Something like this, perhaps?
http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...Universalism&p=5268120&viewfull=1#post5268120
Limited atonement destroyed
- Thread starter GregoryN
- Start date
Something like this, perhaps?
http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...Universalism&p=5268120&viewfull=1#post5268120
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Epic fail. You mount an argument based upon supposed error in translation.
This is always going to be a signal that what is to come is as wrong as the premise upon which it rests.
Tolle lege: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07D7JGV8L/
AMR
It's based upon more accurate, honest, literal translations. As opposed to those translations which are biased to the endless tortures view & are the biased author's opinions (i.e. so-called faithful translations) based upon their theological interpretations, thereby misleading their readers. So, rather than being faithful translations, they should more appropriately be called paraphrases or interpretations.
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
Here's the quote, again:
Calvin said that, didn't he? Yeah, he did. So, your pretense of superiority over those who may not have read all (or any) of the literary works of Calvin that you, personally, claim to have mastered, is obviously useless, and silly. At least that one quote from Calvin starkly militates against your ideology--the very ideology named after the man who said it. The "Here is a 10' stack of one-thousand page Reformed theology treatises; don't talk to me until you've read them all, all the way through!" ploy can't hide the simple, Calvinism-damning fact that Calvin expressly declared, publicly, that some persons perish who were bought by the blood of Christ. Not only does your attempt fail to hide that fact, but it also draws attention to the fact that you're merely trying to create a diversion so as to draw attention away from the force of that quote. And, of course, that quote is necessarily embarrassing to Calvinism crusaders, as it highlights the hypocrisy inherent in their ideology.
Why ought a Calvinist be sorry to see anyone's soul perish, anyway? That's ludicrous. Obviously, according to Calvinism, that soul was not one of the elect, and so, God's not the least bit sorry to see that soul perish. Nay, God, from all eternity, expressly decreed that soul to perish, and created it for that very purpose; God has pleasure in the death of that wicked soul, according to Calvinism. According to Calvinism, that's why God created that soul in the first place, for His own pleasure in inflicting the perishing of that soul. And, mind you, as per Calvinism, God doesn't just allow that soul to perish, God predestined that soul to perish. God never loved, and always hated, that soul, and always intended for that soul to perish, and that with unfathomable agony! The real question is why any self-respecting, God-fearing Calvinist would ever be the least bit sorry to see anyone's soul perish. Why be sorry over what God is pleased with? Can you not help sorrowing for the soul who perishes? Maybe, then, you ought to question whether you're really one of the elect; wouldn't it seem that God would have decreed His own elect to become (at least upon regeneration by the Holy Spirit) of a mind to hate whom He hates, rather than to love, and pity, those whom God hates, and pities not? Would it not be downright disobedient, nay, blasphemous to God, and also, a cause of great displeasure to Him, for His elect to go about loving whom He hates--namely, the eternally reprobate? But, Calvinists, who vehemently object to saying to all men, indiscriminately, "Jesus loves you!" turn right around, as hypocrites, and say "Oh, sure, I care about the souls of my fellow man; I am sorry to see any of them perish!"
Now, at least one famous Calvinist, Jonathan Edwards, actually pictured the elect, in heaven, as rejoicing over, and getting pleasure by watching, from heaven, God's endless, fiery torment upon the non-elect (those who, in the above quote, Calvin referred to as "our brethren") in the lake of fire. According to what Edwards said, an elect mother, for instance, would come to be rejoicing, in heaven, at the sight of her non-elect son being in the agony of endless torment in the lake of fire. Now, that's ghastly enough, and nowhere to be found countenanced in Scripture. But, in observing that spectacle of madness, the question arises: Why, only then, in heaven, is that elect person given a mind to hate those whom God has hated from all eternity? Why did God decree--not merely allow, but positively decree--for that elect person to go along in his/her earthly life loving and pitying the non-elect?
I always enjoy your pointless tantrums. Please continue. [emoji41]
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
You call God's deliberate aggravation of a non-elect person's sin "mercies and deliverance"?
