How freewill salvation perverts God's Justice !

[doseofreality]

Not once in the nearly 1,300 pages of his Institutes does Calvin expound upon God’s love for mankind or attempt to explain how God, who is love, could take pleasure in damning billions whom He could save if He so desired…. Biblically, God’s sovereignty is exercised only in perfect unity with His total character. His sovereignty is enforced in harmony with His love, grace, mercy, kindness, justice, and truth—but Calvin has almost nothing to say about these attributes, because they cannot be reconciled with his theory.

Calvinism’s perversion of sovereignty demands that whether one goes to heaven or hell depends solely upon God’s will and decree; a man’s receiving or rejecting Christ is not by his free choice but is irresistibly imposed upon him by God. As a result, the atheist feels justified in rejecting a God who, contrary to basic human compassion, predestines multitudes to eternal torment whom He could just as well have predestined to eternal joy in His presence.

Who Are the Elect and Why?

I must clarify, I do not reject a God who predestines multitudes to eternal torment, I do not think this God exists.

If this God does exist, who are we to question what He does or does not do? Taking a lesson from the book of Job.
Did we have any say in being born?
Did we have any say in where we were born?
Did we have any say in whether Jesus sacrificed Himself for our sins?
So why should we think we have any say in where we go when we die?

Just following that line of reasoning, it seems to me calvinism is consistent with an omnipotent, sovereign God.

 

[Spokenpassage]

It upsets me that an atheist actually takes it in consideration, and everyone else condemns it.

You will see in the bible that God does not work by chance. His will and divine plan for our life isn't upon waiting whether or not we choose Him, if that be true, God doesn't know the future. It's making Him rely on creation for His next plan. God does not operate like that.

 

[doseofreality]

Adam and Eve disobeyed God with a perfectly free will given to them. Did God allow Them to disobey? Yes. Why did he allow it? Because if he didnt allow it, then Adam and Eve would not have had perfectly free will. Does that make sense?

We don't have free will to abort God's ultimate plan for creation or the prophecies that have been fulfilled in the Bible. However, I do believe we have free will in the sense of whether we want to be a part of what God is doing or not. We can either choose him or deny him (though some disagree). This is the freedom we have. We didn't choose where we were born ( though we can choose where to live) or what hair color we would have (unless you dye it ). We didn't choose our physical attributes (though we could work out at a gym and change some of them to a degree). We didn't choose our parents (though we can choose to love and accept them or hate them). We can't choose how other people would treat us (though we can choose how we react to them).

In many things we didn't have a choice, but at the same time in many different things we do. I am not sure i can give you an "either or" answer as I don't think it would be correct.

I will continue with you tomorrow if you wish and if you are not too frustrated by my replies. But I best be off to bed. Your a night owl too, I see!

Love you Dose!

Ok yeah I have no sense of time.

For your first point, yes it makes sense, I do dispute that God had to allow it so Adam/Eve would have "free-will".
My point is thats what God wanted, for his creation to have free-will, thus an omnipotent being allowing something without stopping it is ultimately responsible. He allowed us to sin, thus he wanted there to be sin for His ultimate plan.

For your 2nd point, I guess I am being too black and white. Yes so God could give up a very small amount of control, allowing us limited free-choice. Fair enough.

 

[Linda70]

I want you to ask two personal questions.

Have you read the institutes?

And have you read the bible concerning the doctrines of grace in this view?

You can call Calvin names. disagree with the theology, and falsely accuse him of something...That's you! But when you call it a theory, just note - it's named after him because he preached it, not invent it.

I'm never sleepy enough to "read" the Institutes. However, I am quoting men who have read them and I completely trust what they say regarding the teachings of the Institutes. I have, however, read portions of the Institutes online, and also have read the biography of John Calvin. I discovered that the life of John Calvin perfectly reflects all that he taught.

I have read and studied the Bible for 40 years. I have never found any so called "doctrines of grace", as they are defined by Calvinism, in the Bible...from Genesis 1:1 through Revelation 22:21.

