Calvinism is Gospel !

[-Lutheran]

This made me laugh.
View attachment 293535

From a robotic Ai like a persecuted Calvinist for orthodoxy:

John Newton (1725–1807) was an 18th-century English Anglican clergyman and a committed Calvinist. His theology—emphasizing human depravity, divine sovereignty, and unmerited grace—heavily influenced his famous hymns published in the 1779 collection [Olney Hymns] (co-written with William Cowper).

The language and progression of the hymn heavily reflect Newton’s Reformed or Calvinist theology regarding human sinfulness and sovereign grace:
Total Depravity ("Saved a wretch like me"): The word "wretch" highlights the helpless, morally bankrupt state of humanity, asserting that people are entirely unable to save themselves apart from divine intervention.
Unconditional & Effectual Grace ("Was blind, but now I see"): Lines like "I once was lost, but now am found" and "t'was grace that taught my heart to fear" emphasize monergism—the belief that God actively seeks out and regenerates a passive, spiritually blind sinner rather than waiting for man's independent choice.
Perseverance of the Saints ("Grace will lead me home"): Verses detailing how God has brought the speaker "safe thus far" underscore the absolute assurance that God's sovereign preservation will sustain believers through life and into eternity.


1 Amazing grace (how sweet the sound)
that saved a wretch like me!
I once was lost, but now am found,
was blind, but now I see.
2 'Twas grace that taught my heart to fear,
and grace my fears relieved;
how precious did that grace appear
the hour I first believed!
3 Through many dangers, toils and snares
I have already come:
'tis grace has brought me safe thus far,
and grace will lead me home.
4 The Lord has promised good to me,
his word my hope secures;
he will my shield and portion be
as long as life endures.
5 Yes, when this flesh and heart shall fail,
and mortal life shall cease:
I shall possess, within the veil,
a life of joy and peace.
6 The earth shall soon dissolve like snow,
the sun forbear to shine;
but God, who called me here below,
will be forever mine.

 

[GWH]

yes I know. You copy pasted something I posted some months back and stuck it on your copy past website and I told you not to do that because you had not given credit for where it was from....it wasn't mine to begin with so you took it down. your site is like a who's who on the internet because you scowl the web looking for things to add which is why your site is a place where people go to buy things cheap.

ps: I think it is against the TOS to post links, whether clickable or not. you can post that on your profile.




..................................................................................... View attachment 293549

Well, thanks for whatever you contributed to my learning of truth, and I am willing for folks to use what I share however they want.
I just realized that AI may be accessing my website for help with its answers. I thought it sometimes seemed familiar!

 

[pinebeach]

Well, thanks for whatever you contributed to my learning of truth, and I am willing for folks to use what I share however they want.
I just realized that AI may be accessing my website for help with its answers. I thought it sometimes seemed familiar!

You were not sharing. You were plagerizing....you said you removed what you had copied from me, something that was not mine to begin with.

Things may seem familiar to you because you take what is not yours when it catches your eye and slap it on your (cough cough) site.

Here. You can add this to the illustrated page if you have one. If not, this would be a nice start for you.


.....................................................................................

 

[Anchorite]

From a robotic Ai like a persecuted Calvinist for orthodoxy:

John Newton (1725–1807) was an 18th-century English Anglican clergyman and a committed Calvinist. His theology—emphasizing human depravity, divine sovereignty, and unmerited grace—heavily influenced his famous hymns published in the 1779 collection [Olney Hymns] (co-written with William Cowper).

The language and progression of the hymn heavily reflect Newton’s Reformed or Calvinist theology regarding human sinfulness and sovereign grace:
Total Depravity ("Saved a wretch like me"): The word "wretch" highlights the helpless, morally bankrupt state of humanity, asserting that people are entirely unable to save themselves apart from divine intervention.
Unconditional & Effectual Grace ("Was blind, but now I see"): Lines like "I once was lost, but now am found" and "t'was grace that taught my heart to fear" emphasize monergism—the belief that God actively seeks out and regenerates a passive, spiritually blind sinner rather than waiting for man's independent choice.
Perseverance of the Saints ("Grace will lead me home"): Verses detailing how God has brought the speaker "safe thus far" underscore the absolute assurance that God's sovereign preservation will sustain believers through life and into eternity.


