The Theology in Calvinism

[Rockson]

The problem with using isolated quotes as proof of something is that they are most often removed from the context that interprets them. That passage is in no way connected to the doctrine of the elect and predestination.

Sorry Arial but it's a universal truth. God shows no partiality.

There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil, the Jew first and also the Gentile, but glory and honor and peace for everyone who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek. For God shows no partiality. It is talking about God not favoring one nation, nationality, ethnic group, language, social status, rich or poor etc. over any other, in bringing salvation.

Nor any person either. You would say he does. And yet another verse also makes clear,

"If you fulfill the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shall love your neighbor as yourself you do well. But if you have respect of persons (which means showing partiality or favoritism) you commit sin and are convinced of the law as transgressors!"
James 2:8.9

Jesus stated any other human being you come into contract with is your neighbor and the golden rule is love your neighbor as yourself. So do you still think God shows partiality?

But He does have anger doesn't He. When it says He is slow to anger if means that He is patient with our sins, not giving us what we deserve right when we deserve it.

Haven't you dodged the whole point here. You were saying basically all God's attributes are on the same level. I've just demonstrated he's slow to anger THUS MEANING his wrath is kept in check by his gracious, kind, nature of LOVE. Your words were none of his attributes play second fiddle or are modified in the slightest. You might consider they would have to be or there would be no such thing as a slow to anger.

Sovereign is who He is. Not an ability.

It means one who has the capacity or ability to do what he wants if he so chose to. And quite frankly Arial you and all others Calvinists don't get to own this word. How others consider God exercises his sovereignty can be just as valid or more valid then what you think about it.

Frankly I am astonished to find just how far so many are from actually seeing God as God.

Well you do know right that is EXACTLY how Non Calvinists think about you? Surely you didn't consider that others aren't absolutely shocked at how ,many Calvinists believe everything is ordained? So at least we have something in common.

I am waiting for something of substance in this discussion.

I'm content with believing that perhaps some consider my responses to you are valid. I'm good with that.

 

[e v e]

What God asks,
is all of us His souls to return to Him, to paradise...

instead the people

• set up a golden calf...
• went into exile...
• ignored His prophets instead preferring, just as now! their religious traditions,
• cursed themselves....
• produced a text subject to corruption (the vision was sealed, they got cursed : no more could they hear Him...)
• led by free masons concocted the AD kjv sorcery text.
• Etc.

His law is the law of the Spirit of Life...
His Nature is eden paradise, our Home
not the growing 'nature' we see, of this current earth.

The enemy desolated eden (by our fall)
and that is who He hates, for having
harmed His Creation.

He knew us before this type of time in paradise -
actually and in person!
Literally. Everything He has done is to
get us back Home and out from under this spell!

 

[civic]

Sorry Arial but it's a universal truth. God shows no partiality.

Nor any person either. You would say he does. And yet another verse also makes clear,

"If you fulfill the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shall love your neighbor as yourself you do well. But if you have respect of persons (which means showing partiality or favoritism) you commit sin and are convinced of the law as transgressors!"
James 2:8.9

Jesus stated any other human being you come into contract with is your neighbor and the golden rule is love your neighbor as yourself. So do you still think God shows partiality?


Haven't you dodged the whole point here. You were saying basically all God's attributes are on the same level. I've just demonstrated he's slow to anger THUS MEANING his wrath is kept in check by his gracious, kind, nature of LOVE. Your words were none of his attributes play second fiddle or are modified in the slightest. You might consider they would have to be or there would be no such thing as a slow to anger.

It means one who has the capacity or ability to do what he wants if he so chose to. And quite frankly Arial you and all others Calvinists don't get to own this word. How others consider God exercises his sovereignty can be just as valid or more valid then what you think about it.

Well you do know right that is EXACTLY how Non Calvinists think about you? Surely you didn't consider that others aren't absolutely shocked at how ,many Calvinists believe everything is ordained? So at least we have something in common.

I'm content with believing that perhaps some consider my responses to you are valid. I'm good with that.

Spot on with Gods attributes brother. Well said

 

[e v e]

The post I just posted explains:

who He is saving, who Christ came here for:
His souls...

when and where He knew us:
Paradise before the fall and before we ended up here in this foreign land.