Calvinism is a theology that was developed by John Calvin in the 1500s. He presented this theology in his Institutes of Christian Religion. It is also called TULIP theology. Calvin himself did not use the term TULIP to describe his theology, but it is an accurate and simplified reflection of his views. John Calvin was heavily influenced by Augustine and quoted him over 400 times in his Institutes. Although Calvin didn't write TULIP, every standard point of TULIP theology can be found in Calvin's Institutes.

 

[Spokenpassage]

Well, God is not the Author of sin, but He allows it at an extent. I'm pretty sure God wasn't surprised that Lucifer fell into pride, and Adam into eating the fruit. Although they had direct consequences for their actions, it was not because of God, but because of their disobedience. Adam and Eve had free will to stay with God or fall away, after adopting the sin nature, all humans after them don't have that chance to choose God personally. We by nature are children of wrath, we do not seek God, because we don't want to, we are dead in sin. So when people make it say that double predestination makes sinners who don't want to be in hell be there is a false notion. The ones going to hell are people who still don't want anything to do with God naturally, so they won't be there not wanting to be there. The same for heaven, there is not someone going to be there that they didn't want to be there.

 

[Spokenpassage]

I'm never sleepy enough to "read" the Institutes. However, I am quoting men who have read them and I completely trust what they say regarding the teachings of the Institutes. I have, however, read portions of the Institutes online, and also have read the biography of John Calvin. I discovered that the life of John Calvin perfectly reflects all that he taught.

I have read and studied the Bible for 40 years. I have never found any so called "doctrines of grace", as they are defined by Calvinism, in the Bible...from Genesis 1:1 through Revelation 22:21.

Calvinism is a theology that was developed by John Calvin in the 1500s. He presented this theology in his Institutes of Christian Religion. It is also called TULIP theology. Calvin himself did not use the term TULIP to describe his theology, but it is an accurate and simplified reflection of his views. John Calvin was heavily influenced by Augustine and quoted him over 400 times in his Institutes. Although Calvin didn't write TULIP, every standard point of TULIP theology can be found in Calvin's Institutes.

C'mon the dude wasn't perfect! He killed Servetus for heresy! I don't agree with all of his theology (not all reformed churches do). Tulip was emphasised by Arminius who made up five points against it, our five points simply are a response to his five articles. What Calvin taught in scripture. It's in the bible I can tell you that.

Besides, you at least agree with some of the five points right? Like original sin?

 

[Cobus]

I see Scripture has not been quoted for a while may I post some just to sharpen the remarks of the forum members....

God says: Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you,... (looks like no person EVER chose God but God chose the person)

And He says... but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you. ....(now it looks like the ones God has chosen out of the world are now hated by the world because they are chosen.)

Jesus said.... I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine.... (Even Jesus knew the World is not the elect but the sons of perdition like Judas Iscariot. YET! God choose them out of the world to be HIS.) And God gives thm to Jesus. And then Jesus says this.... Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; .... That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:

This is all Truth and from God's Word. Who are the ones that believe on Jesus through the words of the Word of God? MANY people read the Word of God but they are DEFENATELY not one! In fact the more I get to know (Jesus -believers) the more I see they all foolow Him on their own way. Defenately not one as Jesus says here. And the GLORY Jesus had is not even evident in ANY of them. So are they believers or not?

What do a believer look like? What does two look like, what does ten look like? How can ten people be one as God and Jesus is one? Jesus says PERFECTLY one... Man if only we SEE this anywhere in thi world then we (the world) will believe God has sent Jesus. But who here is a believer and made perfectly one with another believer?

Where is a gathering of the SAINTS? Saints being Hagios (greek) for physically pure and morally blameless, MOST HOLY! Where are these people? Why do we (the world) not see or know them?


I say God hid them from us sinners and evil men and women. For GOOD reason, we will crucify them and hate them like the Word says. Who here is not of the world? Since they are the ones that ask God whatsoever and recieve it... WOW!

