Does the sovereignty of God nullify the grace of God?

[Magenta]

I don't think he was actually doing it. I think I misread his post. But I think I
might just start Camism and simply refer people to a website that doesn't exist.

I was not referring to anyone here right now... just saying it reminds me of...

Although he is an active member.

 

[Cameron143]

I was not referring to anyone here right now... just saying it reminds me of...

Although he is an active member.

I think I remember that. It happened to me the other day. If we reap what we sow, I guess I had it coming.

 

[Nehemiah6]

Man's decisions do not determine his eternal outcome. That would be eternal salvation by works, and that will not harmonize with the other scriptures.

How can obedience to the Gospel (also called "the obedience of faith") be "salvation by works"? So you really do not understand the purpose of the Gospel.

Now to Him that is of power to stablish you according to my Gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began, But now is made manifest, and by the Scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith: (Rom 16:25,26)

The "preaching of Jesus Christ" is to bring sinners to the obedience of faith in Him. That is obedience to the Gospel, and those who do not respond in faith are said to have disobeyed the Gospel: But they have not all obeyed the Gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report? (Rom 10:16)

Why is the word "obedience" use? Because (a) God now COMMANDS all men everywhere to repent and (b) God now COMMANDS all men everywhere to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and be saved.

 

[PaulThomson]

That's not exactly what he says. The argument is much more nuanced. You would have to understand first cause, secondary causes, etc. He would never say God is the author of sin. But it was God who both made man and allowed for free will. In this way Calvin would link God to sin. In other words, had God never created man, or created them without the possibility of sin, God would not be said to be the first cause.

Is that like David was not the author of Uriah's murder because he used secondary causes to have Uriah killed?

 

[PaulThomson]

But one is pre-selected for heaven and the other for hell. Preaching makes no sense. The elect doesn't need it and the other one can't respond to it.

Maybe it's like tree rings in the original trees and Adam's belly button. They looked hundreds or thousands of years old by God's design but were only one day old really. And Adam looked born but was made.

God preaches to the elect through messengers just for aesthetic reasons, even though they don't really need to hear it to be saved unilaterally by God's arbitrary will.

 

[PaulThomson]

No. Everyone should be encouraged to call upon the name of the Lord.

I'm not saying anything. You asked about TULIP, and I gave you a brief overview of it. I haven't said what I personally believe. I almost didn't do it because people don't seem to be able to distinguish between someone outlining a particular set of beliefs and what someone purpots to believe. That's why I gave the disclaimer.

Which tenet in TULIP do you not agree with?

 

[Cameron143]

Is that like David was not the author of Uriah's murder because he used secondary causes to have Uriah killed?

Actually the opposite. It was David who put the whole plan into action. Without his actions, nothing would have happened. He would be considered the first cause. He, however, would be culpable. Murder is a sin.
In like manner, when God created mankind, He became the first cause of all that follows. But creating isn't a sin, so God is not culpable for the actions that follow.
Suppose you have a friend whose birthday is next week and you organize a surprise party for them. Even if you do nothing further, you are the first cause of the party. It originated with you.
In one sense, from the time of creation, God is the first cause of all that follows.
I'm not making a case either way. But I see people being critical of Calvinism who don't actually understand his arguments. What people believe or don't believe is up to them. But one should at least understand the argument they are critical of. That is often not the case with those critical of Calvin.

 

[Cameron143]

Which tenet in TULIP do you not agree with?

On the whole, none. I don't ascribe to all the arguments made by Calvin, but I can arrive at the same place he does differently.
The problem with considering different views is that people are so passionate one way or the other on this particular topic that they have stopped listening and only stay silent long enough for the other person to stop talking and not for reflection.

 

[Pilgrimshope]

It's a shoot yourself in the foot belief. They believe that the elect were chosen by God before they came to earth. Which is great news for them. But the others God chose for destruction. Not for any wrong that they had done, nor any sin they had committed. God simply God them to be the losers in the cosmic bingo of life. So that means that if you aren't one of the ones God has chosen you cannot be saved. No matter how much you repent, beg or flagellate yourself your out of luck because God chose your behind for hell. And that is 100% against what the Word teaches. I can give Scripture as long as your arm to prove that is wrong.

if I want an excuse for what I do wrong I can just say I have no choice between right and wrong God ordained me to do this evil I can’t decide not to ……

it would mean that God created someone forced them to do evil making God responsible for every single evil thing we do to each other , then punished then when they only did what he made then do as if it was just to punish this poor puppet who had no choice

it would really make God a twisted individual and would negate everything he’s said from the beginning about mankind choosing life rather than death

