[eph39]

"Many indeed, as if they wished to avert odium from God, admit election in such a way as to deny that anyone is reprobated. But this is puerile and absurd, because election itself could not exist without being opposed to reprobation...Whom God passes by, He reprobates, and from no other cause than His determination to exclude them from the inheritance which He predestines for His children."
Institutes, III: xxiii, 1

"Scripture clearly proves...that God by His eternal and immutable counsel determined once for all those whom it was His pleasure one day to admit to salvation, and those whom, on the other hand, it was His pleasure to doom to destruction." III: xxi, 7

"God not only foresaw the fall of the first man, and in him the fall of his posterity, but also at God's own pleasure arranged it." III: xxiii, 7

"With Augustine I say: the Lord has created those whom He unquestionably foreknew would go to destruction. This has happened because He has willed it." III: xxiii, 5

"Now since the arrangement of all things is in the hand of God...He arranges...that individuals are born, who are doomed from the womb to certain death, and are to glorify Him by their destruction..." III: xxiii, 6

[godrulz]

Wesley was right to say that Calvin's version of the love of God is the kind that makes the blood run cold.

Calvin called double predestination a horrific doctrine, yet he believed it.

The sovereignty of God cannot be divorced from the love/holiness of God, a problematic issue for Calvinism.

Olson is also right to observe that Satan wants all men to perish, but God only wants some men to perish. What's the diff except in quantity?!

[eph39]

Originally Posted by godrulz

Wesley was right to say that Calvin's version of the love of God is the kind that makes the blood run cold.

Calvin called double predestination a horrific doctrine, yet he believed it.

The sovereignty of God cannot be divorced from the love/holiness of God, a problematic issue for Calvinism.

Olson is also right to observe that Satan wants all men to perish, but God only wants some men to perish. What's the diff except in quantity?!

None. As I've noted to your left, Calvin freely denied the love blood of Christ to most of humanity. What attitudes and behaviors could we expect from such?

I think Wesley was just as wrong as Calvin, only in the opposite direction: he gave free will TOO MUCH power, and so Wesleyan types believe salvation can be lost/forfeited/sinned away, all of which are false during this dispensation of grace. Wesley was wrong for the same reason Calvin was: neither saw the revelation of the Mystery and what it teaches about what all happens to people when they're saved and safe in Christ.

But after reading Calvin's "salvation" testimony, I have zero doubt he either never heard or had rejected the saving Gospel of the grace of God. I'm convinced the man was not regenerate. Please look at his testimony I posted and tell me what you see. Combine that with what he says above, and the hateful, murderous actions from his own life (the Servetus incident, but not just that), and you have proof the man was as much a monster as the God he idolized.

[billwald]

>Calvin freely denied the love blood of Christ to most of humanity.

ABSOLUTELY NOT! God can save ANYONE "in" Christ Jesus. Not just Reformed people and not just those who have "invited Jesus . . . ." Calvin never limited God.

The ONLY way the Bible computes is if one separates the problem of election from the problem of God's social contract in any given dispensation. God's social contract is the mechanism by which he dispenses temporal blessings in any dispensation. In the last dispensation, one had to join Nation Israel. In this dispensation, the Church. That has nothing to do one's status in the next life.

[Bob Enyart]

eph39, I hope this excerpt from Battle Royale X is OK here...

My dear friend, Brian Rohrbough, whose son Danny was murdered at Columbine High School by Harris and Klebold, wants to send this message in response to Sam’s worry that if God was not in total control, he might lead us to marry someone who will murder our children:

Originally Posted by Brian Rohrbough

Dr. Lamerson, I received a letter from Barbara Martin of Myrtle Beach, South Carolina. She wrote, “Our family faced this grim reality too when our grandchildren were murdered by their mother, Susan Smith… Many people blame God, but the Bible blames the devil (Hebrews 2:12).”