Who He hates:
the evil angels, entities, demons, esau upon this earth - these are who hurt us (His sons and daughters) and evicted us from our home and took our birthright

 

[Arial]

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 !!!

How many times do I have to say this?! God was not punishing Christ. He was punishing our sin vicariously in Christ. It is what Jesus came to do. That is the entire purpose behind substitutionary and atonement. You have the Father sending the Son to the cross simply to shed His blood so there would be blood of the covenant.

In the OT sacrifices the blood shed by the animals was not the blood of the covenant. It was life in the place of other life, that gave a temporary covering for sin. "The life is in the blood." "Without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness." Circumcision was the sign of the covenant. In the OT sacrifices we see substitution. But it is a substitution that does not give eternal life because it does not actually cleanse the conscience of anyone. IOW it does not pay sin's debt because and animal cannot substitute for a man's sins. Only a man can. But that man would have to have no sin of His own.

Jesus did both things, not just one thing. He shed the blood of the covenant which is the forgiveness of sins through faith in Him. He took the punishment that led to death that our sins deserve---as our substitute. In Him our sins met God's justice against them.

It is not the doctrine of penal substitution that is wrong. It is your inaccurate understanding of it that is wrong. And that is also the case with your interpretations of tulip and the WCF.

Did sin exist before the creation of our world and did God express wrath against it? Answer please.

 

[civic]

How many times do I have to say this?! God was not punishing Christ. He was punishing our sin vicariously in Christ. It is what Jesus came to do. That is the entire purpose behind substitutionary and atonement. You have the Father sending the Son to the cross simply to shed His blood so there would be blood of the covenant.

In the OT sacrifices the blood shed by the animals was not the blood of the covenant. It was life in the place of other life, that gave a temporary covering for sin. "The life is in the blood." "Without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness." Circumcision was the sign of the covenant. In the OT sacrifices we see substitution. But it is a substitution that does not give eternal life because it does not actually cleanse the conscience of anyone. IOW it does not pay sin's debt because and animal cannot substitute for a man's sins. Only a man can. But that man would have to have no sin of His own.

Jesus did both things, not just one thing. He shed the blood of the covenant which is the forgiveness of sins through faith in Him. He took the punishment that led to death that our sins deserve---as our substitute. In Him our sins met God's justice against them.

It is not the doctrine of penal substitution that is wrong. It is your inaccurate understanding of it that is wrong. And that is also the case with your interpretations of tulip and the WCF.

Did sin exist before the creation of our world and did God express wrath against it? Answer please.

Penal means to punish and the doctrine teaches that the Father was punishing the Son, forsook Him , sin separated the Father and Son and could not look upon Him. It’s a disunity in the Tri- Unity of God. A fractured Godhead. PSA 101.

 

[Dizerner]

Penal means to punish and the doctrine teaches that the Father was punishing the Son. PSA 101.

*** Voluntarily being punished vicariously with the judgment our sins deserved.

Just being precise.

 

[civic]

*** Voluntarily being punished vicariously with the judgment our sins deserved.

Just being precise.

Do I need to quote a dozen reformed theologians again to prove my point ?

If I do will you conceded I’m correct with what PSA teaches ?

 

[Arial]

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.

To be clear, they were not accusations towards you, though you certainly showed an unpleasant side when you responded calling me a liar and slanderer. I did neither. You took offense at something I said about the content of your post about Calvinist because you were calling them out as though those opposed to Calvinism never cross a line, and are never mean. You were showing partiality. So I gave examples of some non Calvinist remarks to support my claim. It was hypocrisy I was pointing out, not accusing you of anything in particular.

It seems I may be the only Reformed left on the site. Something has managed to send all the others away. Possibly the way their beliefs are slandered and masticated, and the hate and partiality they meet with on here. And that is just a fact.

 

[civic]

To be clear, they were not accusations towards you, though you certainly showed an unpleasant side when you responded calling me a liar and slanderer. I did neither. You took offense at something I said about the content of your post about Calvinist because you were calling them out as though those opposed to Calvinism never cross a line, and are never mean. You were showing partiality. So I gave examples of some non Calvinist remarks to support my claim. It was hypocrisy I was pointing out, not accusing you of anything in particular.