1 Amazing grace (how sweet the sound)
that saved a wretch like me!
I once was lost, but now am found,
was blind, but now I see.
2 'Twas grace that taught my heart to fear,
and grace my fears relieved;
how precious did that grace appear
the hour I first believed!
3 Through many dangers, toils and snares
I have already come:
'tis grace has brought me safe thus far,
and grace will lead me home.
4 The Lord has promised good to me,
his word my hope secures;
he will my shield and portion be
as long as life endures.
5 Yes, when this flesh and heart shall fail,
and mortal life shall cease:
I shall possess, within the veil,
a life of joy and peace.
6 The earth shall soon dissolve like snow,
the sun forbear to shine;
but God, who called me here below,
will be forever mine.

As a typical Calvinist, you go to great lengths to force a text to support absurd doctrines.

“To save a wretch like me” refers to himself as a despicable slave trader, and not to the so-called total depravity of the human race.

“Was blind, but now I see” has no specific reference to having repentance arbitrarily forced upon him, or being saved completely apart from his seeking God in his fallen state.

“Grace will lead me home” speaks of guidance, not total absolute control in enforced perseverance.

 

[GWH]

You were not sharing. You were plagerizing....you said you removed what you had copied from me, something that was not mine to begin with.

Things may seem familiar to you because you take what is not yours when it catches your eye and slap it on your (cough cough) site.

Here. You can add this to the illustrated page if you have one. If not, this would be a nice start for you.


.....................................................................................View attachment 293558

Well, if I did not apologize then for doing something wrong, I do so now.

I deny plagiarism, but I admit learning from others. What do I know that I have not learned? That is why I say on my site
that I am grateful to all people—famous philosophers and anonymous acquaintances—who have helped shape my beliefs,
and everyone is welcome to pass it on.

 

[Roger316]

That's nonsense. Taking God is not willing that any should perish and creating containment to the recipients of the letter, is bogus.

In context, that verse does not mean what you are tying to make it say at all. In fact, that would mean that no one in this century should take anything written 2000 years as meant for them personally. Of course that would be harmful to all the OT scripture the dedicated Calvinist uses to present as useful to the doctrine. In context:

8 But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. 9 The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. Instead he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.

Peter walked with Jesus. I think he had a far better understanding than the scripture massagers in this forum. He plainly states that
God does not want anyone to perish....unlike Calvinists who seem to love the thought of some people created solely for the purpose of going to hell.

You have created a god after your own heart and God, who is Spirit, and who is love, and who is holy and without fault, does not agree with your devilish assessment of Him.

The gospel, the actual gospel as found in scripture, teaches that through faith in Christ we have forgivness of our sins and that is by the grace of God....not the lies of Calvinism or those who teach it. The hiss of a graceless creature sounds in every teaching of Calvinism and the smell of decay clings to all of it. Those in Christ are given new life. We do not think we are special or chosen above others; indeed, the Bible teaches us to humble ourselves and think of others better than ourselves.

We do not find that in Calvinism. We find braggers and boasters who fancy themselves special to God; those whom God created to spend eternity with Him while the rest of humanity feeds the fires of an eternal hell.

What is the matter with you people? I think you have not found your identity in Christ but you surely have found a false identity in a man named John Calvin.

Don't bother with your AI junk. You have no idea what is actually going on with AI. I mean who needs the Holy Spirit when you have AI, eh? AI is deception and you have seen nothing yet and no, I don't believe you will change a thing and I mean why should you?
Right?

Putting your faith in something, Calvinsim in this case, is as much of a choice as any other of the choices you have made BUT Calvinists deny that we have that ability. And the irony of it all would be funny if it were not so serious.

God did not and would not ever place His Spirit in a degenerate and hopeless sinner who is so depraved he delights in it and seeks every occasion to sin his little heart out. This is not unconditional election. That, is foolish and as close to blasphemy without actually setting your clothes on fire, as God allows.

