Calvinism is Gospel !

[GWH]

I'm going to address you directly and wish I could do it face-to-face, man to man.
The OT commands the death of anybody that commits homosexuality, which is symbolically represented by that modern rainbow flag.
I haven't ever seen a TULIP flag in any Reformed church before.
I don't know the kind of Calvinist that wanders the halls here in this forum. But I do know the type of Calvinist that died on the battlefield of the Revolutionary War; 2/3rds of the soldiers were Calvinist.

I'm going to refrain from saying anything else to you because you aren't a true believer and are nothing more than unsaved trash. What you called mentally ill or borderline heresy and then insinuated was no different than Calvinism shows how man-centered you are. G-d commands the death of homosexuals, for example, but man always knows better and has a better solution, and that is, man knows best. Like the Jews under the oppression and suppression of Rome, you should be thankful to be under a Calvinist-framed government in America.
I'd love to confront you face to face, man to man, mouth, so you could say that to my face.
But because I can't, I'll just ignore you.

I'm going to address you directly and wish I could do it face-to-face, man to man.
The OT commands the death of anybody that commits homosexuality, which is symbolically represented by that modern rainbow flag.
I haven't ever seen a TULIP flag in any Reformed church before.
I don't know the kind of Calvinist that wanders the halls here in this forum. But I do know the type of Calvinist that died on the battlefield of the Revolutionary War; 2/3rds of the soldiers were Calvinist.

I'm going to refrain from saying anything else to you because you aren't a true believer and are nothing more than unsaved trash. What you called mentally ill or borderline heresy and then insinuated was no different than Calvinism shows how man-centered you are. G-d commands the death of homosexuals, for example, but man always knows better and has a better solution, and that is, man knows best. Like the Jews under the oppression and suppression of Rome, you should be thankful to be under a Calvinist-framed government in America.
I'd love to confront you face to face, man to man, mouth, so you could say that to my face.
But because I can't, I'll just ignore you.

Not sure what set off that rant, so please explain and I will apologize, because I try to discuss doctrines without being pejorative.
I have no quarrel with Calvinists, but only with the TULIP heresy that some of them believe. Growing up as a Baptist, I was a P/OSAS tulipist until I learned Scripture taught the possibility of apostasy.

I have believed and loved God and Jesus all of my life. Although a saint, I remain a sinner and fallible, willing to learn any truth anyone has to share.

Please quote what you think I called "borderline heresy", just so we can be sure what the issue/disagreement is.

All sinners including both homosexuals and heterosexual fornicators deserve death,
but God's better solution is for them to repent/be cured and be saved from their sin/addictions.

Just pretend we are speaking face to face, desiring to speak the truth in love as God loves.

Over...

 

[pinebeach]

People drawn to this system have profound psychological issues and they use the system to deal with them rather than actually

turning to God for healing, that is what I see when I read so many of their posts,

accusing people of having a creepy smile (yes that happened) attacking a person's ethnicity (yes that happened) calling people liars incessantly and so much more.....and now saying the unsaved are trash... well that is imho regarding who Calvinists are, they need to get help because they hate people and make God in their image.

Some of course do have those psych issues but so do a good number of professing 'Christians'. Religion is not good for anyone which is why the NT speaks of a living faith.

Again, and this is no secret, I am not Calvinist, but neither do I slide nicely into the Arminian slot. I did have that converstion once way back and it was interesting because the other person listened and contributed and didn't go berserker and condemn me to hell or some other foreign land.

I do think that Calvinism appeals to some more than others but since I see three, count 'em three, ways of looking at time in the Bible, both linear to appeal to people, but yet another that encompasses our understanding of time, past, present, future, in which dwells the Spirit we know as God, it seems reasonable to me to focus on the better understanding which does not cause debates and arguements yet still leaves questions....since we are limited by what God has revealed, but, more to some than to others.

I mean, if a person is going to continue to snark, bully and say things void of intelligence, such as: Calvinism is the Gospel for every age, causing every good Israelite to look in surprise and Moses to look for a 2nd golden calf, there is no discussion. It's like someone sitting down at the piano to play a lovely sonata only to have some dullard come along and slam the fallboard down on them while snickering and breaking the hands that were paused to play.

