The Theology in Calvinism

You dodged the question . Was there wrath between Godhead pre creation ? Simple yes or no answer
There is never wrath between the Godhead. You truly are making is have you stopped beating your wife question. If what you mean there was no wrath express by God before creation and that wrath only pertains to this creation you are wrong. The creation of our world was not the beginning of creation either. But here are the scriptures that prove you wrong.
That isn't true. Is 14:12-13; Ez 13:13-17; Jude 6.
 
There is never wrath between the Godhead. You truly are making is have you stopped beating your wife question. If what you mean there was no wrath express by God before creation and that wrath only pertains to this creation you are wrong. The creation of our world was not the beginning of creation either. But here are the scriptures that prove you wrong.
If you really believe what you just claimed then Jesus did not suffer Gods wrath on the cross. So you just denied a core tenant of calvinism- Penal Substitution theory of the Atonement.

That is good to know . Now we are getting somewhere and making some progress.

hope this helps !!!
 
What Justice was there when only God existed ?

What Justice was there with the Holy Spirit and the Father?

How was Justice being served between the Godhead ?

Now try answering the questions and not avoid them .
Justice us the act of being just. God has always been Just.
The Father is Just. The Holy Spirit is equally just.
Justice wasn't being served between the Godhead. The Godhead IS just.
Now answer the previously asked question and stop avoiding them.
When you say that God cannot do it for that would be contrary to His nature and character as a loving God then I challenge you to explain how following fit your definition of love.
God striking dead on the spot men who touched what was holy.
Sending men into other nations to kill the people and take their wealth.
Sending the king of Assyria to execute His judgment of Israel, removing them from the promised land and scattering them into other lands.
Sending Babylong to execute judgement on Judah, destroy the temple, giving its gold and silver to His enemies, and walls and gates and scattering the inhabitants abroad away from the promised land.
Sending His own Son to the cross.
Destroying all the wicked in the land.
 
If you really believe what you just claimed then Jesus did not suffer Gods wrath on the cross. So you just denied a core tenant of calvinism- Penal Substitution theory of the Atonement.

That is good to know . Now we are getting somewhere and making some progress.

hope this helps !!!
Do you believe that Jesus was Son of man on the cross? God's wrath against sin came against Jesus' flesh----instead of our flesh. So no, we are not in agreement. Go back and review your "own" hypostatic union treatise and stop mixing the two natures of Jesus together when it is convenient.
 
Justice us the act of being just. God has always been Just.
The Father is Just. The Holy Spirit is equally just.
Justice wasn't being served between the Godhead. The Godhead IS just.
Now answer the previously asked question and stop avoiding them.
Justice means conforming to the law. There was no law in eternity past.
 
Do you believe that Jesus was Son of man on the cross? God's wrath against sin came against Jesus' flesh----instead of our flesh. So no, we are not in agreement. Go back and review your "own" hypostatic union treatise and stop mixing the two natures of Jesus together when it is convenient.
The Person of Christ is Divine, the Eternal Son, the 2nd Person of the Trinity on the cross. Nice try though.
 
If you really believe what you just claimed then Jesus did not suffer Gods wrath on the cross. So you just denied a core tenant of calvinism- Penal Substitution theory of the Atonement.

That is good to know . Now we are getting somewhere and making some progress.

hope this helps !!!
You forgot this part of the post.
Is 14:12-13; Ez 13:13-17; Jude 6.
Is it too painful to admit that you ever make a mistake or when you are shown to have made one?
 
You forgot this part of the post.

Is it too painful to admit that you ever make a mistake or when you are shown to have made one?
I don't forget anything I post since PSA is a false doctrine I oppose as it divides the Trinity and makes God unjust .

1. God is perfectly just.

2. Since God is perfectly just then He cannot punish an innocent person.

3. Christ was an innocent person.

4. Therefore, God cannot punish Christ.

5. If God cannot punish Christ, penal substitution is false.

hope this helps !!!
 
Last edited:
Justice means conforming to the law. There was no law in eternity past.
God is a law unto Himself. Everything about Him is law for us. Justice does not mean conforming to the law. Justice is administrating and judging rightly. And learn the difference between being just and bringing about justice instead of using the word justice when just is what is correct.
 