Mrs. Martin is correct when we realize that the devil represents all those in rebellion against God (John 8:44), but millions of Calvinists believe that God ordained every rape and murder, and the criminals do exactly what God predestined them to do, without any ability to do otherwise. Dr. Lamerson, you wrote that if God was not in complete control, then perhaps “the spouse that he leads me to marry may be the wrong one who will murder my children.” But your Calvinist God supposedly did that already to David Smith. Sam, you believe that every mother who murders her child does so by God’s decree. Aren’t you betraying your own Calvinist belief to suggest that somehow your children should be specially protected?

After Columbine, many Christians publicly said God must have had a good reason, to have Danny and the others murdered. Jesus Himself rejected this “blame God attitude.” Consider the importance of a report this week of an archaeological find of the discovery of the Pool of Siloam in Jerusalem. Perhaps you remember the tower near there. It fell over and killed eighteen people. And Jesus responded to the Greek superstition of that day, like Calvinism today, when people foolishly look for the will of God in murders, rapes, and tragedies of negligence, by saying:

“Those eighteen on whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed them, do you think that they were worse sinners than all other men who dwelt in Jerusalem? I tell you, no! …” -Jesus, Luke 13:4-5

And for those who were looking for an interpretation of the deaths of the Galileans who were murdered by Pilate, Jesus found their superstition useless too:

“Do you suppose that these Galileans were worse sinners than all other Galileans, because they suffered such things? I tell you, no!” -Jesus, Luke 13:2-3

Here Jesus rejected the most obvious of the absurd “interpretations,” that bad things happened to people because God was directly punishing them. Since Luke recorded Christ’s rebuke, Calvinists today have to get around it. So they’re more “creative.” You assume that if God is not punishing the victims, then He’s obviously achieving some other worthwhile goal –perhaps punishing their loved ones. Or maybe He just decided that this would be the best way for the victims to go, even for the ones He preordained to eternal torment. If today Jesus were at that Pool of Siloam and someone asked Him about Calvinism, I believe that He would respond by saying the answer has not changed with the passage of time.

When we consider that God has used a Flood, and kings to bring judgment against whole populations, that was by His direct decree. God has the authority to do that. However, God didn’t give authority to individuals to murder others, and would never authorize the murder of two children by their mother - who hoped to save an adulterous affair. When you attribute my son’s murder to the plan and glory of God, you have sacrificed the righteousness of God for humanism.

Sincerely, -Brian Rohrbough

Thank you Brian. (And here’s a link to the finding of the Pool of Siloam.

And thank you eph39 for this thread.

-Bob Enyart
KGOV.com

[eph39]

Originally Posted by billwald

>Calvin freely denied the love and blood of Christ to most of humanity.

Calvin never limited God.

Bill, did you even read the quotes of Calvin written above?

[eph39]

Bob, you (and anyone else) may post whatever you like on any thread of mine. But I thank you doubly for posting this, as it's something a friend of mine would be encouraged to see right now. Thanks again,

[billwald]

"Many indeed, as if they wished to avert odium from God, admit election in such a way as to deny that anyone is reprobated. But this is puerile and absurd, because election itself could not exist without being opposed to reprobation...Whom God passes by, He reprobates, and from no other cause than His determination to exclude them from the inheritance which He predestines for His children."
Institutes, III: xxiii, 1

NOTE that the statement makes no references to percentages or numbers. Calvin could be referring to Judas and those whom the Bible names as reprobate.

Same argument.


"Scripture clearly proves...that God by His eternal and immutable counsel determined once for all those whom it was His pleasure one day to admit to salvation, and those whom, on the other hand, it was His pleasure to doom to destruction." III: xxi, 7

Same

"God not only foresaw the fall of the first man, and in him the fall of his posterity, but also at God's own pleasure arranged it." III: xxiii, 7

Statement refers to Adam's sin, not his status in the next life.

"With Augustine I say: the Lord has created those whom He unquestionably foreknew would go to destruction. This has happened because He has willed it." III: xxiii, 5

Same. Makes no identification of the reprobate . . . as those who don't "believe in Jesus" or any other qualification.

