U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Christianity
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 11-06-2009, 12:46 PM
 
Location: East Coast U.S.
1,513 posts, read 1,397,382 times
Reputation: 106

Advertisements

(You may perhaps be tempted here to accuse me of engaging in a filibuster - keep in mind that I'm simply responding to your previous assertions.)


Quote:
Originally Posted by legoman View Post
Ok sorry I guess I just missed it before. Should I say you are "copping out" if you haven't read any of the links I've posted yet? Have you started investigating the scriptures that point to Christian universalism in all the articles I pointed to you yet?

You probably understand there are only so many hours in the day, so both you and I might not be able to immediately investigate every unfamiliar idea.
On 10/24 when our discussion first began, I first put forward the issue of equal ultimacy. I have repeatedly put forward and repeated this term throughout our discussion. Now, on 11/03, you say "sorry I guess I just missed it?"

Like I said, "cop out."

As stated, I'm happy to address any and all of your scripture posts and related links. I just refuse to do it in filibuster format. I am more than willing to go through each, one by one, in a concise back and forth.

Where do we start?

Quote:
Originally Posted by legoman View Post
No problem. I think sometimes people get frustrated at the limitations in communicating this way, I know I do. Basically: ask a question, wait a day for an answer, and then its not really an answer you were expecting or the direction you were going, etc. so ask another question, get a different answer a day later... it takes a while to tread through an issue that way. Especially when two people have different ideas on a topic.
I'm quite satisfied with the discussion forum format and I'm fine with waiting for responses. The problem here is that there has obviously been a great deal of back and forth postings between 10/24 and 11/03. In order to respond cogently, you would have needed to familiarize yourself with the meaning of 'equal ultimacy' from the outset. This infers that you are responding in order to respond instead of attempting to understand my position.

Quote:
Originally Posted by legoman View Post
Sorry this is no false premise. You claim I am misinformed, but I believe you need to read some of the reformed heavies, like Pink, John Piper, or Jon Edwards. They all assert that God predestines some to be saved, and likewise predestines the rest to NOT be saved. They also assert that God has ordained and predestined all sins. If you don't believe these two points, you might not be "reformed" view.
Again, you deny the false premise and then quickly deflect instead of explaining why my alternative lacks logic.

I couldn't care less what Pink, Piper and Edwards assert. This has nothing to do with our discussion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by legoman View Post
For the record, no I don't believe what you stated is Arminianism, but it sure is alot closer to Arminianism than to Calvinism as you are claiming.
How so? There is absolutely nothing approaching the Arminian view in any of my assertions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by legoman View Post
You have got to be kidding me here. Are you serious? Your accusations of "baseless assertions" are completely ridiculous and bordering on arrogance or ignorance - you don't know what you are talking about. Either that or you are just trolling.
No, I'm not "kidding."

You open a thread with your totally ignorant OP - one designed to attack, malign and misrepresent Calvinism, and then turn around and accuse me of "trolling" when I point out your foolishness?

Quote:
Originally Posted by legoman View Post
Arthur Pink and Edwards are both pillars of the reformed movement - their writings are built on the work of Calvin. Its laughable that you suggest their teachings are of NO consequence. They teach the same thing as Calvin! NONE of them teach that ALL are elected yet some "volunteer" to go to hell, as you suggest.
You apparently want Pink and Edwards to be recognized as "pillars of the reformed movement" because you think it helps you to construct your twisted straw man view of Calvinism. If Pink and Edwards hold to equal ultimacy or hyper-Calvinism, they are out of line with the traditional reformed view as taught by Calvin and Luther.

Quote:
Originally Posted by legoman View Post
They all teach the basic premise in my OP (which you vehemently claimed as "misrepresenting Calvinism"), which is this:

God predestines some to be saved and the rest are predestined to be damned.

That is Calvinism in a nutshell!
...and I've asked where it is that scripture asserts a "predestination to be damned."

Quote:
Originally Posted by legoman View Post
Don't believe me? Try actually reading some reformed Authors. READ what Calvin wrote himself! I google'd for some of John Calvin's writings, and the first thing I found was this: Institutes of the Christian Religion.

One of the chapters is entitled:

CHAPTER 21. - OF THE ETERNAL ELECTION, BY WHICH GOD HAS PREDESTINATED SOME TO SALVATION, AND OTHERS TO DESTRUCTION.

There you go. Calvin taught that God predestined some to salvation and the rest to hell. That is the reformed/Calvinist position.
I'm going to ask you a question and I would greatly appreciate a very honest and concise answer:

Have you read Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion in their entirety?

