Patrick Jane Forums | Anthropology, Theology, Conspiracy

Theology, Anthropology & Archaeology => Words of God - Christian Theology w/Bladerunner => Topic started by: Bladerunner on February 05, 2019, 10:32:43 pm

Title: From a Calvinist Perspective: Comments
Post by: Bladerunner on February 05, 2019, 10:32:43 pm
Hi,  I consider myself a leaky Calvinist. The reason I say leaky, is that I do not completely follow the namesake of the Calvinist theology (John Calvin).

Most people get Roman 8:29-30 all wrong but admit: "Obviously we cannot transform ourselves. Only the power of God can do that."

Are you like others before you, who say men were born of sin but have no Free-Will. I want to ask...Was Adam and EVE predestined? Were they saved by the Grace of GOD? Jesus had not died on the Cross YET! I expect, when we get to heaven we will see both of them there.

One thing I can tell you is that Adam had Free Will. So did Eve. She did not have to follow Satan's advise but by her own Free-Will she did. Adam did not have to partake of the fruit even though Eve gave it to him but by his own Free-Will he did.....

Thus, Free-Will was created in both Adam and Eve by GOD and the sin that we have, was brought on by mankind's downfall.

Don't blame God for something our forefathers did!.

For John 3:16 tell us.."For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."

Yes, for God in an eternity past already knew each of us and knew what we would do given the choice of being with Him for an Eternity or being without Him for an Eternity.

Those that would accept HIM, He predestined.

For all of the people, He loved them SO much that He gave a book (Holy Bible) that had John 3:16. He would tell the world and everyone in it that all they had to do is believe in His son who died on a Cross (for everyone's sin who would accept it).  Yes, I did say everyone, yet there are those that had rather be among others (sin and satan) than be with HIM.

Therefore, GOD loves you SO MUCH that he will not force you to live with HIM.

He loves you SO MUCH that He will abide by your choice made by you Free-Will.

He loves you SO MUCH that HE will carry the burden of not being with the Children of His creation who do not want to be with Him.

Yet, If He had forced us all to love HIM, we would have no FREE-WILL. We would be automatons. What kind of LOVE would that be????

Another choice He had at creation, would be to simply leave us to our own doings, remove the restrainer(the Holy Spirit) and let man's evil consume himself....Today, we could end it very quickly and most likely WILL.

Yes, we would still have Free-Will, but Free-Will to do what? DIE, a death where there would be NO life after this life (Both body and soul would die) confirming what Atheist have said throughout the centuries; there is no GOD as there is no life after this life.

Some will say that GOD's anger forces those who do not chose to believe in His son, to be tormented in the Lake of Fire. Yet, the words "He that hath ears to hear, let him hear." is spoken of in the pages of the Holy Bible thirty-nine times.

Every Human being has ears and as such the Holy Bible, HIS WORD is spoken to each one of us and He tells us.

Rev 3:13..."He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches."

Rev 3:20..“Look! I stand at the door and knock. If you hear my voice and open the door, I will come in, and we will share a meal together as friends."

For GOD loves you SO MUCH that He will not force you to Live with Him forever.[/u]

 I am sure that if by chance He is wrong and did not predestined the right number of people, from that eternity ago, who would believe in Him; He would GLADLY call, justifiy, sanctify and glorify you so that you can be with him forever and ever.


It is of course, your choice, a Free-Will Choice!


Blade

Title: Re: From a Calvinist perspective
Post by: patrick jane on February 05, 2019, 10:52:29 pm
Great post Bladerunner, and I too agree with much of the Calvinist doctrine except the free will part. I also find it hard to accept that some people were born to go straight to hell and God knows it ahead of time. Why bring them into the world? I have see some good Calvinist VS Open Theist debates. Maybe we could post a good one here and comment as we watch?
Title: Re: From a Calvinist perspective
Post by: patrick jane on February 15, 2019, 09:01:09 pm
So Blade, what do believe that you call yourself a Calvinist?
Title: Re: From a Calvinist perspective
Post by: Bladerunner on February 15, 2019, 09:44:42 pm
Great post Bladerunner, and I too agree with much of the Calvinist doctrine except the free will part. I also find it hard to accept that some people were born to go straight to hell and God knows it ahead of time. Why bring them into the world? I have see some good Calvinist VS Open Theist debates. Maybe we could post a good one here and comment as we watch?

Thank you PJ..... Not sure about what you mean by the "FREE WILL" part.if you will expand, we can get it in another post.

 you said:"I also find it hard to accept that some people were born to go straight to hell and God knows it ahead of time."

You love Jesus do you not?        Think about it for one moment before going on.     God created everyone of us.

Keep in mind that God has foreseen everything that will happen which include his actions and what events they cause. He knows everyone who ultimately will REJECT Him...Through the Free Will of Mankind, there are those that will REJECT GOD even though they have been told the punishment for continuing in SIN.

They have chosen NOT to live with GOD here on Earth.

Thus, GOD Loves them too much to force them to live with Him for an eternity.   He loves them so much He will abide by their Free Will. 

It is a little easier to see it from the other (dark) side. 

************

There is another question on everyone's mind and you asked it: "Why bring them into the world?"

If Adam died before Seith was conceived, Noah and his wife would not have been born. Their Sons and their wives would not have been born thus, the population of the earth would NOT BE!

It is a problem of Genetics. How far back into the family tree (Noah and Wife) do we got to go back to erase you and I ? This is the same for every person after Adam and Eve.

As with any family, there are skeletons (in this case, unbelievers). 
Those unbelievers though their own Free Will will still have to be born for future generations to be born.

Hope this helps.