I don't forget anything I post since PSA is a false doctrine I oppose as it divides the Trinity,
That has nothing to do with the scriptures I gave about God's wrath being exerted before the foundation of our world. I can always tell when you get into water over your head. I'll give you a break for now but will expect better of you as to addressing the actual content of posts tomorrow. I need a break myself and Boaz needs my attention,
 
God is a law unto Himself. Everything about Him is law for us. Justice does not mean conforming to the law. Justice is administrating and judging rightly. And learn the difference between being just and bringing about justice instead of using the word justice when just is what is correct.
Injustice was served in PSA from the Father to the Son since He was Holy, Righteous and Sinless . It was unjust . It’s the exact opposite of what the Bible teaches . The Just One died for the unjust.

1. God is perfectly just.

2. Since God is perfectly just then He cannot punish an innocent person.

3. Christ was an innocent person.

4. Therefore, God cannot punish Christ.

5. If God cannot punish Christ, penal substitution is false.

hope this helps !!!
 
Last edited:
That has nothing to do with the scriptures I gave about God's wrath being exerted before the foundation of our world. I can always tell when you get into water over your head. I'll give you a break for now but will expect better of you as to addressing the actual content of posts tomorrow. I need a break myself and Boaz needs my attention,
God doesn’t change but you have God changing . He is the same yesterday today and forever. Immutable.

Take all the time you need . :)

I look forward to our discussions

hope this helps !!!
 
I look forward to your discussions also. I think you're both doing an excellent job explaining your beliefs. Plus, you're both keeping your cool. That right there is a good sign of spiritual maturity. Hat tip to the two of you.(y)
 
All I was ever saying that it is non-Calvinists who are alway whining about how mean and uncivil Calvinists are and never consider their own approaches as anything but civil and justified.
But then again Calvinists are unfair, mean and lacking in Christian charity at times so at times its NOT whining but at times a true observation. The same can be said of the other side as well.
When nonCalvinist (note I do not say ALL) hurl the accusations that I stated they do have malicious intent.
There's people walking in a carnal way on BOTH sides. So how about we just leave it at that?
WHat would be really nice and would show a sincerity in seeking peace would be if posters could stick to the subject of the debate instead of resorting to this type of making it personally about me and my character.
Nope don't buy this. Not totally anyway. The way one frames their debate and with what words create effect at how readers should consider those who would challenge your points. It should be all of our intent to strive to give people the benefit of the doubt that they're not accusing people with malicious intent and to lean towards saying those who don't agree with you are hurling things. I'd encourage words like you are being put to the challenge with spirited debate, but you of course can do what you want.
 
Last edited:
You're wrong.
God can be wroth. He is wroth at the
fallen angels and its esau types upon this earth...

He was very hurt and angry when we, His souls,
followed adam and left eden.

But His hatred and anger is focused on esau
and the evil realm who hurts us
and not on His own very tired, worn out,
ptsd soldiers in this war

yes, we are His battalion.
 
There's people walking in a carnal way on BOTH sides. So how about we just leave it at that?

I have spent a lot of effort and time in correcting those who are mean and unfair to Calvinists as well.

Which is why Ariel's accusations towards me where so particularly malicious and hurtful and false.
 
But then again Calvinists are unfair, mean and lacking in Christian charity at time so at times it NOT whining but at times a true observation. The same can be said of the other side as well.

There's people walking in a carnal way on BOTH sides.

yes .... they live in the Self,
a foreign entity oppressing the poor soul.

So how about we just leave it at that?

Nope don't buy this. Not totally anyway. The way one frames their debate and with what words create effect at how readers should consider those who would challenge your points.

yes because the entire goal of esau
is to leave souls utterly confused by twisting every meaning.
It should be all of our intent to strive to give people the benefit of the doubt that they're not accusing people with malicious intent and to lean towards saying those who don't agree with your are hurling things. I'd encourage words like you are being put to the challenge with spirited debate, but you of course can do what you want.
 
But then again Calvinists are unfair, mean and lacking in Christian charity at time so at times it NOT whining but at times a true observation. The same can be said of the other side as well.

There's people walking in a carnal way on BOTH sides. So how about we just leave it at that?

Nope don't buy this. Not totally anyway. The way one frames their debate and with what words create effect at how readers should consider those who would challenge your points. It should be all of our intent to strive to give people the benefit of the doubt that they're not accusing people with malicious intent and to lean towards saying those who don't agree with your are hurling things. I'd encourage words like you are being put to the challenge with spirited debate, but you of course can do what you want.
Yes and most ( not all ) calvinists I have interacted online with resort to ad hominem attacks. I attack the argument, doctrine not the person. They will conflate/equivocate saying I'm attacking them because they are calvinists. I'm not doing that but opposing the calvinist teaching of tulip, sovereignty, election etc......
 
Back
Top Bottom