and the Apostles (and a few close acquaintances like Luke). ;)

So we should burn Calvin at the stake … oh, wait. Calvin is already dead, isn’t he. Then who cares what he said or did … he is not Jesus or an Apostle!

Scripture Alone!

 
Last edited:
I am not a Calvinist (as you have redefined it). I care nothing for what Augustine of John Calvin believed or wrote and have real virtually nothing from either. I believe what I believe from reading the Bible … Jesus and the Apostles (and a few close acquaintances like Luke). ;)

So we should burn Calvin at the stake … oh, wait. Calvin is already dead, isn’t he. Then who cares what he said or did … he is not Jesus or an Apostle!

Scripture Alone!

I will stop referring to you as a calvinist. But its a commonly known fact in Christendom that anyone who believes in tulip is considered to be a Calvinist- that is the main definition in Christianity for a calvinist. :)
 
And that is the choice each man makes to accept or reject God and has nothing to do with election, predestination or divine determinism.
You are the one bringing up “election, predestination or divine determinism” … not me.
I was claiming that Jesus showed favor towards sinners, like me, and saved us. You were claiming that Jesus showed favor to NOBODY.
 
You are the one bringing up “election, predestination or divine determinism” … not me.
I was claiming that Jesus showed favor towards sinners, like me, and saved us. You were claiming that Jesus showed favor to NOBODY.
He showed no favor since all sinners were welcome, not just certain types or classes of sinners. He exposed the hypocrisy of the pharisees who were self righteous and excluded all who they considered to be sinners, since they did not consider themselves as sinners but righteous.
 
I will stop referring to you as a calvinist. But it’s a commonly known fact in Christendom that anyone who believes in tulip is considered to be a Calvinist- that is the main definition in Christianity for a calvinist. :)
I do believe in Biblical Truths and those Truths are very close to most definitions given for the acronym T.U.L.I.P. (but not identical to all definitions given for the acronym). However, Calvinist is also used to mean “Reformed” (like the WCF) and I am definitely NOT Reformed (I am a Baptist, for starters). You are claiming that Calvinist means “agrees with everything that Augustine and John Calvin wrote” and I have not even read MOST of what they wrote and I disagree with some of the little that I have read from each man. I also agree with some of what I read from each man, but I agree with some of what John Wesley wrote without being a Wesleyan or a Methodist.

What I AM, is a hard core SOLA SCRIPTURA (Scripture Alone). Scripture is what matters ... the “norma normans non normata” (standard against which all other standards are measured, that itself has no higher standard).

From Scripture Alone! comes the other great truths:
  • We are saved by Christ Alone (our effort contributes nothing).
  • We are saved by Grace Alone (unmerited favor - nobody deserves to be saved; nobody merits it.)
  • We are saved by Faith Alone (our works of righteousness are like menstrual rags and contribute nothing to our salvation).
  • We are saved To the Glory of God Alone (every aspect of our salvation exists to demonstrate the Glory innate in God … God will share His glory with no man … we point to Him.)
If Augustine or Calvin agree with any of the above, good for them for finding the same Truth in Scripture that I did. If they disagree, then they know better now, that is on them and that has nothing to do with me.
 
I do believe in Biblical Truths and those Truths are very close to most definitions given for the acronym T.U.L.I.P. (but not identical to all definitions given for the acronym). However, Calvinist is also used to mean “Reformed” (like the WCF) and I am definitely NOT Reformed (I am a Baptist, for starters). You are claiming that Calvinist means “agrees with everything that Augustine and John Calvin wrote” and I have not even read MOST of what they wrote and I disagree with some of the little that I have read from each man. I also agree with some of what I read from each man, but I agree with some of what John Wesley wrote without being a Wesleyan or a Methodist.

What I AM, is a hard core SOLA SCRIPTURA (Scripture Alone). Scripture is what matters ... the “norma normans non normata” (standard against which all other standards are measured, that itself has no higher standard).

From Scripture Alone! comes the other great truths:
  • We are saved by Christ Alone (our effort contributes nothing).
  • We are saved by Grace Alone (unmerited favor - nobody deserves to be saved; nobody merits it.)
  • We are saved by Faith Alone (our works of righteousness are like menstrual rags and contribute nothing to our salvation).
  • We are saved To the Glory of God Alone (every aspect of our salvation exists to demonstrate the Glory innate in God … God will share His glory with no man … we point to Him.)
If Augustine or Calvin agree with any of the above, good for them for finding the same Truth in Scripture that I did. If they disagree, then they know better now, that is on them and that has nothing to do with me.