The Spirit of God seals a person who has accepted Christ as their Redeemer. He does not mess with the depraved and force salvation on anyone. Grace is not irresistable. People resist all the time as they resist truth in order to make themselves the little god instead of falling on their knees before the living One who is actually God.

I have no expectations that you will be at all interested in anything but countering what I wrote but you should understand that I
have the understanding, you are far from the only one reading this.

Yeah I noticed you state you are not a Calvinist. You still slice and dice scripture in a way that brings to mind that doctrine.

I understand your emotional reaction to what I said and why you didn't present a rational rebuttal.

Your objection was in this form: "That can't be true because I would need to abandon my belief in 'x, y, and z" Well, perhaps you SHOULD reject those things in light of what Peter said.

The problem in your argument is not merely tone but method. You treat 2 Peter 3:9 as a free‑floating slogan rather than a sentence inside an argument. Exegesis begins with immediate context, not with whatever theological point we wish to defend. Peter is addressing the delay of the Lord’s return, not constructing a treatise on election. His “any” and “all” are governed by the audience he is addressing—“you,” the beloved, the church—because his point is that God’s apparent delay is not neglect but patience toward His people. To universalize the pronouns while ignoring the subject matter is not interpretation; it is proof‑texting. And ironically, your own objection proves the danger: if we detach verses from their literary setting, then any verse can be made to say anything, including things the author never intended. Responsible reading begins with the author’s flow of thought, not with our frustration toward other theological systems.

Your rhetoric also obscures the very thing Scripture calls us to cultivate: sober‑minded discernment. When disagreement is met with accusations of devilish doctrine, boasts of superior spiritual insight, and sweeping claims about who does or does not possess the Spirit, the conversation has already left the realm of biblical reasoning. None of those flourishes advance understanding; they simply amplify emotion. The irony is that such overstatement weakens your own case, because it signals that the argument is being driven by frustration rather than by the text itself. Exegesis requires us to slow down, attend to context, and let the author’s argument—not our indignation—set the terms of the discussion. When rhetoric replaces reason, the result is heat without light.

 

[-Lutheran]

The problem in your argument is not merely tone

You nailed it but erred in using the adjective "merely."

 

[pinebeach]

I understand your emotional reaction to what I said and why you didn't present a rational rebuttal.

Your objection was in this form: "That can't be true because I would need to abandon my belief in 'x, y, and z" Well, perhaps you SHOULD reject those things in light of what Peter said.

LOL! Do you think we can make doctrine out of one verse and ignore the context? The following, says otherwise and you wrote it.

I don't have time to deal with them all, but I can make a general observation about your list. I noticed that many of your citations are single verses. The first responsibility in exegesis is to let a verse speak from within its immediate context. When someone cites a single verse, we cannot begin by importing ideas from elsewhere; we begin by asking what the author is actually doing at that moment in the argument. What is the subject he is addressing? What is the emphasis he is pressing? Only after we have located the verse inside its paragraph, its flow of thought, and its rhetorical purpose can we responsibly move outward to larger canonical connections. Good interpretation starts with the author’s own voice before it considers anyone else’s.
(See the Hermeneutics thread post 799)



Now go ahead and do your ususal spin and try to impress your Bible class only oops! this is not your Bible class here and some of us actually seem to have a better grip on scripture then do you oh great teacher to the masses. What you do actually understand, is how to try to gaslight people and I bet you have your family wondering if they have a bad memory.

You treat 2 Peter 3:9 as a free‑floating slogan rather than a sentence inside an argument. Exegesis begins with immediate context, not with whatever theological point we wish to defend. Peter is addressing the delay of the Lord’s return, not constructing a treatise on election.

Well, since you took it out of context and I put it back in, I understand that you are probably quite emotional and do not understand how that is done. So, immediate context is one verse is it? I would be embarrassed if I were you. Peter is addressing the fact that the delay of Christ's return is because God is patient and longsuffering and that's a good thing for most of us.

I hope people notice how you try to belittle me with your personal and subjective comments used to try to gaslight everyone and put me on the defensive. You tried that the last time in a post to me so I guess you may have difficulty with original content. Is it an AI thing?