 

[Pilgrimshope]

Actually the opposite. It was David who put the whole plan into action. Without his actions, nothing would have happened. He would be considered the first cause. He, however, would be culpable. Murder is a sin.
In like manner, when God created mankind, He became the first cause of all that follows. But creating isn't a sin, so God is not culpable for the actions that follow.
Suppose you have a friend whose birthday is next week and you organize a surprise party for them. Even if you do nothing further, you are the first cause of the party. It originated with you.
In one sense, from the time of creation, God is the first cause of all that follows.
I'm not making a case either way. But I see people being critical of Calvinism who don't actually understand his arguments. What people believe or don't believe is up to them. But one should at least understand the argument they are critical of. That is often not the case with those critical of Calvin.

Actually the opposite. It was David who put the whole plan into action.

yeah David was king of Israel and ordered it he was absolutely the author and cause of all the whole cycle from coveting to uriahs killing to cover David’s sin was David’s motive

aand look how he reacted afterwards showing his own culpability he. Is repenting because he’s acknolwedging his guilt

“Have mercy upon me, O God, according to thy lovingkindness: According unto the multitude of thy tender mercies blot out my transgressions.

Wash me throughly from mine iniquity, And cleanse me from my sin. For I acknowledge my transgressions: And my sin is ever before me. Against thee, thee only, have I sinned, and done this evil in thy sight:….. And blot out all mine iniquities. Create in me a clean heart, O God; And renew a right spirit within me.

Deliver me from bloodguiltiness, O God, thou God of my salvation: And my tongue shall sing aloud of thy righteousness. For thou desirest not sacrifice; else would I give it: Thou delightest not in burnt offering. The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit: A broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise.”
‭‭Psalm‬ ‭51:1-6, 9-10, 14,

aid we don’t take responsibility for our sins and actions we can never come to repentance and remission

“I acknowledged my sin unto thee, And mine iniquity have I not hid. I said, I will confess my transgressions unto the LORD; And thou forgavest the iniquity of my sin. Selah.”
‭‭Psalm‬ ‭32:5‬ ‭KJV‬‬

Its when we pretend we didn’t sin or it’s not our fault

“If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.”
‭‭1 John‬ ‭1:9-10‬ ‭KJV‬‬

It’s when we start taking responsability for our actions it causes us to do that causes us to start getting real with God not claiming the devil or God for causing us to do a something but start to acknolwedge our own faults to God that he heals them and grants repentance

ultimately we need to own what we do so we’ll acknowledge and repent

“Incline your ear, and come unto me: hear, and your soul shall live; and I will make an everlasting covenant with you, even the sure mercies of David.”
‭‭Isaiah‬ ‭55:3‬ ‭KJV‬‬


“I acknowledged my sin unto thee, And mine iniquity have I not hid. I said, I will confess my transgressions unto the LORD; And thou forgavest the iniquity of my sin. Selah. For this shall every one that is godly pray unto thee in a time when thou mayest be found: Surely in the floods of great waters they shall not come nigh unto him.”
‭‭Psalm‬ ‭32:5-6‬ ‭KJV‬‬

 

[ForestGreenCook]

Trusting in the d,b,r for sins is not a work of the law.

But who is it that trusts in spiritual things? It is those that have been reborn spiritually, which eliminates the natural man as descried in 1 Cor 2:15.

 

[John146]

But who is it that trusts in spiritual things? It is those that have been reborn spiritually, which eliminates the natural man as descried in 1 Cor 2:15.

You have built your whole theology on one verse taken out of context. The Holy Spirit convicts the lost man through the preaching of the cross. The preaching of the cross is powerful.

 

[ForestGreenCook]

John Calvin born 500 years ago ?

Is this how old the tulip doctrine is

Calvin's doctrine, as far as I have been told, is not the same doctrine as the one that Jesus taught. Calvin's doctrine is very similar, but not right on. If I am not mistaken, he believes that everything mankind does is predestined, and that would make God responsible for mankind's sins.

Calvin's teaching came out of the reformation period in the 1500's, as did most all of the other false doctrines that are in existence today.

The history of the church that Jesus set up, as I have read it, is not in the inspired scriptures, but strictly from history. Some time after the church began, there arose a dispute among two of the elders, as one of them wanted to implicate ways to increase their membership, by adding enticing things to attract people.