"Now since the arrangement of all things is in the hand of God...He arranges...that individuals are born, who are doomed from the womb to certain death, and are to glorify Him by their destruction..." III: xxiii, 6

Same arguments. God could have predestined a half dozen people out of 7 billion and every one of the above statements attributed to Calvin would be true.

[billwald]

'39,

The story of the flood indicates that the people outside the barge lost their physical lives on this earth. God said he would "wipe them off the face of the earth," NOT that he would send them to hell.

The zillion people whom God permitted to die in the wilderness . . . did he send them all to Hell? Including Moses? And the people in Sodom? Bible states they were sent to Hell?

If, on the other hand, you are relying upon the statement that Jesus left the cross to preach to the souls in Hell and are trying to affirm the Apostle's Creed . . . .

[eph39]

BILL:

NOTE that the statement makes no references to percentages or numbers. Calvin could be referring to Judas and those whom the Bible names as reprobate

CALVIN:

"Whom God passes by, He reprobates"

THAT INCLUDES ALL NON-ELECT, BILL. THAT'S, LIKE, TENS OF BILLIONS OF PEOPLE OVER ALL OF HUMAN HISTORY, BILL.

No need to go further.

Lenscrafters does good work, Bill. Tell them Eph sent you.

[billwald]

CALVIN:

>"Whom God passes by, He reprobates"
---End Quote---
>*THAT INCLUDES ALL THE NON-ELECT, BILL. THAT'S, LIKE, _TENS_ OF _BILLIONS _OF PEOPLE OVER ALL OF HUMAN HISTORY, BILL.*

The list of those whom God passes by is found where?

Straw man argument because it assumes facts not in evidence.

[eph39]

Originally Posted by billwald

The list of those whom God passes by is found where?

Why, it's right there next to the list of the elect, Bill. Haven't you read them? Our names are one one or the other.

Oh, wait. NEITHER LIST EXISTS because the whole idea of election/reprobation of individuals to salvation is a slanderous myth.

But that didn't stop Calvin - the man YOU defend - from denying the Blood of Christ to BILLIONS.

[godrulz]

Originally Posted by eph39

None. As I've noted to your left, Calvin freely denied the love blood of Christ to most of humanity. What attitudes and behaviors could we expect from such?

I think Wesley was just as wrong as Calvin, only in the opposite direction: he gave free will TOO MUCH power, and so Wesleyan types believe salvation can be lost/forfeited/sinned away, all of which are false during this dispensation of grace. Wesley was wrong for the same reason Calvin was: neither saw the revelation of the Mystery and what it teaches about what all happens to people when they're saved and safe in Christ.

But after reading Calvin's "salvation" testimony, I have zero doubt he either never heard or had rejected the saving Gospel of the grace of God. I'm convinced the man was not regenerate. Please look at his testimony I posted and tell me what you see. Combine that with what he says above, and the hateful, murderous actions from his own life (the Servetus incident, but not just that), and you have proof the man was as much a monster as the God he idolized.

Luther was a wing ding at times, but I think Calvin and Luther likely were saved by awesome grace, not perfection of theological views or character.

[eph39]

Originally Posted by godrulz

I think Calvin and Luther likely were saved by awesome grace

I'm one of the last people on this board who'd say anyone is saved by "perfection of theological views or character." All are saved by believing the Gospel of the grace of God, or they are not saved at all. That's not my theology talking; that's what Christ said through Paul, as you well know.

Calvin shows no sign of having believed the Gospel, much less understood it, as he makes no mention of having believed it himself. In fact, it's likely he never actually broke with Rome b/c he said a lying, fornicating Catholic priest could save you if he baptized you as an infant.

Luther likewise believed in saving baptismal regeneration of infants.

Does that sound like guys who believed that utter reliance on God's grace through faith in Christ - minus works of any kind - is how we're saved?