Sober minded discernment? Honestly I am just having a little raspberry juice.

 

[pinebeach]

Well, if I did not apologize then for doing something wrong, I do so now.

I deny plagiarism, but I admit learning from others. What do I know that I have not learned? That is why I say on my site
that I am grateful to all people—famous philosophers and anonymous acquaintances—who have helped shape my beliefs,
and everyone is welcome to pass it on.

You said you took it down but I guess you don't remember and I don't really care. What I do care about, is how you misinterpreted my post to seeminly say that I thought God was not in the Bible....rather than the word 'god'.

whatever at this point because the circles are making me dizzy

 

[Bible_Locket]

View attachment 293536

This sorta drives the point home.

Would you seek out fresh water or just immediately launch into the fish toilet sea? Just to wash yourself asap from being covered in whale vomit.

If that wasn't a lesson that makes an impact,there isn't one.

 

[Bible_Locket]

Not really because it is out of context - he was a prophet of God who tried to run away from what God told him to do. Try again

They don't need to try again. You just reiterated the message in the image they posted.

Well done.

 

[Bible_Locket]

Isn't that funny, so many accusations over various profiles, this time @Bible_Locket says oops!

No she doesn't.
Why? If that website was that of GWH, he would have linked his post to it. But he didn't.

Oops, belongs to GWH.

 

[Bible_Locket]

GWH is claiming Truthseekers Fellowship is their forum.
Anyone who is interested in considering whether this is true or not,may want to read what an AI search discovered about their post.

No sources cited in their thesis.
If TSF is their site,they would know to link the source material used in their post.
They don't. They haven't before. Now when AI finds their sources they glommed together to make a post here,they claim to own TSF. They don't own the Bible site they copied from,without attribution.
Plagiarism is plagiarism.

For disclosure:
I copied your post and sought the source via Google AI.

This text is not an original thesis written by GWH.

When you speak freely to others,are rude,condescending,in error, and then post the above,it is a dead plagarism giveaway.

AI can be a blessing or curse. As often as it is utilized in discussion forums,one day forums will require attribution.

(Start AI results)
It is a document stitched together using the proprietary terminology, structural templates, and specific abbreviations of a ministry called Truthseekers Fellowship, combined with elements of public Bible commentaries.

and "judicial blindness") is not original thought. The specific logical flow matches the public-domain text of Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers and the Matthew Henry Commentary. The poster simply stripped the academic language from those commentaries, plugged in the Truthseekers custom shorthand words, and pasted it into the forum.

The exact "thesis" was not copied and pasted from a book or academic journal.

Instead, it was constructed by adapting the unique, proprietary material and shorthand templates found on the Truthseekers Fellowship website. [1, 2]

They likely copied a private lesson or study guide provided by the ministry leader of that organization, or they used a template that someone else built. The exact sources and building blocks used to stitch this text together come from the following elements:

1. The Shorthand Template

The absolute proof that this text was copied from a template is the bizarre, highly specific shorthand. These abbreviations do not exist in standard theology, but they match the exact glossary of the Truthseekers Fellowship "People and Isms" series:

• GW re the KOH: Directly stands for "God's Word regarding the Kingdom of Heaven".
• I-dolatry: A hyphenated spelling used uniquely by this specific fellowship group to emphasize the "I" (self) in idolatry.
• GRFS: Used in their matching threads on the Christian Chat Hermeneutics Thread to stand for "God's Righteousness for Salvation".

2. The Structural Blueprint
The structure is lifted directly from lesson "11. Systematic Scripture Study" on the Truthseekers Fellowship website. While the website's public lesson is titled "A Systematic Study of Romans 1–11", the author used the exact same numbered format, phrasing, and theological arguments to build a parallel study on the book of Matthew.
For instance, the phrase "God initiates; sinners cooperate—or not" from Truthseekers Romans Study #31 is the exact philosophical argument they copy-pasted into the Matthew parables argument to say that people choose to believe or have calloused hearts.

3. The Copied Bible Commentaries
The technical breakdown of the Matthew passages is a simplified paste-job of standard, public-domain commentaries mixed with the group's "omnilove" theology.

