Calvinism And Predestination

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Technically, any Homosexual Act was considered sodomy, but Calvin was tried for the other acts of. Maybe you need to research from factual sources.

And I already checked your website, it's ran by Calvinists!!
Just how biased can they NOT BE???
They site their sources so you can check them. You don't. So yes, I will trust their SITED SOURCES over your nonsense. Provide the documents and your case is made.
 
Actually it says or rather are known of God, pointing back to the word now. That’s why the term rather.

When they become believers, they are known of God, not before. Otherwise, God never knew them.
That interpretation turns the same discussion in Ephesians ND Romans on it's head. Sorry man, but your not interpreting this correctly.
 
They site their sources so you can check them. You don't. So yes, I will trust their SITED SOURCES over your nonsense. Provide the documents and your case is made.


Several posters here have already checked out what I posted, and confirmed my posts as legit, because it's a no brainer to find if you put the attempt in to look for it.

But someone NOT WANTING THE TRUTH, will be the person not looking for it!!
 
Where in Deuteronomy did God say that all babies go to heaven? Did we forget about Adam's sin, the sin credited to everyone before they were born? In fact, I'd say that the free will advocate is in a worse case. No baby has a chance to make a free will choice for God, so that would mean that they all go to hell. In the reformed view, there are some that are saved from this by God's grace. It is a perfectly biblical and consistent idea to say that God is free to save elect infants just like he is adults. Your disagreement is with scripture, friend. Not calvinism

35 Surely there shall not one of these men of this evil generation see that good land, which I sware to give unto your fathers.
36 Save Caleb the son of Jephunneh; he shall see it, and to him will I give the land that he hath trodden upon, and to his children, because he hath wholly followed the Lord.
37 Also the Lord was angry with me for your sakes, saying, Thou also shalt not go in thither.
38 But Joshua the son of Nun, which standeth before thee, he shall go in thither: encourage him: for he shall cause Israel to inherit it.
39 Moreover your little ones, which ye said should be a prey, and your children, which in that day had no knowledge between good and evil, they shall go in thither, and unto them will I give it, and they shall possess it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Melach
Several posters here have already checked out what I posted, and confirmed my posts as legit, because it's a no brainer to find if you put the attempt in to look for it.

But someone NOT WANTING THE TRUTH, will be the person not looking for it!!
You've been shown here, with an actual source to be wrong. You cannot refute it and haven't even tried. Yes I looked it up and started to check on the story. You side, the post you quoted, has no historical foundation or source material. I won't comment again on this with you until you interact with the quoted sources instead of slandering others.
 
35 Surely there shall not one of these men of this evil generation see that good land, which I sware to give unto your fathers.
36 Save Caleb the son of Jephunneh; he shall see it, and to him will I give the land that he hath trodden upon, and to his children, because he hath wholly followed the Lord.
37 Also the Lord was angry with me for your sakes, saying, Thou also shalt not go in thither.
38 But Joshua the son of Nun, which standeth before thee, he shall go in thither: encourage him: for he shall cause Israel to inherit it.
39 Moreover your little ones, which ye said should be a prey, and your children, which in that day had no knowledge between good and evil, they shall go in thither, and unto them will I give it, and they shall possess it.
This is simply saying that they're children will get the land instead of them. This has nothing to do with children going to heaven. Not even close. Swing and a miss pal.
 
You've been shown here, with an actual source to be wrong. You cannot refute it and haven't even tried. Yes I looked it up and started to check on the story. You side, the post you quoted, has no historical foundation or source material. I won't comment again on this with you until you interact with the quoted sources instead of slandering others.



Your source is from a CALVINIST BELIEVING platform!!
Do you think a Calvinist site is going to be against Calvin?

You either just ignore facts or disregard truth!!
 
You could look it up, IF, you wanted to know the TRUTH!!

Clearly and Obviously, YOU do not!!

So please, refrain from quoting me, I am not willing to argue with someone TOO LAZY to activate their search engine!!
 
This is simply saying that they're children will get the land instead of them. This has nothing to do with children going to heaven. Not even close. Swing and a miss pal.

Because they had no knowledge of good and evil. Will God condemn a person for someone else’s sin? Nope.
 
You could look it up, IF, you wanted to know the TRUTH!!

Clearly and Obviously, YOU do not!!

So please, refrain from quoting me, I am not willing to argue with someone TOO LAZY to activate their search engine!!
I already told you I looked this up, across multiple sites and sources. You didn't even read what I said. And I'm lazy? Wow man. That's embarrassing. I feel sorry for you, truly.
 
Because they had no knowledge of good and evil. Will God condemn a person for someone else’s sin? Nope.
So the baby David had with Bathsheba didn't die because of his father's sin? Oh wait....
Again, context. You are really bad at this, did you know that?
It is a phrase used to point out just how young their children are. It says nothing of hell or damnation in the ENTIRE PASSAGE. You're proof texting, and doing a really bad job of it.

Paul tells us in Adam all die. Death 'reigned' in Adam. In Romans 1-3 we see the sinfulness of man. Paul even tells us that those who live without the law still die by the law. Why? Because if Adam's sin. Romans spells this all out clear as day. He is our federal head, and we are charged with his sin. In the same way, believers have Christ as their federal head and are charged with his righteousness.

See the difference? You quote a portion of a passage that doesn't even cover this topic and twist it. I bring up whole chapters in context that are speaking directly to the topic at hand and exegete them. You just keep doing it wrong. Sorry man. Try again.
 
So the baby David had with Bathsheba didn't die because of his father's sin? Oh wait....
Again, context. You are really bad at this, did you know that?
It is a phrase used to point out just how young their children are. It says nothing of hell or damnation in the ENTIRE PASSAGE. You're proof texting, and doing a really bad job of it.