Quote:
Originally Posted by legoman View Post
Reformed theology says that God elects some, and doesn't elect others.
Which is it - are the unelected simply the unelected or are they those that are "predestined to be damned?"

Don't shilly-shally. Say what you mean and mean what you say.

Quote:
Originally Posted by legoman View Post
Are you familiar with T.U.L.I.P? The L stands for LIMITED ATONEMENT. That means Christ did not die for the non-elect. That means God predestines the non-elect to hell. That is what Calvinism teaches.
You keep repeating the notion of Calvin asserting that God capresiously predestines people to hell and provide absolutely no contextual example whatsoever for making your assertion.

You have demonstrated yourself to be a wizard at pulling things completely out of context in order to provide justification for your ridiculous assertions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by legoman View Post
Continuing this conversation is pointless unless you want to acknowledge and study what the real reformed/Calvinist position is. Read Arthur Pink's Sovereignty of God. Read some of Calvin's own writings. That is what the OP is about. You inane version of a "pseudo reformed view" is irrelevant to the OP because my OP is about the REAL reformed movement that people like Calvin, Piper, and Pink teach.

I am left to conclude you simply want to disagree with the OP while ignoring what Calvin and other Calvinists actually said. You are either very confused or very foolish. Sheesh
.
No no, my friend. I'm not that easily done away with. If you want to run away from the discussion, that's your choice, I'm not going anywhere. Why would I need to run from truth?

Quote:
Originally Posted by legoman View Post
You are welcome to have your own alternative view, but you are completely mistaken in calling it Calvinism. Please READ some of the links I posted about Calvinism in the previous posts.

Furthermore your "all elected, people volunteer to hell" model is not scriptural either. Open a new thread if you want to discuss it.
You assert my view as an "alternative" view and refuse to explain how you arrive at the conclusion. Set the links and out of context quotations aside and just explain how it is that my view lacks logic.

Quote:
Originally Posted by legoman View Post
There you go saying MY view is misinformed again! LOL Why don't you actually read some of the writers in the reformed/Calvinist movement. Let me give you a couple quotes:

John Calvin: "
By predestination we mean the eternal decree of God, by which he determined with himself whatever he wished to happen with regard to every man. All are not created on equal terms, but some are preordained to eternal life, others to eternal damnation; and, accordingly, as each has been created for one or other of these ends, we say that he has been predestinated to life or to death" ...
"
We say, then, that Scripture clearly proves this much, 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" (Institutes of the Christian Religion | Christian Classics Ethereal Library)

Calvin himself says God predestines people to hell. Other reformed leaders like Arthur Pink, Jon Edwards, etc. all follow Calvin on this.
Have you read the Institutes in entirety?

Quote:
Originally Posted by legoman View Post
That has already happened many times, and the false beliefs are always refuted logically and scripturally. Check the many UR threads in this forum if you are interested.

You need to research Calvinism yourself before you accuse people of misrepresenting it. There's no point in continuing this as you are unwilling to acknowledge what Calvin himself has said. I'm not doing your homework for you.
Again, your not answering my question. Why is it so hard for you to just provide a simple answer to a simple question?

If I were to do to "URism" what you've attempted here with this thread, it would be flat out wrong and you know it. I haven't done it and don't intend to.

I can only surmise that there is some deeply personal aspect to your attack on Calvinism.

Quote:
Originally Posted by legoman View Post
Be well Tigetmax.
I am well, and still ready to continue the discussion.

I'm just getting warmed up.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-06-2009, 01:23 PM
 
6,221 posts, read 6,405,821 times
Reputation: 682
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24 View Post
..and I've asked where it is that scripture asserts a "predestination to be damned."
If by "damned" you mean "eternal hell", scripture doesn't say that at all.

Quote:
I'm going to ask you a question and I would greatly appreciate a very honest and concise answer:

Have you read Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion in their entirety?
Nope.

Quote:
Which is it - are the unelected simply the unelected or are they those that are "predestined to be damned?"

Don't shilly-shally. Say what you mean and mean what you say.
THEY ARE THE SAME THING if you believe the nonelect are not saved. If some are predestined to be elected, then implicitly the rest are predestined to be non-elected. If you believe the nonelect are not saved, then implicitly the nonelect are predestined to go to hell. Its that simple.

Quote:
You keep repeating the notion of Calvin asserting that God capresiously predestines people to hell and provide absolutely no contextual example whatsoever for making your assertion.
If you want to ignore what Calvin himself says, I can't really help you.