Specifically, the breakdown of Matthew 13:14-15 and the reference to Isaiah 6:9-10 mirrors the layout of the Matthew Henry Commentary and Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers regarding judicial blindness, rewritten using the group's custom shorthand words.

In short, the user did not write an original thesis; they took a structured template provided by the Truthseekers Fellowship framework, plugged in verses from Matthew 13, and swapped standard words for the group's shorthand to make it look like an advanced academic study.

---

If you want to counter this specific post on the forum or address the person directly, let me know if you would like me to:

• Point out the logical flaws in how they tried to force the Romans "free-will" template onto Matthew 13.

Yes,please.
AI rebuttal to the plagiarism of GWH, as AI offered in the conclusion of the above thesis.

(START)
Option 1: Short, Direct, and Punchy (Best for a quick forum reply)

---

Your systematic breakdown tries so hard to force a pre-packaged "free-will" template onto the text that it completely misses what Matthew 13 is actually saying. Here are the core flaws in this argument:

• Overwriting Jesus' Explicit Words: You claim the meaning of the Parable of the Seeds is “Let all accountable souls be allowed to hear and be saved.” But in verse 11, Jesus explicitly says the exact opposite: "The knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them." You are forcing your preferred theology over Christ’s direct statement.
• Creating a False Contradiction: There is no contradiction between hiding knowledge (v. 10–17) and fulfilling prophecy (v. 34–35).
• 
  
• A parable inherently acts as both a lock and a key—it reveals truth to the disciple while hiding it from the stubborn crowd. You don't need to "choose" an interpretation; Jesus is doing both simultaneously.
• Ignoring the Warning of Judgment: Verse 12 states, "whoever does not have, even what they have will be taken from them." This is an active, divine consequence for rejecting light, not just passive human free will.
• 
  
• Forcing an Outside Template: By turning Matthew 13 into a generic dogmatic debate about election vs. volition, you miss the historical context.
• 
  
• Jesus was transitioning the Kingdom away from Israel's corrupt religious leaders and giving it to His disciples.

Using highly specific shorthand layouts like "GW re the KOH" doesn't change the fact that this interpretation bends the narrative flow of Matthew 13 to fit a pre-made theological framework.

---

Option 2: Focused Heavily on the Isaiah 6 Error (Dismantling their main cross-reference)

---

The argument hinges entirely on a complete misunderstanding of the Isaiah 6:9-10 quote in Matthew 13:14-15.

• The Original Context of Isaiah 6: When God commissions Isaiah, He explicitly tells him to preach so that the people's hearts will be calloused, their ears closed, and their eyes blinded.
• 
  
• In the Old Testament context, the preaching itself was a tool of active divine judgment to harden a rebellious nation.
• How Jesus Applies It: By quoting Isaiah 6, Jesus is stating that His parables serve the exact same judicial purpose.
• The parables are a form of judgment on a generation that had already witnessed His clear miracles in Matthew 11–12 and credited them to Satan.
• The Logical Flaw: The post claims Jesus “did NOT say that he prevents people from becoming his disciples.” But by using parables specifically because the crowd's hearts are calloused (v. 13), Jesus is actively withholding plain speech.

Saying that understanding Jesus this way "borders on blasphemy" ignores the terrifying reality of judicial hardening found throughout the entire Bible.

Jesus is all-loving, but He is also the Judge. Trying to force a generic "free-will vs. election" template onto this passage completely strips Matthew 13 of its historical weight and severe warning.

---

(End)

 

[Roger316]

LOL! Do you think we can make doctrine out of one verse and ignore the context? The following, says otherwise and you wrote it.