The other elder believed that the scripture guidelines of prayer, a cappella singing and preaching was sufficient for God to add to the church daily such as should be saved (delivered) from the things of the world.

As the history goes, The elder's church, that added things to attract more people, grew rapidly in its membership, so much that the Roman empire became concerned with their size, and included them as part of their government, and they became known as the Roman Catholic church, which persecuted the original church, in which scripture says that Paul took part in, which caused them to go into hiding for their worship, known as the dark ages. History says the original church actually increased in membership during this period..

The original church was never a part of the reformation period.

 

[Pilgrimshope]

But who is it that trusts in spiritual things? It is those that have been reborn spiritually, which eliminates the natural man as descried in 1 Cor 2:15.

“But who is it that trusts in spiritual things?”
“It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.”
‭‭John‬ ‭6:63, 68‬ ‭KJV‬‬

“Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.”
‭‭John‬ ‭3:5‬ ‭KJV‬‬

 

[Magenta]

I think I remember that. It happened to me the other day. If we reap what we sow, I guess I had it coming.

Good morning, Cameron .. I am just making/drinking my morning coffee, and have the radio on...
how serendipitous is it that Charles Stanley said in his program now, "You reap what you sow."?
Yes, sometimes we do reap what we sow, and others times, one plants, another waters, and yet
another reaps. Everything that happens to us in life cannot be boiled down to, you deserved that.
The things some people say have no basis in fact, and when they repeatedly cling to their delusions
even in the face of being shown irrevocably how wrong they are, that other person simply cannot be
reasoned with. God says, "Come, let us reason together." Wouldn't it be great if people could be reasonable?

Ah, a pipe dream, I know...

 

[Shepherd]

But who is it that trusts in spiritual things? It is those that have been reborn spiritually, which eliminates the natural man as descried in 1 Cor 2:15.

No, the natural man cannot discern spiritual things. But even the natural man knows right from wrong, good from evil. God even stated the Adam knew good from evil when he sinned. Here is an excerpt I clipped from a movie video starring George C. Scott who is speaking with a prostitute. I clipped out the parts with foul language. But I hope it illustrates how the world can discern what is evil.
https://youtube.com/clip/Ugkxw0ae1bKJJMEhqcMzSWoY6J0SRaucTai9?si=h-sWV4YRbSv4ufab

 

[John146]

Think about it, the all powerful God working in and through all the decisions of everyone on the earth at the same time. Wow!

 

[ForestGreenCook]

You have built your whole theology on one verse taken out of context. The Holy Spirit convicts the lost man through the preaching of the cross. The preaching of the cross is powerful.

Respectfully, I am not building by belief only on one scripture. My belief is that all of the scriptures must harmonize before a person can understand the doctrine that Jesus taught (Rev 22:18-19). This should be evidence to you by my response to every scripture you have presented to me.

Would you be kind enough to explain to me, exactly how I have taken certain scriptures out of context?

You seem to avoid explaining your theology on certain scriptures that I have presented to you. I do not want to seem harsh with my comments, but I love to defend the doctrine that Jesus taught, and give an answer to everyone that asks (1 Pet 3;15).

God saw fit to let me diligently study the scriptures for 12 years, before allowing the Holy Spirit within me to reveal the truth of this doctrine when I was 62 years old.

 

[PaulThomson]

Actually the opposite. It was David who put the whole plan into action. Without his actions, nothing would have happened. He would be considered the first cause. He, however, would be culpable. Murder is a sin.
In like manner, when God created mankind, He became the first cause of all that follows. But creating isn't a sin, so God is not culpable for the actions that follow.
Suppose you have a friend whose birthday is next week and you organize a surprise party for them. Even if you do nothing further, you are the first cause of the party. It originated with you.
In one sense, from the time of creation, God is the first cause of all that follows.
I'm not making a case either way. But I see people being critical of Calvinism who don't actually understand his arguments. What people believe or don't believe is up to them. But one should at least understand the argument they are critical of. That is often not the case with those critical of Calvin.

Equivocation:
the use ofambiguous language to conceal the truth or to avoid committing oneself: prevarication.
"It was David who put the whole plan into action. Without his actions, nothing would have happened. He would be considered the first cause. He, however, would be culpable. Murder is a sin."

"In one sense, from the time of creation, God is the first cause of all that follows.
But creating isn't a sin, so God is not culpable for the actions that follow."