Paul tells us in Adam all die. Death 'reigned' in Adam. In Romans 1-3 we see the sinfulness of man. Paul even tells us that those who live without the law still die by the law. Why? Because if Adam's sin. Romans spells this all out clear as day. He is our federal head, and we are charged with his sin. In the same way, believers have Christ as their federal head and are charged with his righteousness.

See the difference? You quote a portion of a passage that doesn't even cover this topic and twist it. I bring up whole chapters in context that are speaking directly to the topic at hand and exegete them. You just keep doing it wrong. Sorry man. Try again.

You’d do well not to insult, but I guess if you’re elect you can do whatever you want.;)

The Deuteronomy passage gives us a look into the heart of God. Men die without the law because it is written upon their hearts. Man knows good and evil, but not babies.
 
So the baby David had with Bathsheba didn't die because of his father's sin? Oh wait....

Btw, the baby died because of the promised seed of Genesis 3:15. God was not going to allow the seed line to come through adultery.
 
You’d do well not to insult, but I guess if you’re elect you can do whatever you want.;)

The Deuteronomy passage gives us a look into the heart of God. Men die without the law because it is written upon their hearts. Man knows good and evil, but not babies.
Forgive me if I insulted you, but my point still stands. You can give me your opinions all you want, but until you can exegeted a SINGLE PASSAGE I don't feel the need to take you seriously.
You did not answer any critique igave, or offer scripture to support yourself. I have whole exegeted passages and chapters in context that I've provided. I feel insulted that you won't answer any point I've brought up. Scripture please. And with it's context. If you can't do that then you have no right to teach doctrine to anyone.
 
Btw, the baby died because of the promised seed of Genesis 3:15. God was not going to allow the seed line to come through adultery.
Does Nathan say that? Does David? Does God?
Nevertheless, because by this deed you have utterly scorned the Lord , the child who is born to you shall die."
2 Samuel 12:14 ESV
Those are God's words, and they completely contradict you. You didn't even go read the chapter to see if what you were saying was true. Again my point is made, you don't know the scriptures. You just like, and for no good reason. It would take seconds to look this up to make sure you were interpreting this right, and you didn't even try. God killed the child because of his father's sin. Case closed.
 
Does Nathan say that? Does David? Does God?
Nevertheless, because by this deed you have utterly scorned the Lord , the child who is born to you shall die."
2 Samuel 12:14 ESV
Those are God's words, and they completely contradict you. You didn't even go read the chapter to see if what you were saying was true. Again my point is made, you don't know the scriptures. You just like, and for no good reason. It would take seconds to look this up to make sure you were interpreting this right, and you didn't even try. God killed the child because of his father's sin. Case closed.

I know the Scripture well. Because of adultery God would not allow the child to live as the promised seedline. David is the one that should have been put to death, but the promise was going to come through David’s seed. God spared him.

I’ll post plenty of scripture later refuting the rcc doctrine of Calvinism.
 
I know the Scripture well. Because of adultery God would not allow the child to live as the promised seedline. David is the one that should have been put to death, but the promise was going to come through David’s seed. God spared him.

I’ll post plenty of scripture later refuting the rcc doctrine of Calvinism.
Is it hard to quote scripture? Does your keyboard not allow you to do so? You cannot provide me a shred of evidence to support you interpretation of this text. God said He killed the child BECAUSE OF DAVID'S SIN. No other reason. David had many children and any one of them could have been the lineage of Messiah. Solomon usurped the throne, he didn't have a right to it. Now God permitted this that his decree might be established, but the death of this child has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE LINEAGE OF JESUS. Sorry for the all caps, but it's obvious to me that you aren't even listening to what I've said. You STILL won't quote the scriptures that you claim to know so well. You continue to insert thing into the passages I quoted that ARE NOT THERE OR ANYWHERE ELSE. Again I say, and my point is proved more and more by your continued response, that you are a terrible exegete and don't know the scriptures.
 
Also I don't know what the RCC has to do with calvinism. We are polar opposites. If you think reformed theology has anything at all to do with Catholicism then you are truly a foolish person. We are their harshest critics!!! WE TEACH THAT THEY ARE THE BEAST OF REVELATION AND THE POPE IS ANTICHRIST!!!! WE DENY WORKS SALVATION, WORSHIP OF MARY AND EVERY DOGMA THEY TEACH!!!! I'm honestly stunned. Debate over. You show yourself invincibly ignorant of this entire topic.
 
Where in Deuteronomy did God say that all babies go to heaven? Did we forget about Adam's sin, the sin credited to everyone before they were born? In fact, I'd say that the free will advocate is in a worse case. No baby has a chance to make a free will choice for God, so that would mean that they all go to hell. In the reformed view, there are some that are saved from this by God's grace. It is a perfectly biblical and consistent idea to say that God is free to save elect infants just like he is adults. Your disagreement is with scripture, friend. Not calvinism
its in deuteronomy, they could enter the promised land cause they havent sinned yet.

just like today, someone who cant sin or understand the gospel, they cant be accused of anything.

augustine misinterpeted because of bad latin translation romans 5:12 as all sinned in adam, but its not that. adam's sin is not credited to anyone. people are responsible for their own sins ezekiel 18 is clear for that.

but you are already being mean to people. its common in calvinism i dont know why. see leighton flowers and his friend debate two calvinists, they even refused to call them 'brother'.
is it knowing others dont have a chance that makes reformed doctrine so cold and people often too?


you also asked what does rcc have to do with calvinism? well because most all is copied from augustine thats what.