I don't have time to deal with them all, but I can make a general observation about your list. I noticed that many of your citations are single verses. The first responsibility in exegesis is to let a verse speak from within its immediate context. When someone cites a single verse, we cannot begin by importing ideas from elsewhere; we begin by asking what the author is actually doing at that moment in the argument. What is the subject he is addressing? What is the emphasis he is pressing? Only after we have located the verse inside its paragraph, its flow of thought, and its rhetorical purpose can we responsibly move outward to larger canonical connections. Good interpretation starts with the author’s own voice before it considers anyone else’s.
(See the Hermeneutics thread post 799)



Now go ahead and do your ususal spin and try to impress your Bible class only oops! this is not your Bible class here and some of us actually seem to have a better grip on scripture then do you oh great teacher to the masses. What you do actually understand, is how to try to gaslight people and I bet you have your family wondering if they have a bad memory.



Well, since you took it out of context and I put it back in, I understand that you are probably quite emotional and do not understand how that is done. So, immediate context is one verse is it? I would be embarrassed if I were you. Peter is addressing the fact that the delay of Christ's return is because God is patient and longsuffering and that's a good thing for most of us.

I hope people notice how you try to belittle me with your personal and subjective comments used to try to gaslight everyone and put me on the defensive. You tried that the last time in a post to me so I guess you may have difficulty with original content. Is it an AI thing?

Sober minded discernment? Honestly I am just having a little raspberry juice.

Do you have anything to say about the text or my interpretation?

 

[kinda]

Would you seek out fresh water or just immediately launch into the fish toilet sea? Just to wash yourself asap from being covered in whale vomit.

If that wasn't a lesson that makes an impact,there isn't one.

Hard to say. I guess you have to be there, to know what to do next.

Yeah, this is pretty much it. Like what else needs to be said? Clear cut. No rebuttal. Case closed. Meeting adjourned. I rest my case. Don't pass go, and don't collect $200, but that's just my take. Have to leave room for human error. I mean who really is to say, who is right, or who is wrong? It's just a perspective that I believe is true.

What's irritating to me, my whole life I heard Calvin is wrong, and when you actually understand the perspective, it's actually very possible. Let people make up their own minds and at least present both sides of topic. Dictatorship vs Reason.

 

[Bible_Locket]

Hard to say. I guess you have to be there, to know what to do next.

Yeah, this is pretty much it. Like what else needs to be said? Clear cut. No rebuttal. Case closed. Meeting adjourned. I rest my case. Don't pass go, and don't collect $200, but that's just my take. Have to leave room for human error. I mean who really is to say, who is right, or who is wrong? It's just a perspective that I believe is true.

What's irritating to me, my whole life I heard Calvin is wrong, and when you actually understand the perspective, it's actually very possible. Let people make up their own minds and at least present both sides of topic. Dictatorship vs Reason.

Reason leaves the room in the wake of the charge, Calvinism, when the Bible scriptures relating to God's predestination of all things is discussed.


It's a shame. Because it is God saying these things first.

General Search for 'gods predestination of all things' - New American Standard Bible - StudyLight.org

General Search for 'gods predestination of all things' within 'New American Standard Bible' on StudyLight.org

www.studylight.org

1Corinthians 15
For HE HAS PUT ALL THINGS IN SUBJECTION UNDER HIS FEET. But when He says, "All things are put in subjection," it is clear that this excludes the Father who put all things in subjection to Him.

 

[kinda]

From a robotic Ai like a persecuted Calvinist for orthodoxy:

John Newton (1725–1807) was an 18th-century English Anglican clergyman and a committed Calvinist. His theology—emphasizing human depravity, divine sovereignty, and unmerited grace—heavily influenced his famous hymns published in the 1779 collection [Olney Hymns] (co-written with William Cowper).

The language and progression of the hymn heavily reflect Newton’s Reformed or Calvinist theology regarding human sinfulness and sovereign grace:
Total Depravity ("Saved a wretch like me"): The word "wretch" highlights the helpless, morally bankrupt state of humanity, asserting that people are entirely unable to save themselves apart from divine intervention.
Unconditional & Effectual Grace ("Was blind, but now I see"): Lines like "I once was lost, but now am found" and "t'was grace that taught my heart to fear" emphasize monergism—the belief that God actively seeks out and regenerates a passive, spiritually blind sinner rather than waiting for man's independent choice.
Perseverance of the Saints ("Grace will lead me home"): Verses detailing how God has brought the speaker "safe thus far" underscore the absolute assurance that God's sovereign preservation will sustain believers through life and into eternity.