Well you get the picture

 

[Cameron143]

You're psychotic, you're stupid, you've never read the Bible with a desire for truth. Oh yeah, just speaking the truth in love.

 

[IS]

It's revealing to find what is written in the OT regarding witches...can be either male or female. It's mostly 'words', not some hag stirring a cauldron with bat wings and eyes of newt. I won't say more other than they were to be put to death and never mourned over even it was someone you loved. Well enough...curiosity killed the cat after all.

Very much so, and a lot of practices are nothing more than what is called "marketing" today (including subliminal messages). And if really sorcery was investigated and paralleled with drug-induced spirituality or what somebody here like @HeIsHere endorses, there are similarities to pharmaceutical drugs and accompanied cognitive therapy, often in the narratives approved by credible institutions.

But witches are considered good nowadays, and the author of of Harry Potter is a Christian. So a Christian endorses what is dark or evil as actually being a light worker and good. Some churches even had book clubs and some Christian high schools had classes on the series of books holding the author on a podium.

I heard the Salem witch trials tried the witches by tying a stone to them and casting them into the sea. If they drowned they weren't a witch; if they floated to the top, they were a witch. Excuse my dark humor.

Meanwhile, Wiccan chaplains, among others, are being flushed from the military today. The damage control, I speculate, won't succeed, because the opposition will come back into power in a generation. Unfortunately, and it is substantiated by the beliefs of those even in this thread, this nation needs to wander in the desert for at least 40 years. Stiff-necked generations, secular culture is too entwined and twisted in the church culture.

Isn't that right @HeIsHere Look who you side with and what they said you side with. Examine yourself.

G-d bless, @pinebeach
It's like being forced into a public school; only after a private school education can a contrast be made. Some impede learning, and by my observation, this isn't the place because of a few people.
I have moved a lot in life, setting foot probably in over 40 churches across three continents. And this isn't a statement that appeals to the credibility of a degree, but there's a difference, obvious and observable, between church pulpits that only allow PhDs in theology to speak from them and no standard at all.

Here's a historical snapshot; think you might enjoy this:

https://isaiah.school/the-black-robed-regiment-how-calvinist-preachers-forged-the-first-amendments-christian-soul/

My last post here on this board. Moving on,
Soli Deo Gloria!

 

[GWH]

Your argument relies on human philosophy and emotional labels rather than the clear text of Scripture. Calling God an 'unjust Ogre' for exercising His sovereign right to show mercy is the exact objection Paul dismantled 2,000 years ago.

In Romans 9:14, Paul anticipates your exact emotional response: 'Is there unrighteousness with God?' His answer is an absolute 'God forbid.' He states clearly in verse 16: 'So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy.' If God owes salvation to no one, He is not 'unjust' for regenerating only His elect. Justice is hell; salvation is unmerited mercy. [1, 2, 3, 4]

You claim that 'sinners may cooperate/learn.' But 1 Corinthians 2:14 completely shatters this: 'But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God... neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.' An unregenerate sinner cannot 'learn' their need for God or 'cooperate' with the Gospel because they are spiritually dead (Ephesians 2:1). A corpse cannot cooperate with its own resurrection. [1, 2, 3, 4]

You cite Ephesians 2:8-9, but you ignore the context of verses 4–5: 'Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ.' God does not wait for a dead man to 'accept' grace before quickening him. The quickening (regeneration) happens while we are dead. [1, 2, 3]

Faith is not a work, but it is an action performed by a living heart. Because the natural heart is stone (Ezekiel 36:26), God must sovereignly replace it with a heart of flesh before that person can or will believe. Regeneration must precede faith, otherwise you have a spiritually dead man performing a spiritual act. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]

---

No, my belief is based on calmly reading the Bible five times with an open mind seeking to learn the truth about ultimate reality.

Quote me calling God an unjust Ogre for showing mercy, because I know you won't be able to do that. Instead, what I actually said praises God for His mercy.

The astute will see you practicing your gift/curse of proof-texting/omission.