 

[Spokenpassage]

I see Scripture has not been quoted for a while may I post some just to sharpen the remarks of the forum members....

I'm willing to go into scriptures, but I find defending the five points I feel it as inappropriate because we should not be fighting with each other on doctrinal matters.

 

[Spokenpassage]

C'mon the dude wasn't perfect! He killed Servetus for heresy! I don't agree with all of his theology (not all reformed churches do). Tulip was emphasised by Arminius who made up five points against it, our five points simply are a response to his five articles. What Calvin taught in scripture. It's in the bible I can tell you that.

Besides, you at least agree with some of the five points right? Like original sin?

Sorry I meant total depravity along side with original sin.

 

[Linda70]

C'mon the dude wasn't perfect! He killed Servetus for heresy! I don't agree with all of his theology (not all reformed churches do). Tulip was emphasised by Arminius who made up five points against it, our five points simply are a response to his five articles. What Calvin taught in scripture. It's in the bible I can tell you that.

Besides, you at least agree with some of the five points right? Like original sin?

Jacobus Arminius didn't write the 5 points of Arminianism...just as John Calvin didn't write the 5 points of Calvinism. The followers of Arminius wrote those 5 points after Arminius had died.

What Calvin taught was Augustinianism and fatalism.

I believe Romans 5:12 & 19, if that is what you mean about "original sin". However, I don't go as far as TULIP to say that we are born so totally depraved that we are totally unable to make a choice to accept or reject the gift of salvation in Christ. I do not believe that regeneration precedes faith. And I certainly do not ascribe to some are "predestined to heaven" and some are "predestined to eternal torment in the lake of fire". That is fatalism. Man has a free will and we are not robots.

 

[Spokenpassage]

Jacobus Arminius didn't write the 5 points of Arminianism...just as John Calvin didn't write the 5 points of Calvinism. The followers of Arminius wrote those 5 points after Arminius had died.

What Calvin taught was Augustinianism and fatalism.

I believe Romans 5:12 & 19, if that is what you mean about "original sin". However, I don't go as far as TULIP to say that we are born so totally depraved that we are totally unable to make a choice to accept or reject the gift of salvation in Christ. I do not believe that regeneration precedes faith. And I certainly do not ascribe to some are "predestined to heaven" and some are "predestined to eternal torment in the lake of fire". That is fatalism. Man has a free will and we are not robots.

I'm sorry, but ma'am that's not correct. Fatalism is not biblical, neither is it Calvinism. We believe in Divine Providence, not Fatalism. I don't know who told you that! Divine Providence is neither Fatalism and definitely not chance. We don't teach that we are robots!! Whoever is teaching you this doesn't know what Calvinism is.

It's true, Arminius's followers wrote those against the church. The Synod of Dort wrote up five points against the five points they brought up, which are known as the canon of dort.

 

[Linda70]

It's The Synod of Dort, not Dirt...right?

 

[Spokenpassage]

It's The Synod of Dort, not Dirt...right?

Had to edit sister Linda I type fast

 

[gregfl]

Fatalism generally refers to any of the following ideas:

1. The view that we are powerless to do anything other than what we actually do.[SUP][1][/SUP] Included in this is that man has no power to influence the future, or indeed, his own actions.[SUP][2][/SUP] This belief is very similar to predeterminism.

 

[gregfl]

While the terms are often used interchangeably, fatalism, determinism, and predeterminism are discrete in stressing different aspects of the futility of human will or the foreordination of destiny. However, all these doctrines share common ground.

 

[gregfl]

C'mon the dude wasn't perfect! He killed Servetus for heresy! I don't agree with all of his theology (not all reformed churches do). Tulip was emphasised by Arminius who made up five points against it, our five points simply are a response to his five articles. What Calvin taught in scripture. It's in the bible I can tell you that.