It seems I may be the only Reformed left on the site. Something has managed to send all the others away. Possibly the way their beliefs are slandered and masticated, and the hate and partiality they meet with on here. And that is just a fact.

There are several Calvinist posters on the forum . And everyone is free to frequent any forum they want. Personally I like to debate Calvinists and have my views challenged.

What fun is it to debate in a place where everyone agrees with you ?

The truth is Calvinists don’t like debating me since I know the doctrines of grace better than most of them and can argue them better with scripture than they can. I did it for decades and known them well and have them memorized since I defended them on a daily basis online for the past 20 years . I know it’s strengths and its weaknesses.

hope this helps !!!

 

[Dizerner]

To be clear, they were not accusations towards you, though you certainly showed an unpleasant side when you responded calling me a liar and slanderer.

That's like slapping someone and calling them unpleasant for making a loud noise when they yell "Ow!"

Victim blaming - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I did neither. You took offense at something I said about the content of your post about Calvinist because you were calling them out as though those opposed to Calvinism never cross a line, and are never mean.

I did not take offense. I showed I strongly disagreed and even had some righteous indignation.

That is not taking offense, as I held no unforgiveness toward you acting like a jerk.

You were showing partiality. So I gave examples of some non Calvinist remarks to support my claim. It was hypocrisy I was pointing out, not accusing you of anything in particular.

It might surprise you to hear, I have been banned ON THIS VERY FORUM for the entirety of ONE FULL YEAR.

And do you know why I was banned?

I was banned for sticking up for someone the admins unfairly baited and banned.

It seems I may be the only Reformed left on the site. Something has managed to send all the others away. Possibly the way their beliefs are slandered and masticated, and the hate and partiality they meet with on here. And that is just a fact.

I have more right to whine and whimper and run away on this site than any Calvinist does.

They are just acting immaturely, it is not somehow some righteous martyrdom.

All the Calvinists "dish out" more criticism and condemnation than they even receive, and then cry foul and bloody murder when someone disagrees with them.

It's pathetic, honestly.

I'm surprised I'm not banned or censored again and they've let me roam free, to be honest.

So get over yourself and stop blame-shifting.

 

[Dizerner]

Do I need to quote a dozen reformed theologians again to prove my point ?

If I do will you conceded I’m correct with what PSA teaches ?

Wait... do you disagree with my definition, or am I misunderstanding?

Also, non-Reformed theologians teach PSA, stop with the old canard.

 

[civic]

Wait... do you disagree with my definition, or am I misunderstanding?

Also, non-Reformed theologians teach PSA, stop with the old canard.

Arminius was reformed

 

[Arial]

Sorry Arial but it's a universal truth. God shows no partiality.

Stating that something is a universal truth does not make it one. First of all it is something you could never support as universal and as long as there are agnostics and atheists it couldn't possibly be universal as truth. But, and this may shock or amaze you, but it is shown to not be true even in the Bible concerning God when one applies no partiality as a support for free will.

Deut 14:2 For you are a people holy to the Lord your God, and the Lord has chosen you to be a people for His treasured possession, out of all the people who are on the face of the earth.

Romans 9:13 So it is written: "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."

"If you fulfill the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shall love your neighbor as yourself you do well. But if you have respect of persons (which means showing partiality or favoritism) you commit sin and are convinced of the law as transgressors!"
James 2:8.9

Jesus stated any other human being you come into contract with is your neighbor and the golden rule is love your neighbor as yourself. So do you still think God shows partiality?

Are those instructions to God or are they instructions to believers. And what exactly was James talking about? (Again with isolated from any context in order to produce a "proof text".) James 2:1-7 My brothers, show no partiality as you hold the faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory. For if a man wearing a gold ring and finde clothing comes into your assembly, and a poor man in shabby clothing also comes in, and if you pay attention to the one who wears the fine clothing and say, "You sit here in a good place," while you say to the poor an, "You stand over there," or "Sit down at my feet," have you not then made distinctions among yourselves and become judges with evil thoughts: Listen, my beloved brothers, has not God chosen those who are poor in the world to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom, which He has promised to those who love Him? But you have dishonoured the poor man. Are not the rich the ones who oppress you, and the ones who drag you into court? Are they not the ones who blaspheme the honorable name by which you were called?