Blade










Title: Re: From a Calvinist perspective
Post by: patrick jane on February 23, 2019, 12:30:04 pm
Doctrine Of Election part 1



1 hour
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eFJFKFz2uYw&t=621s






************************************************************************************






The Doctrine of Election part 2


1 hour
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQJYaATKc-E&index=7&t=0s&list=WL






PayPal Donations : https://paypal.me/ThankYou3169
Patreon : https://www.patreon.com/patrick_jane3169
Flat Earth Forums : https://3169.createaforum.com/index.php?action=forum
Theology Forums :  https://theologyforums.com/index.php
Youtube : https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCpzjN3dF-_PnAc81SQVjqhg?view_as=subscriber
BitChute : https://www.bitchute.com/profile/
Pinterest : https://www.pinterest.com/patrickjane3169/
Linkedin : https://www.linkedin.com/in/patrick-jane-833769164/
Twitter : https://twitter.com/patrickjane3169
Facebook : https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100007669219364
Title: Re: From a Calvinist perspective
Post by: Bladerunner on February 23, 2019, 08:40:17 pm
Doctrine Of Election part 1



1 hour
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eFJFKFz2uYw&t=621s






************************************************************************************






The Doctrine of Election part 2


1 hour
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQJYaATKc-E&index=7&t=0s&list=WL






PayPal Donations : https://paypal.me/ThankYou3169
Patreon : https://www.patreon.com/patrick_jane3169
Flat Earth Forums : https://3169.createaforum.com/index.php?action=forum
Theology Forums :  https://theologyforums.com/index.php
Youtube : https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCpzjN3dF-_PnAc81SQVjqhg?view_as=subscriber
BitChute : https://www.bitchute.com/profile/
Pinterest : https://www.pinterest.com/patrickjane3169/
Linkedin : https://www.linkedin.com/in/patrick-jane-833769164/
Twitter : https://twitter.com/patrickjane3169
Facebook : https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100007669219364


This man has given all of his life God. He still after 40+ years, speaks  with the Authority of GOD... How does He do that! He Teaches verse by verse from GOD's WORD.

I urge all to listen to him instead of dismissing God's Word.

Blade
Title: Re: From a Calvinist perspective
Post by: Grace_Accepted on February 23, 2019, 10:31:25 pm
Great post.  I have moved away from Arminianism to a much greater degree as I have grown in Christ.  My current position is that indeed death came upon all men through Adam's fall.  It wasn't so much God blaming us for Adam's lack of faith in Him as it was that when Adam sinned he became a man of pure flesh and thus had children of pure flesh.  As Jesus said, "that which is born of flesh is flesh."

Paul wrote to the church at Corinth, "The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit.    This kind would mean that we would have no hope except that God lights every man that enters this world.  Thus, I believe, through the Holy Spirit He quickens us (Eph 2) so that we can exercise a free-will choice as to whether to accept so great a salvation or not.

Jesus describes the basis of the verdict as, This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but people loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil.  It is interesting that it is not our behaviour, sins, or deeds that the verdict is based on.  Certainly these will be reflected by our relationship to Christ, but they are not the basis of Judgement.

Anyway, I could be wrong.  Thanks for the great post.
Title: Re: From a Calvinist perspective
Post by: Bladerunner on February 23, 2019, 10:40:52 pm
Great post.  I have moved away from Arminianism to a much greater degree as I have grown in Christ.  My current position is that indeed death came upon all men through Adam's fall.  It wasn't so much God blaming us for Adam's lack of faith in Him as it was that when Adam sinned he became a man of pure flesh and thus had children of pure flesh.  As Jesus said, "that which is born of flesh is flesh."

Paul wrote to the church at Corinth, "The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit.    This kind would mean that we would have no hope except that God lights every man that enters this world.  Thus, I believe, through the Holy Spirit He quickens us (Eph 2) so that we can exercise a free-will choice as to whether to accept so great a salvation or not.

Jesus describes the basis of the verdict as, This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but people loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil.  It is interesting that it is not our behaviour, sins, or deeds that the verdict is based on.  Certainly these will be reflected by our relationship to Christ, but they are not the basis of Judgement.

Anyway, I could be wrong.  Thanks for the great post.

Good evening Grace_Accepted and NO you are not wrong!

Blade
Title: Re: From a Calvinist perspective
Post by: Grace_Accepted on February 24, 2019, 10:28:26 am
Ain't God Grand!
Title: Re: From a Calvinist perspective
Post by: patrick jane on February 24, 2019, 12:37:40 pm





************************************************************************************









PayPal Donations : https://paypal.me/ThankYou3169
Patreon : https://www.patreon.com/patrick_jane3169
Flat Earth Forums : https://3169.createaforum.com/index.php?action=forum
Theology Forums :  https://theologyforums.com/index.php
Youtube : https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCpzjN3dF-_PnAc81SQVjqhg?view_as=subscriber
BitChute : https://www.bitchute.com/profile/
Pinterest : https://www.pinterest.com/patrickjane3169/
Linkedin : https://www.linkedin.com/in/patrick-jane-833769164/
Twitter : https://twitter.com/patrickjane3169
Facebook : https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100007669219364


Quote
This man has given all of his life God. He still after 40+ years, speaks  with the Authority of GOD... How does He do that! He Teaches verse by verse from GOD's WORD.

I urge all to listen to him instead of dismissing God's Word.

Blade[/shadow]
Blade, from what I hear so far I agree and it even seems to line up with dispensational study. Is there such a thing as a dispensational calvinist?
Title: Re: From a Calvinist perspective
Post by: Bladerunner on February 24, 2019, 07:05:54 pm





************************************************************************************









PayPal Donations : https://paypal.me/ThankYou3169
Patreon : https://www.patreon.com/patrick_jane3169
Flat Earth Forums : https://3169.createaforum.com/index.php?action=forum
Theology Forums :  https://theologyforums.com/index.php
Youtube : https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCpzjN3dF-_PnAc81SQVjqhg?view_as=subscriber
BitChute : https://www.bitchute.com/profile/
Pinterest : https://www.pinterest.com/patrickjane3169/
Linkedin : https://www.linkedin.com/in/patrick-jane-833769164/
Twitter : https://twitter.com/patrickjane3169
Facebook : https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100007669219364


Quote
This man has given all of his life God. He still after 40+ years, speaks  with the Authority of GOD... How does He do that! He Teaches verse by verse from GOD's WORD.

I urge all to listen to him instead of dismissing God's Word.

Blade[/shadow]
Blade, from what I hear so far I agree and it even seems to line up with dispensational study. Is there such a thing as a dispensational calvinist?

A dispensationalist calvinist?..... I am a Calvinist and a dispensationalist (partial) as well.

Why do you ask?