1Cor. 2:14 is addressed to Christians whom Paul wants to learn doctrine beyond the basic Gospel (1Cor. 1:2&18, 3:1-3).

Eph. 2:4-5 confirms the truth of my paraphrase: God initiates/teaches; sinners may cooperate/learn--or not.

Yes, faith is not a work but rather a non-meritorious desire/willing to repent and seek God's grace (John 6:29, Matt. 22:37).

Spiritually dead means estranged from God/ignoring God's Word, not being physically/brain dead.

 

[pinebeach]

But witches are considered good nowadays, and the author of of Harry Potter is a Christian. So a Christian endorses what is dark or evil as actually being a light worker and good. Some churches even had book clubs and some Christian high schools had classes on the series of books holding the author on a podium.

Yes it's all lovely until you have dealt with the real thing.

It's like being forced into a public school; only after a private school education can a contrast be made. Some impede learning, and by my observation, this isn't the place because of a few people.
I have moved a lot in life, setting foot probably in over 40 churches across three continents. And this isn't a statement that appeals to the credibility of a degree, but there's a difference, obvious and observable, between church pulpits that only allow PhDs in theology to speak from them and no standard at all.

I have moved quite a bit too, but stayed on the continent. I've been in leadership in a good number of churches and the inside never paints the picture of what the outside looks like. You could say I have become ... disenchanted? When knowing what you know sometimes makes you think maybe you should know less.

Denominations keep dividing and naming themselves like cells without a nucleus who spread because they can.

My last post here on this board. Moving on,
Soli Deo Gloria!

See you around

 

[GWH]

You're psychotic, you're stupid, you've never read the Bible with a desire for truth. Oh yeah, just speaking the truth in love.

Everyone who has read the Bible with a desire for truth will learn that God loves everyone.
Thus, it is obvious that those who preach tulip must be projecting their own hatred onto God.
Oh yeah/verily. Why would anyone want to kick against the goad of God's Word/Love?

 

[Anchorite]

Your argument relies on human philosophy and emotional labels rather than the clear text of Scripture. Calling God an 'unjust Ogre' for exercising His sovereign right to show mercy is the exact objection Paul dismantled 2,000 years ago.

In Romans 9:14, Paul anticipates your exact emotional response: 'Is there unrighteousness with God?' His answer is an absolute 'God forbid.' He states clearly in verse 16: 'So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy.' If God owes salvation to no one, He is not 'unjust' for regenerating only His elect. Justice is hell; salvation is unmerited mercy. [1, 2, 3, 4]

You claim that 'sinners may cooperate/learn.' But 1 Corinthians 2:14 completely shatters this: 'But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God... neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.' An unregenerate sinner cannot 'learn' their need for God or 'cooperate' with the Gospel because they are spiritually dead (Ephesians 2:1). A corpse cannot cooperate with its own resurrection. [1, 2, 3, 4]

You cite Ephesians 2:8-9, but you ignore the context of verses 4–5: 'Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ.' God does not wait for a dead man to 'accept' grace before quickening him. The quickening (regeneration) happens while we are dead. [1, 2, 3]

Faith is not a work, but it is an action performed by a living heart. Because the natural heart is stone (Ezekiel 36:26), God must sovereignly replace it with a heart of flesh before that person can or will believe. Regeneration must precede faith, otherwise you have a spiritually dead man performing a spiritual act. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]

---

You are merely quoting AI in your reply.

AI is sycophantic — it replies to your prompts with what it thinks you want to hear,

All gospel preaching in the Bible was “repent and believe in Jesus”, never “hope that God will force regeneration and repentance on you, so you can believe in Jesus”.

If unsaved individuals cannot by their free will repent or believe, why is that the constant command?


Mark 1:15

And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.


Acts 16

30 And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved?

31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.

32 And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house.

33 And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway.

 

[brightfame52]

No, my belief is based on calmly reading the Bible five times with an open mind seeking to learn the truth about ultimate reality.

Quote me calling God an unjust Ogre for showing mercy, because I know you won't be able to do that. Instead, what I actually said praises God for His mercy.