Besides, you at least agree with some of the five points right? Like original sin?

the false doctrine of original sin?
false The FALSE Doctrine of ORIGINAL SIN - A Matter of Truth 13 Reasons why the Original Sin Doctrine is FALSE The false doctrine of Original Sin-Nature | thedivinelyinspiredscriptures Original Sin and a Misapplied Passage : ChristianCourier.com OVER 100 BIBLE TEXTS THAT SHOW THE DOCTRINE OF ORIGINAL SIN IS UNBIBLICAL AND FALSE

 

[homwardbound]

^ Well, not to argue (like we said), being unable to choose God isn't a natural inability, it's a moral inability. Jonathan Edwards explains this with a man who sits in a comfy chair. His natural ability may allow him to get up, but his moral inability prevents him. No matter how much you tell him to get up, he is too comfortable to listen. Man is dead in sin, he does not seek God, so there is no chance for him to look for God's help.

Yet Father pursues us in Love and Mercy to us all, and if we accept the wedding invitation we are deliewvered to love as Father loves, shown best through Son
John 14:1 [ The Way, the Truth, and the Life ] “Let not your heart be troubled; you believe in God, believe also in Me.
John 14:6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.

 

[homwardbound]

^^ sorry wrong analogy, but it still works lol

"To give some instances of this moral Inability.-- A woman of great honour and chastity may have a moral Inability to prostitute herself to her slave. A child of great love and duty to his parents, may be thus unable to kill his father. A very lascivious man, in case of certain opportunities and temptations, and in the absence of such and such restraints, may be unable to forbear gratifying his lust. A drunkard, under such and such circumstances, may be unable to forbear taking strong drink. A very malicious man may be unable to exert benevolent acts to an enemy, or to desire his prosperity; yea, some may be so under the power of a vile disposition, that they may be unable to love those who are most worthy of their esteem and affection. A strong habit of virtue, and a great degree of holiness, may cause a moral Inability to love wickedness in general, and may render a man unable to take complacence in wicked persons or things; or to choose a wicked in preference to a virtuous life. And on the other hand, a great degree of habitual wickedness may lay a man under an Inability to love and choose holiness; and render him utterly unable to love an infinitely holy Being, or to choose and cleave to him as his chief good." - Freedom of the will by Jonathan Edwards

1 John 4:19 We love Him because He first loved us.

Does anyone have this love without seeing Father's love first?

[h=3]Ephesians 3:16-18[/h]New King James Version (NKJV)

[SUP]16 [/SUP]that He would grant you, according to the riches of His glory, to be strengthened with might through His Spirit in the inner man, [SUP]17 [/SUP]that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith; that you, being rooted and grounded in love, [SUP]18 [/SUP]may be able to comprehend with all the saints what is the width and length and depth and height—

It seems to me noone can really love without first receiving Father's love through Son

 

[faroukfarouk]

1 John 4:19 We love Him because He first loved us.

Does anyone have this love without seeing Father's love first?

Ephesians 3:16-18

New King James Version (NKJV)

[SUP]16 [/SUP]that He would grant you, according to the riches of His glory, to be strengthened with might through His Spirit in the inner man, [SUP]17 [/SUP]that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith; that you, being rooted and grounded in love, [SUP]18 [/SUP]may be able to comprehend with all the saints what is the width and length and depth and height—

It seems to me noone can really love without first receiving Father's love through Son

Great verses!

Blessings.

 

[homwardbound]

Here is a response an old pastor of mine said....

What if no one believed.... would Christs atonement accomplish nothing then?

Let every man be as man is, a liar and selfish to self survival over all creation, and God be true for:

[h=3]Romans 8:36-39[/h]New King James Version (NKJV)

[SUP]36 [/SUP]As it is written:
“For Your sake we are killed all day long;
We are accounted as sheep for the slaughter.”[SUP][a][/SUP]

[SUP]37 [/SUP]Yet in all these things we are more than conquerors through Him who loved us. [SUP]38 [/SUP]For I am persuaded that neither death nor life, nor angels nor principalities nor powers, nor things present nor things to come, [SUP]39 [/SUP]nor height nor depth, nor any other created thing, shall be able to separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.