Dispensation is Biblical (x4) and in my opinion it is a period of time that God interacts with human kind different than He did in another time period.

1*In the Creation Dispensation ( God only had ONE RULE and He threw them out instead of killing Adam and EVE)

2*In the dispensation time period to Noah's Flood,  God destroyed the whole world except eight.

3*In the Dispensation time period between the end of Noah's flood and pre-law, God change languages, moved people around and split ONE language into several.

4*In the Dispensation period of the Law of Moses, God chose a specific people and gave them laws to live, govern and worship by. Throughout this period /of many kings,  God has used the Gentiles to bring wrath upon His chosen people.

5*In the dispensation period of the Kingdom of Heaven, Jesus Christ (God manifest in the flesh), began speaking to His chosen people about a Kingdom on earth where they would rule over Israel. Having rejected their Messiah two times in this period of time and a third time in the next dispensation, the Kingdom of Heaven (Millennium) on Earth was postponed for a future time.

6*In the dispensation of Grace, those who believe in the SON of GOD, Jesus Christ will receive salvation and the indwelling Holy Spirit. This is different from other dispensations as ( SIN is not simply covered but rather washed away with the blood of Jesus.)

7*In the dispensation of Everlasting Gospel, the time period after the removal of the Church (Body/Bride of Christ) WILL include wars, rumors of wars, Daniel's 70th week, and the removal (death) of 2/3 of the Jewish people along with a large part of the Gentiles from every nation on earth. This time period will establish the Remnant of Israel in the land GOD originally gave them, the Sheep/goat judgement upon each nation of the world and the rebuilding of Jerusalem and the 4th temple whose dimensions are 50  x 50 miles, located just north of Jerusalem. This period will also see the rise of Man against GOD (again) as Satan resurrects the Gog/Maygog War for a second time. This time, those who sinned cannot blame it on Satan as he was not around for 1,000 years to taint their minds. The White Throne Judgment will happen here and the Lake of Fire will be full of those souls who choose not to follow GOD through their own free-will while they lived in their mortal/angelic bodies here on earth. This will include Lucifer, the Anti-Christ and the False Prophet.

This last dispensation ended the 7th dispensation or 7,000 years or the beginning of the 7th day from the beginning by GOD's time. This time period has no ending as did that 7th day in Genesis, thus is everlasting.

Add the above definition of dispensation along with the Predestination/calling of GOD for those who He has chosen to live with Him forever and the sum is:

 Dispensationalism and Calvinism are separate but a part of GOD's plan. They fit like a glove.


p.s. I do not subscribe to dispensationalism as written by John Nelson Darby. My definition (above) is by its simplest state, the way GOD treated Mankind vs all other time periods.

Keep in mind that GOD'S Love throughout all of the dispensations was present and unconditional

Blade[/shaddow]
Title: Re: From a Calvinist perspective
Post by: patrick jane on February 24, 2019, 07:41:16 pm
Thanks Blade, I as k because I agree with what you believe. I learn everyday.
Title: Re: From a Calvinist perspective
Post by: Bladerunner on February 25, 2019, 06:22:00 pm
Thanks Blade, I as k because I agree with what you believe. I learn everyday.

Thank You

Blade
Title: Re: From a Calvinist perspective
Post by: patrick jane on February 26, 2019, 11:08:41 am
Doctrine Of Election part 1



1 hour
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eFJFKFz2uYw&t=621s












************************************************************************************






The Doctrine of Election part 2


1 hour
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQJYaATKc-E&index=7&t=0s&list=WL





***********************************************************************************************************************



The doctrine of Election part 3



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ruHmL8Xhy88&t=1267s







PayPal Donations : https://paypal.me/ThankYou3169
Patreon : https://www.patreon.com/patrick_jane3169
Flat Earth Forums : https://3169.createaforum.com/index.php?action=forum
Theology Forums :  https://theologyforums.com/index.php
Youtube : https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCpzjN3dF-_PnAc81SQVjqhg?view_as=subscriber
BitChute : https://www.bitchute.com/profile/
Pinterest : https://www.pinterest.com/patrickjane3169/
Linkedin : https://www.linkedin.com/in/patrick-jane-833769164/
Twitter : https://twitter.com/patrickjane3169
Facebook : https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100007669219364
Title: Re: From a Calvinist perspective
Post by: Ted T. on February 26, 2019, 01:13:41 pm
Great post Bladerunner, and I too agree with much of the Calvinist doctrine except the free will part. I also find it hard to accept that some people were born to go straight to hell and God knows it ahead of time. Why bring them into the world? I have see some good Calvinist VS Open Theist debates. Maybe we could post a good one here and comment as we watch?

GOD's omniscience, Calvin's failure:
Calvin followed the pagan Greek widom definition of omniscience brought into the church by the Greek idolizers and Augustine: ie, GOD knows everything that can be known from eternity past to eternity future.  Certainly sounds all Godly and all eh? To bad it is a blasphemy...

GOD is Love, holy, righteous and Just before all else. All doctrine must conform to HIS nature. All doctrine that impugnes HIS nature is a blasphemy.

This definition of HIS omniscience implies that HE knew before their creation who would end in hell BUT CREATED THEM ANYWAY!!! This is not loving; it is not righteous; it is not just - no matter how many books of theo-babble have been written to try to make it so...therefore it is blasphemy.

GOD does all things for HIS pleasure but HE takes NO PLEASURE  in the death of the wicked - therefore HE did not create them evil to go to hell! Ezekiel 33:11  Say to them, 'As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign LORD, I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked...

Also, HE wants all people to be saved, 1 Timothy 2:4...who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. so whether HE will get this want fulfilled or not, HE obviously did NOT create anyone evil and without hope for salvation, ie, destined to hell at creation!

So what do I offer in its place? Acts 15:18 KJV  Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world. To be precise,HE knows all HIS works, usually accepted to be referring to all that HE was created by HIS creative decree, which implies that IF HE did not create something by HIS creative decree, HE does NOT KNOW IT.

Also, these things HE knows from, since, the beginning of the world, not BEFORE creation, not since eternity past. Therefore we have good Biblical reason to reject the pagan wisdom the ancient Church idolized.