The astute will see you practicing your gift/curse of proof-texting/omission.

1Cor. 2:14 is addressed to Christians whom Paul wants to learn doctrine beyond the basic Gospel (1Cor. 1:2&18, 3:1-3).

Eph. 2:4-5 confirms the truth of my paraphrase: God initiates/teaches; sinners may cooperate/learn--or not.

Yes, faith is not a work but rather a non-meritorious desire/willing to repent and seek God's grace (John 6:29, Matt. 22:37).

Spiritually dead means estranged from God/ignoring God's Word, not being physically/brain dead.

You stated: "To put divine regeneration before human faith makes God into an unjust Ogre for not regenerating everyone." I am quoting your exact words. You explicitly called the Sovereign God of unconditional election an "unjust Ogre" if He chooses to regenerate some and not others. You cannot distance yourself from your own written statement.

Your handling of 1 Corinthians 2:14 completely rewrites the text. Paul does not say the "infant Christian" cannot receive the things of the Spirit; he says the "natural man" (psychikos) cannot. Jude 1:19 explicitly defines the natural man as someone "having not the Spirit." A person without the Spirit is an unregenerate unbeliever, not a Christian struggling with deep doctrine. The text is clear: the unregenerate man cannot know spiritual things because he lacks the spiritual faculty to discern them.

Your definition of spiritual death as merely being "estranged" or "ignoring God's Word" is an attempt to preserve human ability where Scripture denies it. Ephesians 2:1 uses the Greek word nekros (dead)—the exact same word used for a physical corpse. While the analogy describes spiritual incapacity rather than physical biology, the functional reality is identical: a dead entity cannot initiate its own restoration. If the sinner is merely "ignoring" God but still possesses a heart capable of choosing Him, then the New Covenant promise in Ezekiel 36:26 is entirely redundant. God would not need to sovereignly "take away the stony heart" and "give a heart of flesh" if the stony heart was already capable of cooperating.

You claim faith is a "non-meritorious desire to repent." But Romans 3:11 declares: "there is none that seeketh after God." If no unregenerate person seeks God, then any desire to repent and seek Him cannot originate in the natural man. It must be caused by a prior work of the Holy Spirit. By making regeneration dependent on a human decision, you make man the ultimate author of his own salvation. Scripture reverses this: God gives the new heart first, and that living heart automatically responds in faith.

 

[pinebeach]

rinse and repeat ad infinitum

 

[brightfame52]

You are merely quoting AI in your reply.

AI is sycophantic — it replies to your prompts with what it thinks you want to hear,

All gospel preaching in the Bible was “repent and believe in Jesus”, never “hope that God will force regeneration and repentance on you, so you can believe in Jesus”.

If unsaved individuals cannot by their free will repent or believe, why is that the constant command?


Mark 1:15

And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.


Acts 16

30 And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved?

31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.

32 And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house.

33 And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway.

Deflecting to comments about AI does not excuse you from answering the text of Scripture. You must deal with the explicit grammar of 1 Corinthians 2:14 and Ephesians 2:1, which you have failed to do.

Your entire argument rests on a foundational logical fallacy: you are confusing God's command with man's moral ability. You ask why God would command sinners to repent and believe if they do not have the free will to do so. By this exact logic, because God commands "Be ye holy; for I am holy" (1 Peter 1:16), you must believe that unregenerate sinners have the free-will ability to be perfectly holy. God's commands do not measure human ability; they measure human duty and expose human bankruptcy. The law commands absolute perfection, yet no man can keep it. The gospel commands repentance and faith, yet no spiritually dead sinner can produce them on their own.

You quote Mark 1:15 and Acts 16:31 to show that faith and repentance are commanded. No one denies they are commanded. What you fail to see is that the very things God commands, He must sovereignly grant as a gift, because man is dead in sin. Scripture explicitly calls repentance a sovereign gift from God. Acts 11:18 declares: "Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life." In 2 Timothy 2:25, Paul states that we must instruct opponents because "God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth." If repentance belongs to human free will, Paul would have said to wait for them to choose it. Instead, he says to wait for God to give it.