John Calvin says: "By predestination we mean the eternal decree of God, by which he determined with himself whatever he wished to happen with regard to every man. All are not created on equal terms, but some are preordained to eternal life, others to eternal damnation; and, accordingly, as each has been created for one or other of these ends, we say that he has been predestinated to life or to death" ...
"We say, then, that Scripture clearly proves this much, 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"

Quote:
You assert my view as an "alternative" view and refuse to explain how you arrive at the conclusion. Set the links and out of context quotations aside and just explain how it is that my view lacks logic.
I'm tempted to say here that you should explain your view first, so you don't accuse me of misrepresenting your view.

But from what you have told me, this is how I understand your view: ALL are elected, some volunteer to go to hell instead. That quite plainly is unscriptural. Scripture does not say all are elected. Scripture also does not say anyone volunteers for hell. This view is illogical because it plainly contradicts scripture. If this is not your view, please explain to me your view.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-06-2009, 01:29 PM
 
6,221 posts, read 6,405,821 times
Reputation: 682
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24 View Post
I couldn't care less what Pink, Piper and Edwards assert. This has nothing to do with our discussion.

...
You apparently want Pink and Edwards to be recognized as "pillars of the reformed movement" because you think it helps you to construct your twisted straw man view of Calvinism. If Pink and Edwards hold to equal ultimacy or hyper-Calvinism, they are out of line with the traditional reformed view as taught by Calvin and Luther.
You should really research who they are. They are indeed pillars of the reformed movement and follow in Calvin's footsteps. If you can't acknowledge that, I question how much you've really studied this. A simple wikipedia search will yield the info. Continued denial of their relevance is foolish.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-06-2009, 01:40 PM
 
6,221 posts, read 6,405,821 times
Reputation: 682
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24 View Post
On 10/24 when our discussion first began, I first put forward the issue of equal ultimacy. I have repeatedly put forward and repeated this term throughout our discussion. Now, on 11/03, you say "sorry I guess I just missed it?"

Like I said, "cop out."

As stated, I'm happy to address any and all of your scripture posts and related links. I just refuse to do it in filibuster format. I am more than willing to go through each, one by one, in a concise back and forth.

Where do we start?



I'm quite satisfied with the discussion forum format and I'm fine with waiting for responses. The problem here is that there has obviously been a great deal of back and forth postings between 10/24 and 11/03. In order to respond cogently, you would have needed to familiarize yourself with the meaning of 'equal ultimacy' from the outset. This infers that you are responding in order to respond instead of attempting to understand my position.
I've investigated equal ultimacy a bit since you brought this up last week. My understanding of "equal ultimacy" is that God works equally to keep the elect in heaven and to keep the reprobate out of heaven.

So someone who does not believe in equal ultimacy would suggest that God simply leaves the nonelect alone and they fall into hell on their own.

And I say this claim doesn't hold water, because under this system the only reason the nonelect are not saved is because God did not save them. God is the only sovereign power here - He has decided who to save, and He has decided who not to save.


Do you believe in double predestination? This is the view that Calvin taught: God predestines who will go to heaven and who will go to hell.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-06-2009, 03:38 PM
 
3 posts, read 3,194 times
Reputation: 10
Here's a statement I heard someone present once upon a time that I found rather intriguing:

"If Free will existed the most selfish centered person would choose to serve God"
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-06-2009, 10:18 PM
 
6,221 posts, read 6,405,821 times
Reputation: 682
For those who think I am "misrepresenting" Calvinism, I urge you to read Calvin's own words in this chapter of his famous "Institutes of Christian Religion":

Institutes of the Christian Religion | Christian Classics Ethereal Library

Calvin makes it crystal clear that:
1. God ordains people to sin
2. God then predestines some of these people to be doomed to destruction in eternal torment
3. This is just

If you notice this is exactly what I said in my OP, except I disagree with point #3. Calvin is quite correct that whatever God does is just, but his error is believing God would ordain eternal torment.

Calvin explains it away by saying it must be justice because God is just, and we are not supposed to be able to understand this because we are wicked miserable men. Calvin even seems to contradict himself when He says God ordains the fall of man, yet it is man's fault because man wanted to sin.

If you don't believe me, read the link for yourself.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-07-2009, 08:53 AM
 
Location: East Coast U.S.
1,513 posts, read 1,397,382 times
Reputation: 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by legoman View Post
If by "damned" you mean "eternal hell", scripture doesn't say that at all.
If, in your previously stated view, a 'predestination to hell' logically follows from the predestination to salvation view, does it not seem odd to you that the actual term: "predestination to hell" or "predestination to be damned" does not appear in scripture?