This biblical definition of what HE knows also implies that If HE did NOT create the results of our free will decisions but let us create those results by our free will according to what we most wanted, THEN HE did not know these results of our free will decisions UNTIL we created the for ourselves and brought them into reality.

Therefore NO ONE was created evil; not before Adam (Satan etc) nor after Adam (you, me) but all sinners were created with a free will and an equal ability and opportunity to choose to become holy or eternally evil and then all sinners were sown into the world as per Matt 13:38-39.
Title: Re: From a Calvinist perspective
Post by: Bladerunner on February 26, 2019, 06:21:10 pm
Great post Bladerunner, and I too agree with much of the Calvinist doctrine except the free will part. I also find it hard to accept that some people were born to go straight to hell and God knows it ahead of time. Why bring them into the world? I have see some good Calvinist VS Open Theist debates. Maybe we could post a good one here and comment as we watch?

GOD's omniscience, Calvin's failure:
Calvin followed the pagan Greek widom definition of omniscience brought into the church by the Greek idolizers and Augustine: ie, GOD knows everything that can be known from eternity past to eternity future.  Certainly sounds all Godly and all eh? To bad it is a blasphemy...

GOD is Love, holy, righteous and Just before all else. All doctrine must conform to HIS nature. All doctrine that impugnes HIS nature is a blasphemy.

This definition of HIS omniscience implies that HE knew before their creation who would end in hell BUT CREATED THEM ANYWAY!!! This is not loving; it is not righteous; it is not just - no matter how many books of theo-babble have been written to try to make it so...therefore it is blasphemy.

GOD does all things for HIS pleasure but HE takes NO PLEASURE  in the death of the wicked - therefore HE did not create them evil to go to hell! Ezekiel 33:11  Say to them, 'As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign LORD, I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked...

Also, HE wants all people to be saved, 1 Timothy 2:4...who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. so whether HE will get this want fulfilled or not, HE obviously did NOT create anyone evil and without hope for salvation, ie, destined to hell at creation!

So what do I offer in its place? Acts 15:18 KJB  Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world. To be precise, HE knows all HIS works, usually accepted to be referring to all that HE was created by HIS creative decree, which implies that IF HE did not create something by HIS creative decree, HE does NOT KNOW IT.

Also, these things HE knows from, since, the beginning of the world, not BEFORE creation, not since eternity past. Therefore we have good Biblical reason to reject the pagan wisdom the ancient Church idolized.

This biblical definition of what HE knows also implies that If HE did NOT create the results of our free will decisions but let us create those results by our free will according to what we most wanted, THEN HE did not know these results of our free will decisions UNTIL we created the for ourselves and brought them into reality.

Therefore NO ONE was created evil; not before Adam (Satan etc) nor after Adam (you, me) but all sinners were created with a free will and an equal ability and opportunity to choose to become holy or eternally evil and then all sinners were sown into the world as per Matt 13:38-39.

So Ted T. ...after all that you said above, I am still lost on what your position is concerning the Bible and the fact that GOD's WORD said in:

Romans 8:29-30..."For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.  v30...Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified."

If you believe in Jesus and His WORD, the Bible then You have to believe in the above scripture! Simple as that.  You either do or you don't!

Blade
Title: Re: From a Calvinist perspective
Post by: Ted T. on February 27, 2019, 12:12:21 pm
Romans 8:29-30..."For whom he did foreknow...
cannot refer to everyone He created as there are others whom He cast out because He did NOT know them, proving that to foreknow must mean to forelove. It is also worth mentioning that this love and non-love happened before, and I accept the before means before life in this world.

Since UNconditional love and election also mean unconditional non-election, ie no reason of dis-merit is found in the person being passed over for election and love, unconditional election and non-election is a blasphemy against His nature as righteous and just to condemn a person for no reason, no dis-merit,

it is obvious to me that our being foreloved and elected before the foundation of the world happened at the same time and were both MERIT BASED as responses to our free will decision to put our faith in HIM or to put our faith in rejecting HIM as a false GOD and a liar, the unforgivable sin.

WE chose our FATE by our free will. Those who put their faith in HIM as their GOD and in HIS Son as their saviour, HE loved and elected to be HIS Bride in heaven. Those who choose to go to hell rather than to ever have to be married to HIM in heaven, were condemned on the spot.

he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son,
Once those HE never knew with love and finished their rebellions HIS first order of business would have to have been to call for the judgement of these reprobate but first, in case any of HIS elect still had strong feelings for those condemned, HE also called for them to come out from among the reprobate so the judgement could be called, and some elect did in fact rebel against this call idolizing their newly evil friends above their GOD forcing the postponement of the judgement until these elect could be safe from the judgment by becoming holy, ie mature. This is revealed in Matt 13:28 ‘An enemy did this,’ he replied. So the servants asked him, ‘Do you want us to go and pull them up?’ 29‘ No,’ he said, ‘if you pull the weeds now, you might uproot the wheat with them. 30 Let both grow together until the harvest. 

Once all the elect had all chosen whether to remain faithful or to rebel against the call for the judgement against the reprobate, HE created the physical universe which we all saw, Job 28:7 and Rom 1:20, and chose the Earth to be the prison planet for all sinners  whom HE gave PREDESTINED LIVES (not fates) that would perfectly fulfill HIS prior condmentations and promises of election to the sinful elect, as per Matt 13:36-39.

The sinful elect got LIVES on earth predestined to be conformed to HIS Son and to become HIS Bride.
Those passed over for election after sinning the unforgivable sin got LIVES predestined to end according to their free will desire to end in hell rather than to be married to HIM, lives predetermined to be a helpful part in HIS redemption of the sinful elect. These two groups, the believers who are never condemned but predestined to salvation and the unbelievers condemned already for their unbelief are found in Jn 3:18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God's one and only Son.

  v30...Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified." This of course describes the order of operations of HIS bringing HIS sinful elect to being heaven ready, cured of their addiction to sin, and fully in agreement, accord, with HIS call for the judgment. Once the last sinful elect is redeemed and sanctified, safe from the judgment himself, then the day of the LORD will commence and all will be burnt.