Furthermore, you caricature the historic Christian faith by claiming we believe God "forces" regeneration on people. God does not force an unwilling person to believe. Regeneration is a spiritual resurrection. When Jesus called out to a dead Lazarus in John 11, He did not "force" a corpse to walk. He gave life to a dead body, and that living body naturally and willingly walked out of the tomb. Under the New Covenant (Ezekiel 36:26-27), God takes away the rebellious heart of stone and gives a heart of flesh, causing His people to walk in His statutes. God doesn't coerce the human will; He sovereignly changes it. The elect believe willingly because God makes them alive.

 

[Roger316]

I believe the purpose of earthly existence is for souls to learn their need for God's salvation
from mortality and immorality and to eternal joyful fellowship with God in heaven.

So, yes, I believe everyone can learn/believe this truth.
God initiates/teaches; sinners may cooperate/learn--or not.

To put divine regeneration before human faith makes God into an unjust Ogre for not regenerating everyone.
And to view saving faith as work/meritorious is unScriptural. It is merely accepting God's grace per Eph. 2:8-9.

I disagree with you conclusion for the reason I stated earlier. God would be an Ogre if he was one of us, forcing some people to do evil while causing others to do good. That would be an Ogre.

Suppose I tell a story about a man who realized the bank had accidentally given him a thousand dollars. He gambled the money and won $2,000. He spent the money on drugs, wine and women and accidently drove his car off a cliff.

Now, think about what I just did. I told a story about an evil man. Does my story make me an evil man? Does telling a story about an evil man make ME an evil man?

Predestination does not render God evil because God’s creative acts operate according to a narrative logic rather than a mechanical cause‑and‑effect sequence. God does not merely dictate outcomes; He authors a story in which every life is meaningful precisely because every life reveals something about His character. If God creates a man who will commit murder, He also creates the victim, the circumstances, the trial, the verdict, and the final judgment. None of this is arbitrary. The murderer’s life reveals God’s justice; the victim’s life reveals God’s care for the oppressed; the entire narrative reveals God’s moral consistency. God is not evil for creating people who will be punished, because the punishment is not a divine whim—it is the fitting conclusion of a life that plays a role in the story God is telling. And for those who believe in prevenient grace, it is important to see that “choosing otherwise” is not a real alternative. The alternative to the story God writes is not libertarian freedom; it is non‑existence. A creature’s freedom is always freedom within the story God authors, never freedom to author a different story. Therefore, predestination does not make God evil; it makes Him the consistent, truthful Author of a moral universe.

 

[Anchorite]

You quote Mark 1:15 and Acts 16:31 to show that faith and repentance are commanded. No one denies they are commanded. What you fail to see is that the very things God commands, He must sovereignly grant as a gift, because man is dead in sin. Scripture explicitly calls repentance a sovereign gift from God. Acts 11:18 declares: "Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life." In 2 Timothy 2:25, Paul states that we must instruct opponents because "God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth." If repentance belongs to human free will, Paul would have said to wait for them to choose it. Instead, he says to wait for God to give it.

Some day, you may realize how absurd and contradictory this Calvinist theory is.

Paul never said to wait for God to give repentance to people.

Calvinists assert that when God commands something, nobody can obey it, and only happens if God grants that obedience to a person. How does God decide whether or not to grant it? Calvinists have no explanation, and they just fall back on the “sovereignty” of God, like it’s none of our business.

In Calvinist thinking, an unsaved person does not need to seek God or be evangelized, because nothing man does can cause God to grant favor to him.

But God declares that if we seek Him, we will find Him.


Jeremiah 29:13

And ye shall seek me, and find me, when ye shall search for me with all your heart.



Thus, if Calvinism was true, at judgment day, people can claim they did not obey God’s commands because they were unable. It would not be fair to punish someone for not doing something they were unable to do.

This irreverent Calvinist teaching makes a mockery of God’s justice.

 

[GWH]

You stated: "To put divine regeneration before human faith makes God into an unjust Ogre for not regenerating everyone." I am quoting your exact words. You explicitly called the Sovereign God of unconditional election an "unjust Ogre" if He chooses to regenerate some and not others. You cannot distance yourself from your own written statement.