You seriously claim that God bestows mercies and deliverance upon the eternally reprobate? Now, these are people that, as per Calvinism, God hates eternally. So, whence flow these mercies and deliverance? From God's lovingkindness? Lovingkindness from God toward the eternally reprobate? When you tack on the word 'temporal' before "mercies and deliverance", I see what you are doing; you are calling something "mercies and deliverance" which you understand is not mercies and deliverance at all, but is just the opposite of mercies and deliverance.
Exactly which phrase, in 2 Peter 2:1, are you talking about, saying that it is borrowed from Deuteronomy 32:6?
Please state why, exactly, you think the phrase in 2 Peter 2:1 that you say is borrowed from Deuteronomy 32:6 "manifestly refers" to Deuteronomy 32:6.
What would you say about those in Calvinism's special, Calvinist-embarrassing category, the unregenerate elect? What, specifically, with reference to those spoken of in 2 Peter 2:1: those of the false prophets who are elect, but unregenerate? Is the Lord, here, promising swift destruction on these false prophets who are elect, but unregenerate? Or, is He only promising swift destruction on false prophets who are not elect?
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
I had stopped specifically addressing posts to you after I got tired of you refusing to answer my questions, and now, you have addressed a post to me, for what reason, I do not know, as you, therein, still respond to none of the things I have written. To supplement the absurdity of your actions, you think it edifying to type an insincere smiley face. I would scarcely be surprised to learn that you were even driving down the freeway at 70 mph when you typed it. All I can figure is that you are begging for attention.
Now, why do you childishly mock someone whom you consider to be unregenerate?
Some questions you might consider asking yourself are these:
1. Obviously he's unregenerate, but suppose he's one of the elect; should I then be mocking one of the elect? Does Scripture warrant me to do so? Especially when my mocking is unprovoked?
2. Suppose he's one of the non-elect; does Scripture tell me that I should be mocking the non-elect? Especially when my mocking is unprovoked?
You were answered ad nauseum. You just don't have ears to hear or eyes to see. You prove that with every post.
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
You are a hardened liar. You answered none of my questions. You repeatedly lie, saying that you have answered all of them. You answered not a one. Please stop lying to me, and stop begging for attention.
No liar. You just cannot comprehend my answer because you are so narrow minded and blind to scripture.
False Prophet
New member
speaking of false prophets!
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Like I wrote earlier, you obviously did not actually read the sermon in question. You are operating outside your weight class and it shows.
I don't think you understand the decree of God at all.
Refresh yourself:
http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...-Mr-Religion&p=2251901&viewfull=1#post2251901
Nor do you understand the effects of the fall of Adam:
http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...cs-of-Reformed-Theology&p=4559007#post4559007
I also see no contradiction between the sovereignty of God and man's responsibility, that is, God’s decree and man’s freedom, because I can distinguish between the decree and its execution. This is because God executes His decree in the works of creation and providence. There is also the plain teaching from Scripture that God is sovereign and man is responsible. Yes, there is a tension between these two views, and Scripture does not alleviate that tension (see Job for example), nor should we, by poor attempts to re-define sovereignty or [/i]freedom[/i].
The execution of God’s decree in the works of creation are of necessity, e.g., the motion of the planets, atomic spin, physical laws of nature, etc. The execution of God’s decree by providence are from free acts of moral agents, and from a perfect regard to future event contingencies, as when God told David what Saul and Keilah would do to him if David remained in Keilah (1 Samuel 23:9-13). Thus, God’s providential control of the circumstances of man’s free choices does not overrule man’s inclinations.
God’s decree is absolute while the execution of the decree takes contingency / conditionality into account as things which God has also decreed. We can speak of ultimate causality so far as the decree of all things is concerned. Hopefully no Christian denies God is the ultimate First Cause, the antecedent cause, of all things, no matter what our differing views. Likewise, we must not deny the existence of secondary causes as the proximate causes of that which happens.
When speaking of the execution of the decree we must only allow active influence from God in relation to grace and redemption; we must deny active influence from God in relation to sin and damnation because the Bible rejects all views that God sins or tempts to sin, or condemns men for any reason other than their own free choice to sin.
We can view the post-Fall, redemptive related actions of God something like as follows:
God justly tells the reprobate: "I am not going to force you to make the wrong choice, but I am not going to prevent you from making the wrong choice."
God graciously tells the elect: "I am not going to force you to make the wrong choice, but I am going to prevent you from making the wrong choice.