1 Amazing grace (how sweet the sound)
that saved a wretch like me!
I once was lost, but now am found,
was blind, but now I see.
2 'Twas grace that taught my heart to fear,
and grace my fears relieved;
how precious did that grace appear
the hour I first believed!
3 Through many dangers, toils and snares
I have already come:
'tis grace has brought me safe thus far,
and grace will lead me home.
4 The Lord has promised good to me,
his word my hope secures;
he will my shield and portion be
as long as life endures.
5 Yes, when this flesh and heart shall fail,
and mortal life shall cease:
I shall possess, within the veil,
a life of joy and peace.
6 The earth shall soon dissolve like snow,
the sun forbear to shine;
but God, who called me here below,
will be forever mine.

Nice! Forgot about that one.

Personally, I didn't even get the point of the meme, or whatever he posted. Are they implying that people who believe in predestination, don't believe in grace? I mean if so, that's a pretty ignorant assumption. Counter arguments are either served with anger and talking loudly, or by shaming. Maybe the meme was an attempt at shaming, or maybe it was an attempt at a joke? Didn't seem like a joke, seemed more like a shaming, like some how we don't comprehend, the work on the cross, and what it means.

It's a pretty fruitless debate. I would just like to say, that believing in predestination gave me peace, rather than some sort of superiority complex, that the opposition side has been implying. I would encourage everyone to understand both sides, and maybe a third view point on Calvinism, think it through, and decide for your selves what you think is true. Pray about it even. Anyways...

John 8:32 ​

"And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free."​

 

[-Lutheran]

Nice! Forgot about that one.

Personally, I didn't even get the point of the meme, or whatever he posted. Are they implying that people who believe in predestination, don't believe in grace? I mean if so, that's a pretty ignorant assumption. Counter arguments are either served with anger and talking loudly, or by shaming. Maybe the meme was an attempt at shaming, or maybe it was an attempt at a joke? Didn't seem like a joke, seemed more like a shaming, like some how we don't comprehend, the work on the cross, and what it means.

It's a pretty fruitless debate, I would just like to say, that believing in predestination gave me peace, rather than some sort of superiority complex, that others have been mentioning.

John 8:32 ​

"And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free."​

All theology should end with Soli Deo Gloria or reject it (man-centered). Orthodox theology is monergism.
If reading from any author and at the end there's a question of whether to glorify man or God, reject man and that man's theology.

The Core Theology (God-Centered):
Focuses directly on God, His character, His truth, and His word.
Seeks to understand who God is and what He has revealed.
Religion (Man-Centered):
Focuses on human actions, rituals, cultic involvement, and psychological or sociological habits.
Can be studied objectively through fields like anthropology or sociology without actually focusing on God Himself.

In other words, religion focuses on man and his behavior; theology, by definition, is focused on God.

 

[kinda]

All theology should end with Soli Deo Gloria or reject it (man-centered). Orthodox theology is monergism.
If reading from any author and at the end there's a question of whether to glorify man or God, reject man and that man's theology.

Ahh. You would of appreciated a conversation with @JamesTheLesserLesser , he is around here some where maybe. He likes using those big words. lol

It's pretty difficult to end biased views from a human perspective, since were so human, and really see things from our own personal perspective. How can someone take the I out of faith, might be impossible.

I wouldn't say, predestination is a lock tight position for me, but more of a working model, that seems to be more true, the more it's tested. It rings true to me and I don't mind if it once again puts me at odds with the majority. The hasn't stopped me before. lol I mean we should all be searching for the truth, if that leads us in the majority, or the minority, that shouldn't really matter.

We have it pretty easy in that respect. Back when the Catholic Church was in power in Europe, it could literally cost you your life, for going against the grain.

 

[Anchorite]

God did not create robots or puppets.

He created humans with freedom to choose and accountability for those choices.

God offers salvation in the gospel message. You can accept it or reject it.

You are not pre-determined to be saved or damned.

When you are judged, you will not be able to say you rejected salvation because that’s what you were pre-determined to do against your will.