Your handling of 1 Corinthians 2:14 completely rewrites the text. Paul does not say the "infant Christian" cannot receive the things of the Spirit; he says the "natural man" (psychikos) cannot. Jude 1:19 explicitly defines the natural man as someone "having not the Spirit." A person without the Spirit is an unregenerate unbeliever, not a Christian struggling with deep doctrine. The text is clear: the unregenerate man cannot know spiritual things because he lacks the spiritual faculty to discern them.

Your definition of spiritual death as merely being "estranged" or "ignoring God's Word" is an attempt to preserve human ability where Scripture denies it. Ephesians 2:1 uses the Greek word nekros (dead)—the exact same word used for a physical corpse. While the analogy describes spiritual incapacity rather than physical biology, the functional reality is identical: a dead entity cannot initiate its own restoration. If the sinner is merely "ignoring" God but still possesses a heart capable of choosing Him, then the New Covenant promise in Ezekiel 36:26 is entirely redundant. God would not need to sovereignly "take away the stony heart" and "give a heart of flesh" if the stony heart was already capable of cooperating.

You claim faith is a "non-meritorious desire to repent." But Romans 3:11 declares: "there is none that seeketh after God." If no unregenerate person seeks God, then any desire to repent and seek Him cannot originate in the natural man. It must be caused by a prior work of the Holy Spirit. By making regeneration dependent on a human decision, you make man the ultimate author of his own salvation. Scripture reverses this: God gives the new heart first, and that living heart automatically responds in faith.

My full quote indicates that I believe God does not show favoritism, which you would also believe if you would not omit the Scriptures I have cited ad nauseum that teach that truth, but apparently you ignore God's Word because of your cursed gift.

Objective/open-minded truthseekers can decide who correctly interpreted 1Cor. 2:14 in context with the verses your cursed gift omitted: 1Cor. 1:2&18, 3:1-3. I am sure they will see that Paul is speaking of/to carnal Christians, because even though we have the Spirit we do not always remain filled with the Spirit.

Yes, Jude 19 refers to pseudo-Christians, who do not have the Holy Spirit.

Yes, I view Scripture as teaching human responsibility for sin, whereas you blame God for everything, which is heretical, but maybe God will let you into heaven anyway if He is responsible for it.

In Ezek. 36:26 the stony heart seems to be the calloused heart in Matt. 13:14-15.

I claim the Bible teaches faith is MFW, the ability to repent or not. Saving faith is the choice to repent.

Rom. 3:11 has as context the entire rest of Romans teaching that sinners should seek salvation, which is NOT meritorious!
Read chapter 4 for starters.

Over...

 

[GWH]

I disagree with you conclusion for the reason I stated earlier. God would be an Ogre if he was one of us, forcing some people to do evil while causing others to do good. That would be an Ogre.

Suppose I tell a story about a man who realized the bank had accidentally given him a thousand dollars. He gambled the money and won $2,000. He spent the money on drugs, wine and women and accidently drove his car off a cliff.

Now, think about what I just did. I told a story about an evil man. Does my story make me an evil man? Does telling a story about an evil man make ME an evil man?

Predestination does not render God evil because God’s creative acts operate according to a narrative logic rather than a mechanical cause‑and‑effect sequence. God does not merely dictate outcomes; He authors a story in which every life is meaningful precisely because every life reveals something about His character. If God creates a man who will commit murder, He also creates the victim, the circumstances, the trial, the verdict, and the final judgment. None of this is arbitrary. The murderer’s life reveals God’s justice; the victim’s life reveals God’s care for the oppressed; the entire narrative reveals God’s moral consistency. God is not evil for creating people who will be punished, because the punishment is not a divine whim—it is the fitting conclusion of a life that plays a role in the story God is telling. And for those who believe in prevenient grace, it is important to see that “choosing otherwise” is not a real alternative. The alternative to the story God writes is not libertarian freedom; it is non‑existence. A creature’s freedom is always freedom within the story God authors, never freedom to author a different story. Therefore, predestination does not make God evil; it makes Him the consistent, truthful Author of a moral universe.