God graciously tells the elect: "I am not going to force you to make the wrong choice, but I am going to prevent you from making the wrong choice.
Note from the above, the distinctions between God’s active influence related to grace and redemption, and God’s active permission related to reprobation.
AMR
Last edited:
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
You are simply not reading my written words carefully. Slow down and compose yourself.
God's mercies are poured out upon the reprobate undeservedly while the walk this earth (temporally). Many are blessed with riches and success. The rain falls upon the good and bad alike. That is the point of the quoted portion you are all aflutter about. These things heap coals upon their heads, making their sins more odious to the holy God.
AMR
False Prophet
New member
read the Institutes
The options regarding atonement:
God imposed his wrath due unto, and Christ underwent the pains of hell for, either all the sins of all men, or all the sins of some men, or some sins of all men.
If the last, some sins of all men, then have all men some sins to answer for, and so shall no man be saved . . .
If the second, that is it which we affirm, that Christ in their stead and room suffered for all the sins of all the elect in the world. If the first, why then are not all freed from the punishment of all their sins? You will say, 'Because of their unbelief; they will not believe.'
But this unbelief, is it a sin, or not?
If not, why should they be punished for it? If it be, then Christ underwent the punishment due to it, or not. If so, then why must that hinder them more than their other sins for which he died from partaking of the fruit of his death? If he did not, then did he not die for all their sins.
Let them choose which part they will".
John Owen: The Death of Death in the Death of Christ.
God imposed his wrath due unto, and Christ underwent the pains of hell for, either all the sins of all men, or all the sins of some men, or some sins of all men.
If the last, some sins of all men, then have all men some sins to answer for, and so shall no man be saved . . .
If the second, that is it which we affirm, that Christ in their stead and room suffered for all the sins of all the elect in the world. If the first, why then are not all freed from the punishment of all their sins? You will say, 'Because of their unbelief; they will not believe.'
But this unbelief, is it a sin, or not?
If not, why should they be punished for it? If it be, then Christ underwent the punishment due to it, or not. If so, then why must that hinder them more than their other sins for which he died from partaking of the fruit of his death? If he did not, then did he not die for all their sins.
Let them choose which part they will".
John Owen: The Death of Death in the Death of Christ.
beloved57
Well-known member
Back in the early 80's God used that book to convince me of limited atonement.
Zeke
Well-known member
The power of pyramid scheme theology is based on dead letters 2 Corinthians 3:6, a abhorrent truth that traps ones mind with dogma that promises "some future resurrection" for them and their groupies is a bravado lite empty boast Matthew 23:13, a pre cross dictate from Christ revealing entrance to the infinite kingdom was possible if you realized where God's kingdom was located, scolding those hiding behind religious traditions based on observational (Luke 17:20) creeds and brick and mortar institutions they worship more than all things being possible with the infinite God that sleeps within them Luke 17:21, Acts 7:48.
Calvinism is a off shoot of Elitist royal cast systems masked in diverse jargon that respects titles and persons positions in this time based world, a dream state (belief in two powers) for the legally dead they rule over. Their theology is phony like private property is for 14 amendment citizens paying tribute/taxes to their corporate masters, no theologians coarse in dead letters will salvage that Hegelian Dialectic ship they where paper birthed on, Matt 11:11, Galatians 4:24-25, Eph 5:14..
Calvinism is a off shoot of Elitist royal cast systems masked in diverse jargon that respects titles and persons positions in this time based world, a dream state (belief in two powers) for the legally dead they rule over. Their theology is phony like private property is for 14 amendment citizens paying tribute/taxes to their corporate masters, no theologians coarse in dead letters will salvage that Hegelian Dialectic ship they where paper birthed on, Matt 11:11, Galatians 4:24-25, Eph 5:14..
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
See, in the post that I wrote, no sermon was in question. What was in question was a particular quote from a sermon. The excerpt I quoted from Calvin is what was in question; the rest of the sermon was not what was in question.