^What he said. I haven't read Calvin or Augustine. I have read some Luther. But my doctrine is straight from the Bible, and the Bible alone. I don't usually mind being called a Calvinist, since it's just a label for reformed doctrine, except that people tend to think a Calvinist is someone who read Calvin and agrees with his work.

I see repeated attacks on Augustine and Calvin, and I'm in no position (and have no inclination) to defend them. It's pointless to me. Argue scripture, not people.
 
From Challis website- reformed calvinist :)

Let’s start with some definitions. Christendom refers to all religions that are based at least partially on the teachings of Jesus Christ and the Bible. Christendom is separated into four main divisions: Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Protestant and Cults. Protestantism is generally divided into two camps: Arminian and Reformed. Very generally, Protestants can be defined as those who are part of churches which arose from the schism with the Catholic Church during the Reformation and who believe (in theory if not always in practice) in the 5 solas. While the vast majority of Protestants hold to Arminian doctrine, we will concern ourselves today with minority who consider themselves Reformed.

A good starting place for any research these days is the Web and a quick search for “reformed” turned up the following definitions that pertain to theology:

  1. A term used to refer to a tradition of theology which draws inspiration from the writings of John Calvin (1510-64) and his successors (see pp. 68-72). The term is generally used in preference to “Calvinist.”
  2. Referring to the Reformation, it’s theology, and/or those subscribing to it. Also used to differentiate a,) Calvinism from Lutheranism, or b.) Continental European Calvinism from Scottish Calvinism, aka Presbyterianism.
Those are both concise definitions but ones that do not capture the full sense of the word.

A far better and more complete definition is found at Five Solas. There Professor Byron Curtis, a professor at Geneva College breaks the definition into four parts. To be Reformed is:

  1. To confess the consensus of the five first centuries of the church:
    • Classic theism: One omnipotent, benevolent God, distinct from creation.
    • Nicene and Chalcedonian Trinitarianism: one God in three eternally existent persons, equal in power and glory.
    • Christ, the God-Man, the one mediator between God & the human race, incarnate, crucified, resurrected, ascended, & coming again.
    • Humanity created in the image of God, yet tragically fallen & profoundly in need of restoration to God through Christ.
    • The Visible Church: the community of the redeemed, indwelt y the Holy Spirit; the mystical body of Christ on earth.
    • The one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church.
    • The Sacraments: visible signs and seals of the grace of God, ministering Christ’s love to us in our deep need.
    • The Christian life: characterized by the prime theological virtues of faith, hope, and love.
      It would be correct to say that this is a statement of the Protestant faith more than it is a statement of the Reformed faith. From this list we see that Reformed Christians adhere to all the foundational beliefs taught in the Bible. These beliefs were the foundation of the early church and are based on the teachings of the Bible as interpreted by the apostles and early church fathers. Many of these beliefs were changed or lost as the Catholic Church grew in power and authority from the fifth century onwards. Throughout history there were pockets of non-Catholic believers who held to many or all of these points of doctrine, but they were largely lost until the time of the Reformation.
  2. To confess the four solas:
    • The authority of Scripture: sola scriptura (Scripture alone)
    • the basis of salvation: Sola Gratia (Grace alone)
    • the means of salvation: Sola Fide (Faith alone)
    • the merit of salvation: Solus Christus (Christ alone)
      Again, these form the basis for Protestantism as much as they do for the Reformed tradition. These are the principles that drove the Protestant Reformation of the 16th century and separated it from the Roman Catholic Church. These four points of doctrine are based entirely on the Bible and were the theological driving force behind the newly formed Protestant movement.
  3. To confess the distinctives of the Reformed faith:
    • In salvation: monergism not synergism. God alone saves. Such monergism implies T.U.L.I.P., the Five Points of Calvinism from the Synod of Dordt:
      T = Total Depravity U = Unconditional Election L = Limited Atonement, or, better, Particular Redemption I = Irresistible Grace P = Perseverence and Preservation of the Saints
      These five distinct points of doctrine are also known as the five points of Calvinism as they were first articulated by John Calvin after the Reformation was in full-swing. They are based entirely on the Bible. When people speak of being Reformed these five points of doctrine are most often what they are referring to. Most evangelical (non-Reformed) churches do not hold to all of these points. Some hold to two or three (and occasionally even four), but most reject them in favor of Arminian theology. For a more in-depth look at what constitutes Reformed vs Arminian theology, see my four part article which begins here.
  4. Other Reformed Distinctives:
    Professor Curtis goes on to list other points of doctrine he believes are Reformed distinctives. They include : The Regulatory Principle of Worship (which I have written about here), Covenant theology (The Church is the New Israel – this generally means infants are baptized rather than believers) and Life is religion (Christians have neither jobs nor careers; they have vocations (callings)). I would not consider adherence to these principles necessary to consider oneself Reformed and I suspect the majority of Reformed Christians would agree with me. Some of these principles would be part of the distinction between Reformed and Calvinist.
  5. Finally: in everything, Soli Deo Gloria – to God alone be the glory in all things.
    This is, once more, something all Christians would claim, either explicitly or implicitly. In all areas of life we are to give glory to God.
 