God would be an Ogre if He showed favoritism by forcing only some sinners to be regenerated, but Scripture says He is just.

TULIP does indeed render God hateful in an alternate immoral universe.

Robots have no alternatives--although AI imitates MFW.

 

[Roger316]

God would be an Ogre if He showed favoritism by forcing only some sinners to be regenerated, but Scripture says He is just.

Of course. But according to the Bible, God is the creator of the universe, and it has a narrative structure. The act of creation is not forcing anything or anyone.

TULIP does indeed render God hateful in an alternate immoral universe.

Robots have no alternatives--although AI imitates MFW.

But do you not see that you are assuming that human beings are not creatures and that they are morally neutral?

 

[brightfame52]

Some day, you may realize how absurd and contradictory this Calvinist theory is.

Paul never said to wait for God to give repentance to people.

Calvinists assert that when God commands something, nobody can obey it, and only happens if God grants that obedience to a person. How does God decide whether or not to grant it? Calvinists have no explanation, and they just fall back on the “sovereignty” of God, like it’s none of our business.

In Calvinist thinking, an unsaved person does not need to seek God or be evangelized, because nothing man does can cause God to grant favor to him.

But God declares that if we seek Him, we will find Him.


Jeremiah 29:13

And ye shall seek me, and find me, when ye shall search for me with all your heart.



Thus, if Calvinism was true, at judgment day, people can claim they did not obey God’s commands because they were unable. It would not be fair to punish someone for not doing something they were unable to do.

This irreverent Calvinist teaching makes a mockery of God’s justice.

To claim that Paul never said to wait for God to give repentance is to flatly deny the text of 2 Timothy 2:25. Paul explicitly tells Timothy to instruct opponents in meekness in the hope that 'God peradventure will give them repentance.' The word 'peradventure' means 'perhaps' or 'if it pleases God.' Timothy is literally instructed to preach and wait to see if God sovereignly grants the gift of repentance. Your argument is not with Calvinism; it is with Paul's direct vocabulary.

You object to the idea that God's sovereign choice in election is 'none of our business.' Yet that is exactly how Scripture treats it. When Paul anticipates your exact objection regarding how God decides to show mercy or harden a heart, his response in Romans 9:20 is a direct rebuke to human pride: 'Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?' Deuteronomy 29:29 confirms that 'The secret things belong unto the Lord our God.' God does not ask permission from human philosophy, nor does He owe His creatures an explanation for His sovereign decrees.

Your claim that Calvinism eliminates the need for evangelism is a massive caricature. We evangelize because God has ordained the preaching of the Gospel as the exact instrument through which He regenerates His elect. In Acts 18:9-10, God told Paul to keep preaching boldly in Corinth, giving this explicit reason: 'for I have much people in this city.' God did not tell Paul to stop evangelizing because election was true; He told Paul to keep evangelizing because election guaranteed that his preaching would successfully gather Christ's sheep.

You cite Jeremiah 29:13 to prove that man must initiate the seeking. No one denies that if a person seeks God with all their heart, they will find Him. The problem you must answer is how a spiritually dead sinner gets the desire to seek God in the first place. Romans 3:11 explicitly declares: 'there is none that seeketh after God.' If the natural man never seeks God, then the only reason a sinner searches for God with all their heart is because God has already performed a sovereign work of regeneration to replace their heart of stone. God must seek the sinner before the sinner can seek God.

Finally, your argument about 'fairness' at the judgment day reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of human guilt. You confuse physical inability with moral inability. A sinner's inability to obey God is not a physical handicap; it is a deep, malicious moral hatred of God. Romans 8:7 states that the carnal mind is 'enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.' The sinner cannot obey because the sinner will not obey. A criminal who loves his crime so much that he is morally incapable of stopping is not excused from the law; his total moral inability is the very proof of his absolute guilt. God's justice is magnified, not mocked, when He punishes those who willingly choose to remain dead in their rebellion.

---

 

[brightfame52]

My full quote indicates that I believe God does not show favoritism, which you would also believe if you would not omit the Scriptures I have cited ad nauseum that teach that truth, but apparently you ignore God's Word because of your cursed gift.