Title: Re: From a Calvinist perspective
Post by: Bladerunner on February 27, 2019, 11:00:11 pm
Romans 8:29-30..."For whom he did foreknow...
cannot refer to everyone He created as there are others whom He cast out because He did NOT know them, proving that to foreknow must mean to forelove. It is also worth mentioning that this love and non-love happened before, and I accept the before means before life in this world.

Since UNconditional love and election also mean unconditional non-election, ie no reason of dis-merit is found in the person being passed over for election and love, unconditional election and non-election is a blasphemy against His nature as righteous and just to condemn a person for no reason, no dis-merit,

it is obvious to me that our being foreloved and elected before the foundation of the world happened at the same time and were both MERIT BASED as responses to our free will decision to put our faith in HIM or to put our faith in rejecting HIM as a false GOD and a liar, the unforgivable sin.

WE chose our FATE by our free will. Those who put their faith in HIM as their GOD and in HIS Son as their saviour, HE loved and elected to be HIS Bride in heaven. Those who choose to go to hell rather than to ever have to be married to HIM in heaven, were condemned on the spot.

he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son,
Once those HE never knew with love and finished their rebellions HIS first order of business would have to have been to call for the judgement of these reprobate but first, in case any of HIS elect still had strong feelings for those condemned, HE also called for them to come out from among the reprobate so the judgement could be called, and some elect did in fact rebel against this call idolizing their newly evil friends above their GOD forcing the postponement of the judgement until these elect could be safe from the judgment by becoming holy, ie mature. This is revealed in Matt 13:28 ‘An enemy did this,’ he replied. So the servants asked him, ‘Do you want us to go and pull them up?’ 29‘ No,’ he said, ‘if you pull the weeds now, you might uproot the wheat with them. 30 Let both grow together until the harvest. 

Once all the elect had all chosen whether to remain faithful or to rebel against the call for the judgement against the reprobate, HE created the physical universe which we all saw, Job 28:7 and Rom 1:20, and chose the Earth to be the prison planet for all sinners  whom HE gave PREDESTINED LIVES (not fates) that would perfectly fulfill HIS prior condmentations and promises of election to the sinful elect, as per Matt 13:36-39.

The sinful elect got LIVES on earth predestined to be conformed to HIS Son and to become HIS Bride.
Those passed over for election after sinning the unforgivable sin got LIVES predestined to end according to their free will desire to end in hell rather than to be married to HIM, lives predetermined to be a helpful part in HIS redemption of the sinful elect. These two groups, the believers who are never condemned but predestined to salvation and the unbelievers condemned already for their unbelief are found in Jn 3:18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God's one and only Son.

  v30...Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified." This of course describes the order of operations of HIS bringing HIS sinful elect to being heaven ready, cured of their addiction to sin, and fully in agreement, accord, with HIS call for the judgment. Once the last sinful elect is redeemed and sanctified, safe from the judgment himself, then the day of the LORD will commence and all will be burnt.

TED, I did not get past this phrase...You said: "cannot refer to everyone He created as there are others whom He cast out because He did NOT know them,"

It is obvious you have decide NOT to take Jesus Christ up on His GRACE Gift Package. For GOD LOVES you so much, He will abide by your free-will decision. Yes, He loves you, and he will not make you live with Him when it is evident, You do not want to. Of course there are only one choice that is the right choice.

So Sad !

Blade
Title: Re: From a Calvinist perspective
Post by: Ted T. on March 01, 2019, 10:57:42 am
Quote
TED, I did not get past this phrase...You said: "cannot refer to everyone He created as there are others whom He cast out because He did NOT know them,"

It is obvious you have decide NOT to take Jesus Christ up on His GRACE Gift Package. For GOD LOVES you so much, He will abide by your free-will decision. Yes, He loves you, and he will not make you live with Him when it is evident, You do not want to. Of course there are only one choice that is the right choice.

First, I can barely navigate this site -it is just too busy and confusing.
Second, I cannot find the reply with quote feature so there is no link back link, sigh.

Third, you make a lot of assumptions about why I quoted a verse that you stated you do not understand why I quoted it... Do you often have knee jerk opposition to other's non-Calvinist approach?

So let's try something new...Put the phrase you have difficulty with in context of the verse I used to introduce the concept, Romans 8:29-30..."For whom he did foreknow...  ie  "cannot refer to everyone He created as there are others whom He cast out because He did NOT know them,"

the concept being that foreknown cannot refer to everyone because some HE never knew !  Matthew 7:23...  It's too bad you stopped there because the rest of the essay developes of the concept.

Instead of maligning me with false accusations, will you deal with the  contention I made, exegete the verse as I did and tell me how you believe I missed the mark like a good debater does?



Title: Re: From a Calvinist perspective
Post by: patrick jane on March 01, 2019, 11:02:34 am
Quote
TED, I did not get past this phrase...You said: "cannot refer to everyone He created as there are others whom He cast out because He did NOT know them,"

It is obvious you have decide NOT to take Jesus Christ up on His GRACE Gift Package. For GOD LOVES you so much, He will abide by your free-will decision. Yes, He loves you, and he will not make you live with Him when it is evident, You do not want to. Of course there are only one choice that is the right choice.

First, I can barely navigate this site -it is just too busy and confusing.
Second, I cannot find the reply with quote feature so there is no link back link, sigh.

Third, you make a lot of assumptions about why I quoted a verse that you stated you do not understand why I quoted it... Do you often have knee jerk opposition to other's non-Calvinist approach?

So let's try something new...Put the phrase you have difficulty with in context of the verse I used to introduce the concept, Romans 8:29-30..."For whom he did foreknow...  ie  "cannot refer to everyone He created as there are others whom He cast out because He did NOT know them,"

the concept being that foreknown cannot refer to everyone because some HE never knew !  Matthew 7:23...  It's too bad you stopped there because the rest of the essay developes of the concept.

Instead of maligning me with false accusations, will you deal with the  contention I made, exegete the verse as I did and tell me how you believe I missed the mark like a good debater does?
Ted, sorry the quote feature is ABOVE the post at the top right. Most forums have them at the bottom right. I hope you get used to it here brother.
Title: Re: From a Calvinist perspective
Post by: Bladerunner on March 01, 2019, 08:51:57 pm
Quote
TED, I did not get past this phrase...You said: "cannot refer to everyone He created as there are others whom He cast out because He did NOT know them,"

It is obvious you have decide NOT to take Jesus Christ up on His GRACE Gift Package. For GOD LOVES you so much, He will abide by your free-will decision. Yes, He loves you, and he will not make you live with Him when it is evident, You do not want to. Of course there are only one choice that is the right choice.

