-->
@ethang5
Do we really need to search this hard for points of disagreement? 😀
I agree with most of what he said!! 😄
Why I didn't become a Calvinist
Posts
Total:
58
-->
@ethang5
@Soluminsanis
Do we really need to search this hard for points of disagreement? 😀I agree with most of what he said!! 😄
See I told you all true Christians are either Calvinist or closet Calvinists. Smile.
-->
@ethang5
@Soluminsanis
Thanks for responding to my post.
So in regards to total depravity I would take no issue with what you laid out. Calvinists usually say we're not as evil as we can possibly be. I would agree. I would also add, which many calvinists do not, that we are not as spiritually blind as we could be. But putting that aside I would argue there's not too much contention here.
Glad to see you don't have too much contention here. Interesting thought about spiritual blindness. I will need to consider that in more depth at a later time.
Unconditional Election: God chooses his people unconditionally. In other words, there is nothing about any human that warrants salvation or mercy. No condition such as wealth, intelligence, race, sex, sexual orientation, age, etc. including creed, is necessary or required for God to choose. It is a situation whereby God saves us not because of something better than someone else but entirely because of his mercy.This is a really soft definition of unconditional election. Even the staunchest arminian would agree with this. I'm going to quote the WCF's definition of unconditional election:
I am not attempting to put a soft definition. Rather a distilled one for my children to understand. I know the WCF. I have to subscribe and affirm it it in my role. Yet we also have a declarative statement which we read the WCF in the light of which includes the following:
That the doctrine of God’s eternal decree, including the doctrine of election to eternal life, is held asdefined in the Confession of Faith, Chapter III, Section 1., where it is expressly stated that according tothis doctrine, “neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creature, nor isthe liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established;” and further, that the saiddoctrine is held in connection and harmony with the truth – that God is not willing that any should perish,but that all should come to repentance, that He has provided a salvation sufficient for all, and adaptedto all, and offered to all in the Gospel, and that every hearer of the Gospel is responsible for his dealingwith the free and unrestricted offer of eternal life.
In regards to the molinist view of unconditional election, I will devote a second reply to it because it'll take up too much space in this one...
I will look forward to giving it some further thought.
therefore atonement is limited by definition.Yes but limited in what sense? In its scope or its application? The non Calvinist would say limited in application. The Calvinist would say limited in its scope.I'll phrase it this way, did Christ die for the sins of every person, or the elect only?
Yes, I understand the dilemma This is why I distinguish between assurance and sufficiency. I think the two are quite distinct and important doctrines and not necessarily well understood. The interesting thing is that evangelical arminians and calvinists would both hold that the exact number of people are saved no matter what position you hold to. The whosoever, and the elect = the exact multitude without number.
Once a person - sees Jesus for whom he is - cannot but fall in love with him and want to follow him.I wholeheartedly agree! The question though is what brings about this change in view of Christ? The Calvinist would argue the entire person's will, heart, mind, and outlook on spiritual matters were brought about in such a way that the person could not resist.
Yes the Calvinist would say "Salvation belongs to the LORD". It is God who saves us - not we ourselves".
Ironically enough, the molinist understanding of saving or effectual grace is closer to the Calvinist than arminian. I'll address that in my next post.I would affirm perseverance of the saints as well.....
looking forward to your thoughts.
-->
@Tradesecret
Every True Christian is either expressly a Calvinist or is a closet Calvinist. They are but they just don't know it yet.
Nice.
-->
@Soluminsanis
I wouldn't say God acts by necessity or that His nature compels Him to perform certain acts. I would say though that God cannot act against His nature
That seems to be a distinction without a difference.
.
SOLUMINSANIS,
YOUR DISTURBING UNGODLY QUOTE #10: "Gone to the school? I run the school. I am the head instructor, and will go down as the greatest theologian in history. I have trained an army of master theologians to DEBATE and EXPOSE your heresies."
The only heresy is the FACT that you specifically stated that Yahweh was your choice of a God, which is the God of the JEWS ONLY: YOUR QUOTE: "Fair enough. I would obviously choose Yahweh because I am a Christian."https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/5537-modal-ontological-argument-open-for-discussion-and-defense?page=1&post_number=21
Remember, I had to educate you of the fact that you cannot be a Christian if you only follow the Jews only God Yahweh and gave you many examples of why you have become a Jew instead of a pseudo-christian. Therefore, since you are unfortunately teaching pseudo-christians, and allegedly being the greatest theologian in history *cough,* then what part of Judaism in you being a JEW for Yahweh are you teaching? In yourself being a JEW, what part of the Talmud and Torah, or other Jewish writings do you like the best?
At your laughable and hypocritical stance, can you elaborate upon the above questions? Thanking you in advance.
.
I wouldn't say God acts by necessity or that His nature compels Him to perform certain acts. I would say though that God cannot act against His nature
That seems to be a distinction without a difference.
If "by necessity" and "compels" mean the same thing as "cannot act" then sure.
-->
@ethang5
If "by necessity" and "compels" mean the same thing as "cannot act" then sure.