"I'm not making a case either way. But I see people being critical of Calvinism who don't actually understand his arguments. What people believe or don't believe is up to them. But one should at least understand the argument they are critical of. That is often not the case with those critical of Calvin."

"The equivocation fallacy refers to the use of an ambiguous word or phrase in more than one sense within the same argument. Because this change of meaning happens without warning, it renders the argument invalid or even misleading." https://www.scribbr.com/fallacies/equivocation-fallacy/#:~:text=The equivocation fallacy refers to,argument invalid or even misleading.

Under Calvin's exhaustive divine determinism, God meticulously planned, predetermined and decreed every thought, intention, emotion and action of every entity in the universe for all time. According to Calvin, He ordained every evil thing from before creation began. According to Calvin, God has decreed all things and man can do nothing to change what God before creating decreed would be. According to Calvin, God as the supreme monarch is not subject to his own moral laws and because He cannot be punished by His creatures, He can simply decree Himself perfectly good, and by so decreeing that He is perfectly good, even though He has caused every evil - not by merely allowing it, but by meticulously planning and decreeing it - He thereby escapes culpability for all the evil He invented, planned and irresistibly decreed.

You say God creating, i.e. the first cause of His creations evil developments, was not evil per se. However, His creating was preceded by a prior cause: His determination a priori to generate a creation in which He irresistibly ordained that His creatures would imagine, plan and perform abominations. And you say that since creating per se is not evil, God is not culpable for the planned and decreed downstream consequences of His creating.

In that case, David looking out his window, i.e. the first cause of his adultery and murder, was not per se evil. He was not planning todo evil before he looked out the window. Therefore, by your logic, David is even less culpable than God for the downstream consequences of His looking out the window.

Professing Calvinists - I say professing, because many don't actually agree with Calvin, so are not true Calvinists - use equivocation to conceal the truth they actually believe, or to avoid committing themselves to a systemic they do not truly believe.

 

[Shepherd]

Equivocation:
the use ofambiguous language to conceal the truth or to avoid committing oneself: prevarication.
"It was David who put the whole plan into action. Without his actions, nothing would have happened. He would be considered the first cause. He, however, would be culpable. Murder is a sin."

"In one sense, from the time of creation, God is the first cause of all that follows.
But creating isn't a sin, so God is not culpable for the actions that follow."

"I'm not making a case either way. But I see people being critical of Calvinism who don't actually understand his arguments. What people believe or don't believe is up to them. But one should at least understand the argument they are critical of. That is often not the case with those critical of Calvin."

"The equivocation fallacy refers to the use of an ambiguous word or phrase in more than one sense within the same argument. Because this change of meaning happens without warning, it renders the argument invalid or even misleading." https://www.scribbr.com/fallacies/equivocation-fallacy/#:~:text=The equivocation fallacy refers to,argument invalid or even misleading.

Under Calvin's exhaustive divine determinism, God meticulously planned, predetermined and decreed every thought, intention, emotion and action of every entity in the universe for all time. According to Calvin, He ordained every evil thing from before creation began. According to Calvin, God has decreed all things and man can do nothing to change what God before creating decreed would be. According to Calvin, God as the supreme monarch is not subject to his own moral laws and because He cannot be punished by His creatures, He can simply decree Himself perfectly good, and by so decreeing that He is perfectly good, even though He has caused every evil - not by merely allowing it, but by meticulously planning and decreeing it - He thereby escapes culpability for all the evil He invented, planned and irresistibly decreed.

You say God creating, i.e. the first cause of His creations evil developments, was not evil per se. However, His creating was preceded by a prior cause: His determination a priori to generate a creation in which He irresistibly ordained that His creatures would imagine, plan and perform abominations. And you say that since creating per se is not evil, God is not culpable for the planned and decreed downstream consequences of His creating.

In that case, David looking out his window, i.e. the first cause of his adultery and murder, was not per se evil. He was not planning todo evil before he looked out the window. Therefore, by your logic, David is even less culpable than God for the downstream consequences of His looking out the window.

Professing Calvinists - I say professing, because many don't actually agree with Calvin, so are not true Calvinists - use equivocation to conceal the truth they actually believe, or to avoid committing themselves to a systemic they do not truly believe.

Even before David "looked out the window", he was not where he was supposed to be: He was supposed to be with his men "going forth to battle", instead he was being lazy and lounging in his house.