That is the kind of partiality God does not show and we are not to either.

I will get to the rest of your post later. I want more coffee.

 

[civic]

@Arial im on my 2nd espresso

 

[civic]

That's like slapping someone and calling them unpleasant for making a loud noise when they yell "Ow!"

Victim blaming - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I did not take offense. I showed I strongly disagreed and even had some righteous indignation.

That is not taking offense, as I held no unforgiveness toward you acting like a jerk.



It might surprise you to hear, I have been banned ON THIS VERY FORUM for the entirety of ONE FULL YEAR.

And do you know why I was banned?

I was banned for sticking up for someone the admins unfairly baited and banned.



I have more right to whine and whimper and run away on this site than any Calvinist does.

They are just acting immaturely, it is not somehow some righteous martyrdom.

All the Calvinists "dish out" more criticism and condemnation than they even receive, and then cry foul and bloody murder when someone disagrees with them.

It's pathetic, honestly.

I'm surprised I'm not banned or censored again and they've let me roam free, to be honest.

So get over yourself and stop blame-shifting.

We learn by our mistakes and we admitted you should not be banned . And you are right you would have been banned again if we did things the way we did before . But when I mentioned religious freedoms I meant it. You can disagree with me until you are blue in the face as long as it does but get personal .

You will notice we leave posts up and don’t edit them so everyone can read what us being said and by whom. We don’t delete posts .

Someone came here the other day and lied about me and I told the admin leave it up so everyone can read it and decide for themselves. We have nothing to hide here and we will not rule here with the rod of iron . This forum is for the members to enjoy . We should all act like adults and treat others with respect even when we disagree doctrinally.

hope this helps !!!

 

[Arial]

Haven't you dodged the whole point here. You were saying basically all God's attributes are on the same level. I've just demonstrated he's slow to anger THUS MEANING his wrath is kept in check by his gracious, kind, nature of LOVE. Your words were none of his attributes play second fiddle or are modified in the slightest. You might consider they would have to be or there would be no such thing as a slow to anger.

Saying that God reserves His anger for sometime in the future does not mean that His anger is playing second fiddle to other attributes. My gosh!

It means one who has the capacity or ability to do what he wants if he so chose to. And quite frankly Arial you and all others Calvinists don't get to own this word. How others consider God exercises his sovereignty can be just as valid or more valid then what you think about it.

And God IS sovereign. As we are speaking of God, that means all the time over all things. You simply don't make a distinction between being sovereign and governing---though you expect others to when you declare the ways in which He governs. And you also ask that others consider that your way is just as valid even more valid than their way, but you don't do the same for them. There is not even any attempt to discuss their way that differs from yours. You simply tell them they are wrong. What I find in Calvinist generally, is that when they disagree with interpretations of "proof texts" that are given against Calvinism, they actually address those texts, putting them into their proper context. IOW showing their work. This is for the most part ignored utterly and never addressed. The work that is put into most rebuttals and certainly mine, is completely shoved aside. Which btw is rude, and counter productive.


And lets not forget that when someone comes against Calvinism, before they do so they misstate and misrepresent the teachings of Calvinism in order to come against it. When the Calvinist does the work of showing where the misrepresentation is and why it is a misrepresentation, and how, that too is ignored in the entire rest of the exchanges.

Well you do know right that is EXACTLY how Non Calvinists think about you? Surely you didn't consider that others aren't absolutely shocked at how ,many Calvinists believe everything is ordained?

An irrelevant statement presented as a---something. The question isn't who thinks what about someone. It is which view of God more fits the one we see in Scripture. And here I come up against one of the ways in which a Reformed (for I am not a Calvinist at all) presents an argument, gives scenarios found in the Bible and asks the other party

to explain them considering their position that love trumps justice in God all the time, and they are never addressed, never confronted. (I asked @civic to explain his position against what we see God doing in the OT in ordering the death and destruction of entire nations and peoples at the hands of Israel, sending Christ to the cross, killing one of Israel on the spot for touching what was holy, killing on the spot those who offered strange fire. Things like that. The only one he touched was Jesus going to the cross and that was only so he could repeat his penal substitution opinion.

I'm content with believing that perhaps some consider my responses to you are valid. I'm good with that.