Quote:
Originally Posted by legoman View Post
Nope.
Have you read Calvin's Institutes in their entirety?

Your answer: "Nope."

A one-word answer that speaks volumes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by legoman View Post
THEY ARE THE SAME THING if you believe the nonelect are not saved. If some are predestined to be elected, then implicitly the rest are predestined to be non-elected. If you believe the nonelect are not saved, then implicitly the nonelect are predestined to go to hell. Its that simple.
Yet, you assert (quite accurately) that the actual term: "predestination to non-election" does not appear in scripture.

The explanation that Calvin provides in 'The Institutes' is indeed simple. But, having never read it - how would you know? You endeavor to school us all on something with which you admit to having only limited familiarity.

- or -

You have read Calvin's contextual treatment and, for obvious reasons, determined to ignore it.

At first it seemed to me that you were well intentioned and amicable to honest discussion. Subsequent events clearly demonstrate otherwise. You obviously have a personal agenda and a predetermined template that you stubbornly refuse to abandon - even when your end game is apparent to any objective observer.

Quote:
Originally Posted by legoman View Post
If you want to ignore what Calvin himself says, I can't really help you.

John Calvin says: "By predestination we mean the eternal decree of God, by which he determined with himself whatever he wished to happen with regard to every man. All are not created on equal terms, but some are preordained to eternal life, others to eternal damnation; and, accordingly, as each has been created for one or other of these ends, we say that he has been predestinated to life or to death" ...
"We say, then, that Scripture clearly proves this much, 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"
Context. Otherwise known as a 'systematic' approach to learning and understanding what the author is trying to communicate.

But, when the true context runs against your predetermined template, it must be ignored I suppose.

Quote:
Originally Posted by legoman View Post
I'm tempted to say here that you should explain your view first, so you don't accuse me of misrepresenting your view.

But from what you have told me, this is how I understand your view: ALL are elected, some volunteer to go to hell instead. That quite plainly is unscriptural. Scripture does not say all are elected. Scripture also does not say anyone volunteers for hell. This view is illogical because it plainly contradicts scripture. If this is not your view, please explain to me your view.
You apparently lack the energy to look back to previous posts, so I'll lay this out for you - again:

Quoting myself from post #122:

"Speaking for myself and my own understanding of the reformed view, God does not create people for the express purpose of destruction. To paraphrase: 'God is not willing that anyone should parish.' or words to that effect. The people going to hell are all volunteers. God, through grace and mercy, chooses, by God's own sovereignty, whom to persuade to turn away from evil and whom to hand over to their own evil desires. God allows the unconverted to choose to remain unconverted, which, is a far cry from causing them to become unconverted."

This was initially directed at 'daddythreepointoh' and you followed approx. 45 minutes later (Post #123) inferring that you had been following the discussion.

As previously stated, I'm a simple layman. The above statement was my effort to put into layman's terms, very concisely, what Calvin explains in more detain in 'The Institutes.' But how would you know? Either you've never read it or you have read it and made an obvious determination to ignore it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-07-2009, 09:00 AM
 
Location: East Coast U.S.
1,513 posts, read 1,397,382 times
Reputation: 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by legoman View Post
I've investigated equal ultimacy a bit since you brought this up last week. My understanding of "equal ultimacy" is that God works equally to keep the elect in heaven and to keep the reprobate out of heaven.

So someone who
does not believe in equal ultimacy would suggest that God simply leaves the nonelect alone and they fall into hell on their own.

And I say this claim doesn't hold water, because under this system
the only reason the nonelect are not saved is because God did not save them. God is the only sovereign power here - He has decided who to save, and He has decided who not to save.


Do you believe in double predestination? This is the view that Calvin taught: God predestines who will go to heaven and who will go to hell.
As stated, repeatedly, neither Calvin nor Luther nor me nor the scriptures assert a "predestination to hell." God does not actively work to keep the reprobate out of heaven.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-07-2009, 09:18 AM
 
Location: East Coast
30,182 posts, read 19,976,834 times
Reputation: 2107
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24 View Post
As stated, repeatedly, neither Calvin nor Luther nor me nor the scriptures assert a "predestination to hell." God does not actively work to keep the reprobate out of heaven.
Well do you believe He actively works to keep the predestined in heaven ?.
Because if you do,surely you also have to believe those who are not predestined for heaven are predestined to hell.