Of course I didn't read the whole sermon! I merely read the portion that I quoted, because that was interesting. I am under absolutely no moral obligation, whatsoever,--either to you, to John Calvin, or to anyone else,--to read any more or less of Calvin's words than I choose to read. I am not the least bit obligated to become, as you pretentiously say, "fully apprised" of any, or all, of Calvin's vast literary output. And that's the case even if I choose to comment on just one, little portion of that literature which may come within the scope of my observation and interest. See, all that matters, here--all that is relevant--is that I am fully apprised of that one, little, Calvinism-damning quote, in which John Calvin affirms that some souls perished who had been bought by the blood of Christ.
Now, it is nothing to wonder at, that, as a Calvinism apologist, you are angered by the existence of that quote. It is no surprise that you would try to divert people's attention away from that quote, hoping to spare yourself the embarrassment that it necessarily forces upon your sordid ideology.
But, suppose one were, indeed, to humor your demand, and to proceed to read every last word of that sermon by Calvin. What, exactly, are you imagining should be the result of such an exercise, with regard to the quote in question? Would one find, having read the whole sermon, that, in some later paragraph of it, Calvin retracted his earlier affirmation that some souls perished who were bought by the blood of Christ? Any sermon in which the author eventually retracts something he had previously affirmed in the selfsame sermon is manifestly worthless as a sermon, and worthy of scorn. And, if Calvin did so in the sermon from which I have quoted him, then that sermon is worthless (as a sermon). And, bear in mind that it is you going about telling people they ought to read that sermon.
The same thing goes in case, elsewhere in Calvin's sermon, he inadvertently contradicts his affirmation that some souls perished who were bought by the blood of Christ, even though such contradiction may be inadvertent, rather than a deliberate, acknowledged retractation. The sermon will still be worthless, in such a case; although, I've no doubt that at least some Calvinists reverential of theological paradox would try to, somehow, whitewash its obvious worthlessness, and extol it for being so majestically paradoxical.
Now, again, I (without apology) have not read Calvin's sermon, in which he manifestly affirmed that some souls perished who were bought by the blood of Christ, so I do not know whether or not, elsewhere in that sermon, Calvin either retracts, or inadvertently denies that some souls perished who were bought by the blood of Christ. It's up to you to inform me, then, whether Calvin did either of these things in that sermon, if you desire me to believe that he did, since I have no plan to read that sermon.
Calvin, in his sermon, clearly affirmed that some souls perished who were bought by the blood of Christ. It's impossible for you to hide that fact, and your red herring ploy of directing people to other things Calvin wrote is useless, here.
Try to explain exactly how a reading of that whole sermon, instead of just the quoted excerpt by itself, should convert someone from thinking that Calvin was affirming (against Calvinism) that some souls perish who were bought by the blood of Christ to thinking that Calvin was denying (with Calvinism) that some souls perish who were bought by the blood of Christ. Have fun.
Oh, and by the way: Be sure to automatically consider yourself incompetent to answer these objections, as well as dishonest for trying to cloak your incompetence, the moment you decide to resort to your customary ploy of handing me one or more hyperlinks to this or that external document or forum post. None of that nonsense, here. That's the way Calvinists try to save face, and to escape the embarrassment caused by objections they cannot overcome. You gotta think on your feet, here. No cowardly hedging will be accepted.
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
That hypocrite, John Owen, also wrote, in his A Display Of Arminianism, that
John Owen suffered death temporal, with at least some of its antecedents and attendants. That's why he's been buried in a grave, in England, for over 300 years.
In your quote, Owen, who, of course, considered himself to be elect, said
Yet, in my quote, he affirms, in addition to that, that temporal death is a punishment of original sin. So, according to Owen, even though Christ already suffered for the elects' original sin, the elect, themselves also must suffer for their original sin, thereby making Christ's suffering for the elects' original sin of none effect. What rank Calvinist hypocrisy!
Maybe that sort of performance is why Owen was called a "nonconformist"; his affirmations out of the one side of his mouth did not conform to his affirmations out of the other side of his mouth.
Thanks for the Owen quote. I may have seen it before, but if I did, I had forgotten about it. But, now I'll keep that one handy to always be paired with the one I already knew about, and have just now quoted. They work against each other magnificently!
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
You are simply not writing your written words carefully.
Things that heap coals upon people's heads, making their sins more odious to God, are neither mercies nor deliverance. Why are you so fond of paradox theology?