(IFF) it is against GOD'S nature to "do nothing" (THEN) GOD is compelled to act by necessity
-->
@3RU7AL
(IFF) it is against GOD'S nature to "do nothing" (THEN) GOD is compelled to act by necessity
Fakery.
First, nowhere is it asserted that it was against God's nature to "do nothing". Doing nothing is not an "act".
Second, even if it was against GOD'S nature to "do nothing" (THEN) GOD would be compelled to act by His nature, not by necessity.
Integrity is a necessary ingredient of good debate.
-->
@ethang5
(IFF) it is GOD'S nature to "do nothing" (THEN) GOD must "do nothing"
-->
@3RU7AL
(IFF) it is GOD'S nature to "do nothing" (THEN) GOD must "do nothing"
If it is God's nature to jump rope, then God must jump rope.
My tautology is funnier.
-->
@ethang5
(IFF) it is GOD'S nature to "do good" (THEN) GOD must "do good"
-->
@3RU7AL
(IFF) it is GOD'S nature to "do good" (THEN) GOD must "do good"
If God's nature is to do bad, then god must do bad.
Still not funny, and still tautology.
-->
@ethang5
(IFF) it is GOD'S nature to "obliterate all evil actions and events and end all human suffering" (THEN) GOD must "obliterate all evil actions and events and end all human suffering"
-->
@Soluminsanis
I am not particularly familiar with molinism(I am Orthodox Catholic, not Roman Catholic), but the church fathers who came before him were not calvinists by any stretch of the imagination.
-->
@3RU7AL
(IFF) it is GOD'S nature to "obliterate all evil actions and events and end all human suffering" (THEN) GOD must "obliterate all evil actions and events and end all human suffering"
If God's nature is to milk a brown cow and churn ice cream, then God must milk a brown cow and churn ice cream.
See? If you're going to post tautology, at least be funny.
-->
@Soluminsanis
Calvinism confuses people, it's just a backwards concept about God. The whole idea about predetermination, omniscience and predestination are misconstrued and distorted. Sometimes man just thinks too hard about things that are intrinsically and intuitively easy to know.
-->
@3RU7AL
"(IFF) it is GOD'S nature to "obliterate all evil actions and events and end all human suffering" (THEN) GOD must "obliterate all evil actions and events and end all human suffering"
I'm not exactly sure what it is you're trying to argue, 3ru7al. God cannot contradict His nature, that does not mean however all of His actions or inactions are determined. I'm just not clear on your point. God's nature does not consist of one specific action
-->
@ethang5
(IFF) it is GOD'S nature to "obliterate all evil actions and events and end all human suffering" (THEN) GOD must "obliterate all evil actions and events and end all human suffering"
THEREFORE
(IFF) evil actions and events and human suffering exist (AND) an omnipotent and omniscient creator exists (THEN) evil actions and events and human suffering are caused by an omnipotent and omniscient creator
Absolutely hilarious.
-->
@Soluminsanis
God's nature does not consist of one specific action
How many versions of earth did "YHWH" create?
-->
@EtrnlVw
Sometimes man just thinks too hard about things that are intrinsically and intuitively easy to know.
Are you suggesting we should all stop thinking for ourselves and just listen to you?
-->
@Soluminsanis
God cannot contradict His nature, that does not mean however all of His actions or inactions are determined.
OMNISCIENCE + OMNIPOTENCE = PERFECT ACTION
(IFF) it is GOD'S nature to "obliterate all evil actions and events and end all human suffering" (THEN) GOD must "obliterate all evil actions and events and end all human suffering"THEREFORE(IFF) evil actions and events and human suffering exist (AND) an omnipotent and omniscient creator exists (THEN) evil actions and events and human suffering are caused by an omnipotent and omniscient creatorAbsolutely hilarious.
Many people find stupidity and illogic funny. I happen not to be one of them. You enjoy though.
-->
@ethang5
PERFECT GOD = PERFECT WORLD
-->
@3RU7AL
Are you suggesting we should all stop thinking for ourselves and just listen to you?
-->
@3RU7AL
"PERFECT GOD = PERFECT WORLD"
Oh that's just terrible reasoning.
God is perfect because within Him there exist no potentialities. There is nothing that can or has acted upon Him to bring about any motion from one state to another because there is/was nothing preceding Him, logically or temporally. He is maxed out as it were, on all His attributes, and all His attributes are good.
The same cannot nor ever be said for a created world. If it was actualized by God, there was something bringing it from potential to actual, which means said world, no matter how good, cannot be perfect, because the mere act of creating it means it was improved upon (i.e. it is better to exist than to not)
When God actualized THIS world, He endowed His creatures with free will. Which, although opened the door to immense suffering (potentially) it made greater goods possible
-->
@3RU7AL
PERFECT GOD = PERFECT WORLD
Immaterial God = immaterial world
Swedish carpenter = swedish chair
Black writer = black literature
Half baked thinker = illogical arguments
-->
@Soluminsanis
When God actualized THIS world, He endowed His creatures with free will.
NOTHING CAN CONTRADICT GOD'S PLAN.
ARE YOU SUGGESTING THAT HUMANS SOMEHOW OUTWITTED AN OMNISCIENT GOD?