Last edited by pcamps; 11-07-2009 at 09:44 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-07-2009, 10:02 AM
 
6,221 posts, read 6,405,821 times
Reputation: 682
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24 View Post
If, in your previously stated view, a 'predestination to hell' logically follows from the predestination to salvation view, does it not seem odd to you that the actual term: "predestination to hell" or "predestination to be damned" does not appear in scripture?
No it does not seem odd to me that predestination to hell does not appear in scripture. But what does appear in scripture is that some are predestined to be elected, and SOME ARE NOT predestined to be elected. Obviously this point is lost on you.

Quote:
Have you read Calvin's Institutes in their entirety?

Your answer: "Nope."

A one-word answer that speaks volumes.
I'm quite fed up with your nonsense tigetmax24. You continue to accuse me ad-hom style. I am very familiar with what Calvin teaches. And you so far have failed to show me where Calvin or scripture says ALL are elected.

It appears your question was just a setup to try to discredit me. Have you read the Institutes in their entirety? I will tell you I have read enough to get the point and am continuing to read it as time allows. It follows EXACTLY what Arthur Pink says in Sovereignty of God, but you haven't read that so you wouldn't know.

Quote:
Yet, you assert (quite accurately) that the actual term: "predestination to non-election" does not appear in scripture.
Now you are misrepresenting me. I did not say that. You asked about predestination of damnation to hell, not election. Scripture does not speak of predestination to hell. Scripture does speak of predestination to election (and therefore also non-election, because if you are not predestined to be elected, then by default you were predestined to be non-elect). Get it straight.


Quote:
The explanation that Calvin provides in 'The Institutes' is indeed simple. But, having never read it - how would you know? You endeavor to school us all on something with which you admit to having only limited familiarity.

- or -

You have read Calvin's contextual treatment and, for obvious reasons, determined to ignore it.

At first it seemed to me that you were well intentioned and amicable to honest discussion. Subsequent events clearly demonstrate otherwise. You obviously have a personal agenda and a predetermined template that you stubbornly refuse to abandon - even when your end game is apparent to any objective observer.
More ad hom attacks not worth commenting on. Try to stick to the issue and leave out the personal attacks.


Quote:
Context. Otherwise known as a 'systematic' approach to learning and understanding what the author is trying to communicate.

But, when the true context runs against your predetermined template, it must be ignored I suppose.
Wow more ad hom attacks and some vague hand-waving to "context", as if that changes the plain meaning of John Calvin's statements. I quote John Calvin again:

"Those, therefore, whom God passes by he reprobates, and that for no other cause but because he is pleased to exclude them from the inheritance which he predestines to his children."

Does that really sound like Calvin is suggesting God wishes none perish? On the contrary, Calvin is saying God is pleased to have some perish.

"I again ask how it is that the fall of Adam involves so many nations with their infant children in eternal death without remedy unless that it so seemed meet to God? Here the most loquacious tongues must be dumb. The decree, I admit, is, dreadful; and yet it is impossible to deny that God foreknew what the end of man was to be before he made him, and foreknew, because he had so ordained by his decree."

Here we see that Calvin asserts God has decreed the fall of Adam. If you read it through, you will see Calvin also affirms that God has ordained all sins. God is indeed the first cause of why there is sin. The reason why men sin is because God decreed it, according to Calvin. Read the whole chapter if you want the full context.


Quote:
You apparently lack the energy to look back to previous posts, so I'll lay this out for you - again:

Quoting myself from post #122:

"Speaking for myself and my own understanding of the reformed view, God does not create people for the express purpose of destruction. To paraphrase: 'God is not willing that anyone should parish.' or words to that effect. The people going to hell are all volunteers. God, through grace and mercy, chooses, by God's own sovereignty, whom to persuade to turn away from evil and whom to hand over to their own evil desires. God allows the unconverted to choose to remain unconverted, which, is a far cry from causing them to become unconverted."
Answer me this: Why do the wicked have evil desires in the first place? Are you suggesting God didn't want them to be wicked? Calvin (and scripture) asserts God created the wicked. They are only wicked because God created them that way. God creates the wicked, the wicked have evil desires, and you wish to tell me God did not cause them to be wicked? Unbelievable.

This discussion is now officially pointless, as you continue to ignore plain statements of Calvin, plain scripture, and plain logic and reason. Perhaps another Calvinist who is more aware of what Calvin teaches will step up to the plate. Calvin does not teach that God desires all be saved (He contradicts scripture here).

Have a nice day Tigetmax.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Christianity
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top