Objective/open-minded truthseekers can decide who correctly interpreted 1Cor. 2:14 in context with the verses your cursed gift omitted: 1Cor. 1:2&18, 3:1-3. I am sure they will see that Paul is speaking of/to carnal Christians, because even though we have the Spirit we do not always remain filled with the Spirit.

Yes, Jude 19 refers to pseudo-Christians, who do not have the Holy Spirit.

Yes, I view Scripture as teaching human responsibility for sin, whereas you blame God for everything, which is heretical, but maybe God will let you into heaven anyway if He is responsible for it.

In Ezek. 36:26 the stony heart seems to be the calloused heart in Matt. 13:14-15.

I claim the Bible teaches faith is MFW, the ability to repent or not. Saving faith is the choice to repent.

Rom. 3:11 has as context the entire rest of Romans teaching that sinners should seek salvation, which is NOT meritorious!
Read chapter 4 for starters.

Accusing me of having a "cursed gift" does not change the plain definitions of the words Paul used. You have completely contradicted your own argument regarding 1 Corinthians 2:14. You claim that 1 Corinthians 2:14 is speaking about carnal Christians. Yet, Paul explicitly states that the person who cannot receive the things of the Spirit is the 'natural man' (Greek: psychikos). When I pointed out that Jude 19 uses the exact same Greek word (psychikos) and explicitly defines it as those 'having not the Spirit,' you agreed that Jude 19 refers to unsaved people. You cannot have it both ways. If the 'natural man' (psychikos) lacks the Spirit in Jude, he lacks the Spirit in 1 Corinthians. A person without the Holy Spirit is an unregenerate unbeliever, not a carnal Christian.

Your claim that unconditional election makes God guilty of favoritism reveals a severe misunderstanding of biblical partiality. Scripturally, favoritism or partiality means treating someone better based on their external status, wealth, or human worth (James 2:1-4). Unconditional election is the absolute destruction of favoritism, because God chooses people completely independent of their actions, character, or choices (Romans 9:11). If God looked down the corridors of time and elected people because He foresaw that they would make the right choice to repent, then God would be showing favoritism based on human performance. Election is based entirely on the good pleasure of His sovereign will, not human distinctions.

You attempt to rewrite Ezekiel 36:26 by turning a sovereign promise into a human work. You point to the calloused hearts of Matthew 13, but you ignore who does the surgery in Ezekiel. The text does not command the dead sinner to soften his own heart or cooperate with the operation. God states unilaterally: 'A new heart also will I give you... and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh.' The sinner is entirely passive in regeneration. God does not wait for a stone to turn itself into flesh; He sovereignly replaces it.

Your suggestion to read Romans 4 to prove that man initiates salvation by seeking completely backfires. Romans 4 is the definitive proof of monergistic justification. Romans 4:4-5 explicitly declares: 'Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.' God does not justify the 'good seeker' who generated enough free will to repent. God justifies the ungodly. Faith is the gift that allows the ungodly to lay hold of Christ, and that faith is only possible because God first took away the heart of stone.

---

 

[Anchorite]

God's justice is magnified, not mocked, when He punishes those who willingly choose to remain dead in their rebellion.

---

But Calvinism teaches that people do not choose to remain dead, they have no choice. They remain dead unless God arbitrarily decides to regenerate them.

So, no matter how you squirm and twist, or run to AI to agree with you, Calvinism necessarily blames God for why a sinner never repents.

Again, if Calvinism is correct, an unsaved sinner can face judgment with the assertion that he did not repent and trust Jesus because God did not put repentance into him.

Thus, Calvinism makes a mockery of God’s justice.

True Christianity teaches that people have free will — and are personally accountable for rejecting the gospel or accepting it.


Joshua 24:15

And if it seem evil unto you to serve the Lord, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.

 

[Bible_Locket]

"Sinners by God's will". What a twisted concept of God you have. You really believe that God would create beings in His own image for the sole purpose of sending them to hell? What are you, a Gnostic?

No,I read the Bible and believe what God said.
Put the picture together that scripture narrates.