Another POV from https://heraldofgrace.org/calvinistic-and-reformed/

This has lately been the case for the terms “Calvinistic” and “Reformed.” Many may think they mean about the same thing, but they really have different senses and connotations.

The term “Calvinists” has been employed disparagingly by Roman Catholics, as if it denoted an aberrant sect of Christendom more devoted to following one man, John Calvin, than remaining part of the true, universal or catholic church. While that was not Calvin’s own view or intention, it might be a fair criticism of some of his later admirers.

The term “Calvinist,” in general, is probably most widely used and understood for Christians with a high view of the sovereignty of God, especially with respect to the topic of “soteriology” (the doctrine of salvation). Long after Calvin left his mark, the Dutch Reformed churches formally refuted a challenge to their theology known as the Remonstrance, of which Jacobus Arminius was a champion, from whom Arminianism takes its name. The Arminian challengers stated their beliefs, in opposition to the Dutch Calvinists, under five points. From this arose the masterful rebuttal of the Canons of Dort. Its substance is now known popularly as the Five Points of Calvinism. Those points may be remembered by the acronym TULIP—fittingly, the national flower of the Netherlands.

T otal Depravity (our need of grace)
U nconditional Election (the election of grace)
L imited Atonement (the price of grace)
I rresistible Grace (the attraction of grace)
P erseverance of the Saints (the triumph of grace)*

These five points are not all that Calvin or consistent Calvinists teach about salvation, much less about many other topics in theology. However, they are likely what most people have in mind by the term Calvinism. They cannot really be understood properly apart from the related subjects of predestination and divine providence. Calvin’s writings contain much excellent material for our edification in all these matters.

The term “Reformed,” in general, has far more extensive connotations. It spans more centuries than Calvin’s time, encompasses a host of great theologians besides Calvin, and brings to mind many more topics of Christian theology and practice. Calvinism may be considered a subset of the Reformed tradition.

The Reformed tradition is the product of the Protestant Reformation in general. Sometimes the Reformed tradition is contrasted with traditional Lutheran theology, though they have much in common. Conspicuous areas of difference are details concerning our understanding of the Lord’s Supper and the proper outward form of Christian worship.

Certain ideas are generally associated with Reformed theology, ideas not necessarily brought to mind by the term Calvinism. We can suggest five as examples, though the list is surely longer and debatable.

• Covenant theology
• Confessional and catholic (traditional, orthodox) theology
• The Regulative Principle of Worship
• The means of grace (the Word, two sacraments, and prayer)
• The five solas of the Reformation (sola scriptura, solus Christus,
sola fide, sola gratia, soli Deo gloria)

Many believe that Reformed covenant theology necessitates infant baptism, as in the Westminster standards, but 17th-century Particular Baptists held a form of covenant theology more consistent with “credobaptism,” the baptism of believers only, and not their physical children. This particular form of covenant theology with credobaptism is represented, for example, by the Second London Baptist Confession of Faith—also known as the 1689—and the Baptist Catechism of 1693.

From all these considerations, we may observe that the terms Calvinistic and Reformed really should not be used interchangeably. Many churches today are, perhaps, Calvinistic, but not Reformed. Many using these labels for themselves unintentionally oppose things that those very labels entail.

If you know these things and have some acquaintance with all the terms found in this description, you will have a good grasp of the shared and distinctive ideas often associated with the terms Calvinistic and Reformed.
 
Is answering a question with a question, really an answer? :cool:

[That was sarcasm.]
Ask Jesus. I suspect you don't know much about what Jesus actually said. If you did, you would know He did the same thing.

It is so very obviously you have no idea what your theology is. You're just taking "shots in the dark". You have not idea how to handle the Scripture nor build a valid argument. You have Novice "written" over everything you write. I mean seriously, you have a third hand Calvinist rhetoric that adds up to nothing. You have admitted you have never even read Calvin nor Augustine yourself. What you care about you know. You found a few words that made you feel good about yourself. After all, you're chosen right? So special. So privileged. So different. Congratulations on going no where but to your own rescue
 
Back
Top Bottom