First, I can barely navigate this site -it is just too busy and confusing.
Second, I cannot find the reply with quote feature so there is no link back link, sigh.

Third, you make a lot of assumptions about why I quoted a verse that you stated you do not understand why I quoted it... Do you often have knee jerk opposition to other's non-Calvinist approach?

So let's try something new...Put the phrase you have difficulty with in context of the verse I used to introduce the concept, Romans 8:29-30..."For whom he did foreknow...  ie  "cannot refer to everyone He created as there are others whom He cast out because He did NOT know them,"

the concept being that foreknown cannot refer to everyone because some HE never knew !  Matthew 7:23...  It's too bad you stopped there because the rest of the essay developes of the concept.

Instead of maligning me with false accusations, will you deal with the  contention I made, exegete the verse as I did and tell me how you believe I missed the mark like a good debater does?
Ted, sorry the quote feature is ABOVE the post at the top right. Most forums have them at the bottom right. I hope you get used to it here brother.

Hi Ted..mind if I step into this debate?

I see you are doubting GOD's WORD. I agree that the verses in the Bible are sometimes hard to read.

First we have Romans 8:29 that tell us HE foreknew us and then the verse you quoted: YET!

Mat 7:23..."And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity."

But then what is the content...Lets go back a verse or two and see.

Mat 7:21-22."Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. "
 

We find out that the Lord is speaking to the Jews about how to get into heaven, the good works has to be of the Father's will?

Mat 7:22...Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?"


In the Mat.7:22....many will tell Him what they have done for Him (Jesus) but is it really what He wants?

Mat 7:23... Jesus tells them He does not even know them.  I ask you Ted:
 'Did you did you ever know someone but because of something they have done, You did not know them?  Would you be like Peter and deny you did not know them?'

God gives you a Gift and all one has to do is believe and accept Jesus Christ as You Lord and Savior. (1 Cor 15:1-4).  If you turn away from GOD as you are doing, What do you REALLY expect GOD to do with you.

Luke 21:18..."But there shall not an hair of your head perish."  How does He know how many hairs are on your head and if one of them has perished? In other words, He knows what you are doing, thinking, etc.

In Job 31:15 we find.."Did not he that made me in the womb make him? and did not one fashion us in the womb?"   

Did Jesus make you in the Womb?  Did he give you that first breath of life?

In Rom 9:12..we find God speaking to Rebecca and tell her the two babies within her Esau and Jacob..
"It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger."
 

How would He know that, but it really happened.

Mat 6:8.."“Therefore do not be like them. For your Father knows the things you have need of before you ask Him."

In Jer 1:5, we find God already knew him....as He has said He knows you and me and everyone else!

“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you;[/b] (He made us, YES)
Before you were born I sanctified you;
I ordained you a prophet to the nations.”"[/color]

And you have doubts for your sins, lifestyle, worldview, etc. will not let you see the truth in front of you.

We are not discussing if GOD lied, we are discussing His omniscience or His ability to know everything.

There are some 108 prophecies from the OT that were fulfilled completely about the first coming of Jesus Christ and His death on the Cross..... Yet you say God does not know some. 


Ted, GOD has the power, and foresight to see and know you before you were born. It is really up to you whether GOD in your future says to you "I never knew you"   or  NOT?    YOUR CHOICE!

Have a good evening and please do a lot of soul searching.

This is not a game or trying to live life (here on earth) to the fullest,  it is about spending an Eternity...........

In The Lake of FIRE (eternal torment)
             or
Heaven (eternal bliss)


Blade


Title: Re: From a Calvinist perspective
Post by: Ted T. on March 02, 2019, 11:23:34 am
Hi Ted..mind if I step into this debate?
I see you are doubting GOD's WORD.
Then you still see wrongly! 

I reject only the interpretation of man led astray...and your hubris of implying that your interpretation is the only GOD's word around dismays me...
Title: Re: From a Calvinist perspective
Post by: Ted T. on March 02, 2019, 11:49:07 am
In Jer 1:5, we find God already knew him....as He has said He knows you and me and everyone else!

“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you;[/b] (He made us, YES)
Before you were born I sanctified you;
I ordained you a prophet to the nations.”"[/color]

I contend that in the light of other Biblical  revelations that your interpretation of this verse is wrong. IF you showed this verse to anyone who had NO THEOLOGICAL AX TO GRIND,  they would all agree that the Creator knew the person as a person, before HE had that person formed in an earthly womb. 

This interpretation fits perfectly with the revelation of Matt 13:38-39 that the elect are sown (not created) in the world by the Son of Man and the reprobate are sown, (not created) in the world by the devil.

and yes, HE knew us all because ALL the sons of GOD were all there in attendance at the creation of the physical universe and sang HIS praises: Job 38:7!!  ALL / EVERY ONE OF the Sons of GOD must have included Adam, the son of GOD [Luke 3:38 the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.] and all the legitimate sons of GOD of Heb 12:8. Denial of this constitutes an error...no matter how piously one accepts the wrongfully decided bias in favour of our being created on earth.

Title: Re: From a Calvinist perspective
Post by: Bladerunner on March 02, 2019, 06:10:25 pm
Hi Ted..mind if I step into this debate?
I see you are doubting GOD's WORD.
Then you still see wrongly! 

I reject only the interpretation of man led astray...and your hubris of implying that your interpretation is the only GOD's word around dismays me...

No, I simply follow the WORD of GOD.....I showed you WORDS of GOD about whether He knew you or not. But it seems you this post and the subsequent  post, you ignored them and attacked me. I am fine with that. To deny GOD's WORD and what it says is not a good situation to be in.

Have a good day sir:

Blade
Title: Re: From a Calvinist perspective
Post by: Billy Evmur on March 12, 2019, 02:43:13 am
I can never call myself a Calvinist, some of his doctrine is truly awful ... never the less I am reformed, I believe the Sovereign Grace theology, I do not believe in human freewill.