Well as long as someone likes you right? Though I would point out that they agree with you and "validate" their own positions in the same way.

 

[civic]

And lets not forget that when someone comes against Calvinism, before they do so they misstate and misrepresent the teachings of Calvinism in order to come against it. When the Calvinist does the work of showing where the misrepresentation is and why it is a misrepresentation, and how, that too is ignored in the entire rest of the exchanges.

And lets not forget that when someone comes against non reformed believers, before they do so they misstate and misrepresent their teachings in order to come against it. When the non calvinist does the work of showing where their misrepresentation is and why its a misrepresentation, and how, that too is ignored in the entire rest of the exchanges.

hope this helps !!!

 

[Arial]

That's like slapping someone and calling them unpleasant for making a loud noise when they yell "Ow!"

Huh?

I did not take offense. I showed I strongly disagreed and even had some righteous indignation.

That is not taking offense, as I held no unforgiveness toward you acting like a jerk.

The hostility with which you responded shows you were offended. God help us see ourselves with honesty!

And look at this Dizerner. You now say calling me a slanderer and a liar is righteous indignation and then call me a jerk! Because I pointed out the existence of hypocrisy! Do you not see the irony?!

It might surprise you to hear, I have been banned ON THIS VERY FORUM for the entirety of ONE FULL YEAR.

And do you know why I was banned?

I was banned for sticking up for someone the admins unfairly baited and banned.

How are you posting if you are banned?

I have more right to whine and whimper and run away on this site than any Calvinist does.

They are just acting immaturely, it is not somehow some righteous martyrdom.

All the Calvinists "dish out" more criticism and condemnation than they even receive, and then cry foul and bloody murder when someone disagrees with them.

It's pathetic, honestly.

I'm surprised I'm not banned or censored again and they've let me roam free, to be honest.

So get over yourself and stop blame-shifting.

The only one I see whining is you. Maybe missed all other whiners.
James 1:19-26


19 gKnow this, my beloved brothers: let every person hbe quick to hear, islow to speak, jslow to anger; 20 for the anger of man does not produce the righteousness of God. 21 Therefore kput away all filthiness and rampant wickedness and receive with lmeekness the implanted word, mwhich is able to save your souls.

22 But be ndoers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves. 23 For if anyone is a hearer of the word and not a doer, he is like a man who looks intently at his natural face in a mirror. 24 For he looks at himself and goes away and at once forgets what he was like. 25 But the one who looks into the perfect law, othe law of liberty, and perseveres, being no hearer who forgets but a doer who acts, phe will be blessed in his doing.

26 If anyone thinks he is religious qand does not bridle his tongue but deceives his heart, this person’s rreligion is worthless.

 

[civic]

Huh?

The hostility with which you responded shows you were offended. God help us see ourselves with honesty!

And look at this Dizerner. You now say calling me a slanderer and a liar is righteous indignation and then call me a jerk! Because I pointed out the existence of hypocrisy! Do you not see the irony?!

How are you posting if you are banned?

The only one I see whining is you. Maybe missed all other whiners.
James 1:19-26


19 gKnow this, my beloved brothers: let every person hbe quick to hear, islow to speak, jslow to anger; 20 for the anger of man does not produce the righteousness of God. 21 Therefore kput away all filthiness and rampant wickedness and receive with lmeekness the implanted word, mwhich is able to save your souls.

22 But be ndoers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves. 23 For if anyone is a hearer of the word and not a doer, he is like a man who looks intently at his natural face in a mirror. 24 For he looks at himself and goes away and at once forgets what he was like. 25 But the one who looks into the perfect law, othe law of liberty, and perseveres, being no hearer who forgets but a doer who acts, phe will be blessed in his doing.

26 If anyone thinks he is religious qand does not bridle his tongue but deceives his heart, this person’s rreligion is worthless.

We are friends outside of this forum and I emailed him telling him we made a mistake and he is welcome back here . I let the administrator know I was doing that so that is how he was banned and came back . There are other active members on our new forum that were banned on the old one as well. We made amends. And we have several things we disagree on but that doesn’t interfere with our relationship on the forum or outside of the forum. There are many posters on this forum and others that I talk with outside of the forums.

We all make mistakes and learn from them .

hope this helps !!!