Adam had freewill in the sense that he could obey or disobey but he gave even this limited ability to choose away.

He exchanged it for bondage, apart from Christ we do not have that ability to choose, we can't choose not to be sinners, we can't choose not to die for our sins...in fact apart from Christ we are dead even while we live.

There is no hope for man .... only if God will have mercy upon us.

All the time we's preaching up freewill we are giving mankind a false hope, a false perspective of what their true position is. How often have you heard it said "if God didn't want me to sin He shouldn't have given me freewill...." how often have you heard it said "oh if I have freewill I will repent when I am old or on my deathbed" ?

Think of the young man who enters the school yard and starts shooting. You say it was his own freewill, what hope does that young man have, for nobody gives up their precious freewill, even though it doesn't exist.

What we should be saying is you are in the grip of a wicked murderous spirit which will carry you down to hell...FLEE to the one hope God has given us , even Jesus...cry to Him for mercy.
Title: Re: From a Calvinist perspective
Post by: Billy Evmur on March 12, 2019, 03:05:34 am
Great post Bladerunner, and I too agree with much of the Calvinist doctrine except the free will part. I also find it hard to accept that some people were born to go straight to hell and God knows it ahead of time. Why bring them into the world? I have see some good Calvinist VS Open Theist debates. Maybe we could post a good one here and comment as we watch?

No-one is predestined to go to hell, sin was not predestined. God never created man a sinner.

But God foreknew and does know and foreknow.

So foreknowing that man would sin God predestined man's redemption.

You have to ask "if God foreknew that His beautiful creature would sin and utterly wreck His creation, should He therefore resign Himself to not creating at all?"

Where would you and I be?

People never really get to grips with predestination because they shun it out of hand, predestiny is grained into every aspect of life and nature. For example the prodigal son MUST return to his father or die a starving and ignominious death because man is created with the need to renew his strength by food, this characteristic is part of predestiny.
Title: Re: From a Calvinist perspective
Post by: Bladerunner on March 23, 2019, 02:13:01 am
Great post Bladerunner, and I too agree with much of the Calvinist doctrine except the free will part. I also find it hard to accept that some people were born to go straight to hell and God knows it ahead of time. Why bring them into the world? I have see some good Calvinist VS Open Theist debates. Maybe we could post a good one here and comment as we watch?

No-one is predestined to go to hell, sin was not predestined. God never created man a sinner.

But God foreknew and does know and foreknow.

So foreknowing that man would sin God predestined man's redemption.

You have to ask "if God foreknew that His beautiful creature would sin and utterly wreck His creation, should He therefore resign Himself to not creating at all?"

Where would you and I be?

People never really get to grips with predestination because they shun it out of hand, predestiny is grained into every aspect of life and nature. For example the prodigal son MUST return to his father or die a starving and ignominious death because man is created with the need to renew his strength by food, this characteristic is part of predestiny.


Yes, there is fact are people around the world that will never rise up out of their sin as God will not have called them thereby conditioning their heart to seek and accept Jesus Christ. These whom He calls will He justify, sanctify and glorify.   

Why God has done it this way, I do not know ? He created us from the dust of the earth, we are his and he has sovereignty over us at all times.

Blade
Title: Re: From a Calvinist perspective
Post by: patrick jane on April 21, 2019, 10:40:30 pm
I'm going to do some more studying with John MacArthur for sure.
Title: Re: From a Calvinist perspective
Post by: patrick jane on April 26, 2019, 02:43:53 pm
Why I'm not a Calvinist | Why I disagree with Reformed Theology

In this video I will discuss why I disagree with Reformed Theology (briefly) and why I'm not a Calvinist. Please do not comment or send me hate unless you watched the entire video ;) As I explain how I feel in detail near the ending.


14 minutes
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=efDlBnxZsHA

















Please Subscribe! Discord Sucks! Join my Forums for discussion, debate and fellowship - FREE
PayPal Donations : https://paypal.me/ThankYou3169
Flat Earth Forums : https://3169.createaforum.com/index.php?action=forum
Theology Forums :  https://theologyforums.com/index.php
YouTube : https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCpzjN3dF-_PnAc81SQVjqhg?view_as=subscriber
YouTube Back-Up Channel :  https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCMt94y3SDxgjpoucj6Yc_Xg
BitChute : https://www.bitchute.com/channel/xUZJpNWUz2T4/
Pinterest : https://www.pinterest.com/patrickjane3169/
Linkedin : https://www.linkedin.com/in/patrick-jane-833769164/
Title: Re: From a Calvinist perspective
Post by: Billy Evmur on April 27, 2019, 07:50:19 am
The BIBLE balance is the judgement, we are predestined and elected to be the church, the people of God, sons, predestiny and election are not said to be unto salvation … that is what people suppose, naturally we must be saved in order to be conformed to Christ.

But that says NOTHING about others who are not so chosen … they will be judged and God has promised to judge with equity.
Title: Re: From a Calvinist perspective
Post by: Bladerunner on April 27, 2019, 10:44:34 pm
The BIBLE balance is the judgement, we are predestined and elected to be the church, the people of God, sons, predestiny and election are not said to be unto salvation … that is what people suppose, naturally we must be saved in order to be conformed to Christ.

But that says NOTHING about others who are not so chosen … they will be judged and God has promised to judge with equity.

Hi Billy,,, a good point...

Blade[/shadow]
Title: Re: From a Calvinist perspective
Post by: patrick jane on June 12, 2019, 04:49:26 am
I concur with everything.
Title: Re: From a Calvinist perspective
Post by: Ted T. on June 12, 2019, 07:32:42 pm
The BIBLE balance is the judgement, we are predestined and elected to be the church, the people of God, sons, predestiny and election are not said to be unto salvation … that is what people suppose, naturally we must be saved in order to be conformed to Christ.
Oh, will Michael and Gabriel, the holy warriors of GOD, need to be saved to conform to Christ? When did they sin?

As for salvation, it is the worldly fulfillment of the promise of election to elect sinners  given pre-world...and I deny you can find one word of the constituents of predestiny and election that are not prerequisites for or fulfillments of salvation...not one.



But that says NOTHING about others who are not so chosen … they will be judged and God has promised to judge with equity.
To say nothing is to say all that is needed! They were obviously not elected so they were passed over for election. If you can't figure out what this means then I will tell you.

 If there was no reason for electing some then there was no reason for not electing others. If there was no reason of sinfulness in them so that they were passed over for election then they were innocent and if there was sinfulness in them that caused them to be passed over then there was also a reason for the election of the others, that is, they did not sin the sin that caused people to be passed over for election which is what I declare.

I can't believe that some people have been accepting this foolishness for some 500 years! Yikes! Innocents going to hell! Elect for no reason!
Title: Re: From a Calvinist perspective
Post by: Bladerunner on June 12, 2019, 07:44:29 pm
I concur with everything.

PJ. Your answer surprises me.

Blade
Title: Re: From a Calvinist perspective
Post by: patrick jane on June 12, 2019, 07:48:07 pm
I concur with everything.

PJ. Your answer surprises me.

Blade
I was just being funny.
Title: Re: From a Calvinist perspective
Post by: Bladerunner on June 13, 2019, 12:27:37 pm
I concur with everything.

PJ. Your answer surprises me.

Blade
I was just being funny.

oh
Title: Re: From a Calvinist perspective
Post by: patrick jane on June 13, 2019, 03:03:33 pm
I concur with everything.

PJ. Your answer surprises me.

Blade
I was just being funny.

oh
I love you Blade.
Title: Re: From a Calvinist perspective
Post by: Grace_Accepted on June 25, 2019, 07:01:30 am
In the parable of The Sower, Jesus taught us that salvation was like a seed cast into soil.  The seed reacted with all of the types of soil accept for the hardened path.  The ultimate results was dictated by the type of soil and not the seed.  The seed was faithful to do what it was meant to do and either the soil had what was necessary to carry resulting plant to fruition or it did not.

The good soil was predestined by the farmer to bear fruit but the other types of soil were not.  Do you believe that this sheds any light on predestination?
Title: Re: From a Calvinist perspective
Post by: patrick jane on June 25, 2019, 07:05:19 am
In the parable of The Sower, Jesus taught us that salvation was like a seed cast into soil.  The seed reacted with all of the types of soil accept for the hardened path.  The ultimate results was dictated by the type of soil and not the seed.  The seed was faithful to do what it was meant to do and either the soil had what was necessary to carry resulting plant to fruition or it did not.

The good soil was predestined by the farmer to bear fruit but the other types of soil were not.  Do you believe that this sheds any light on predestination?
That's why I use Miracle Gro !!!
Title: Re: From a Calvinist perspective
Post by: patrick jane on June 29, 2019, 11:31:15 am
In the parable of The Sower, Jesus taught us that salvation was like a seed cast into soil.  The seed reacted with all of the types of soil accept for the hardened path.  The ultimate results was dictated by the type of soil and not the seed.  The seed was faithful to do what it was meant to do and either the soil had what was necessary to carry resulting plant to fruition or it did not.

The good soil was predestined by the farmer to bear fruit but the other types of soil were not.  Do you believe that this sheds any light on predestination?
That's why I use Miracle Gro !!!
😁
Title: Re: From a Calvinist perspective
Post by: Bladerunner on July 06, 2019, 09:40:28 pm
In the parable of The Sower, Jesus taught us that salvation was like a seed cast into soil.  The seed reacted with all of the types of soil accept for the hardened path.  The ultimate results was dictated by the type of soil and not the seed.  The seed was faithful to do what it was meant to do and either the soil had what was necessary to carry resulting plant to fruition or it did not.

The good soil was predestined by the farmer to bear fruit but the other types of soil were not.  Do you believe that this sheds any light on predestination?
That's why I use Miracle Gro !!!
😁

To Grace_accepted......you said: "The good soil was predestined by the farmer to bear fruit but the other types of soil were not.  Do you believe that this sheds any light on predestination?"

No, I do not see "predestination" in these passages.but rather the different types of faith that is received.... These parables were for the benefit of the Jewish people present at that time although it applies to our situation today.

Blade





Title: Re: From a Calvinist perspective
Post by: Grace_Accepted on July 07, 2019, 06:38:36 am
To Grace_accepted......you said: "The good soil was predestined by the farmer to bear fruit but the other types of soil were not.  Do you believe that this sheds any light on predestination?"

No, I do not see "predestination" in these passages.but rather the different types of faith that is received.... These parables were for the benefit of the Jewish people present at that time although it applies to our situation today.

Blade


I know it is possible to extend a metaphor too far but if the seed represents the Kingdom of God and the soil rpresents the mind of the receiver then we could reasonably extrapolate the field as being the sowers predetermined target for his seed.

Certainly he had put thought and effort into preparing that section of ground for his seed. The other types of ground were seeded incidentally because of his efforts aimed at the tilled soil.  The ground could not prepare itself and depended on the farmer to be made ready to receive the seed.

Just some thoughts
Title: Re: From a Calvinist perspective
Post by: Ted T. on July 07, 2019, 10:40:56 pm
So Ted T. ...after all that you said above, I am still lost on what your position is concerning the Bible and the fact that GOD's WORD said in:

Romans 8:29-30..."For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.  v30...Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified."

If you believe in Jesus and His WORD, the Bible then You have to believe in the above scripture! Simple as that.  You either do or you don't!

Blade



My goodness...you say that as is if it were some great challenge. I believe this is scripture but I bet I do not agree with your interpretation of it. Sit comfy, this is long...

 Romans 8:29 For whom HE did foreknow, HE also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of HIS Son. From this verse we can see that the predestination of the elect is based on the foreknowledge of GOD. Now everyone admits that in this verse, the word “fore” means before life. Therefore, they think that it also means before creation as if our earthly life was the same as our created spirit life. I wonder if this is a valid and reasonable link to make?

GOD obviously does not before life know everybody since not everyone will become like Jesus, as Rom 8:29 just said predestination means and as per Matthew 7:21 – 23 Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’  which tells us what knowing means, emphasising the idea that loving is knowing and knowing about has no love.


 James 2:19 You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that--and shudder. Jesus obviously knew about the demons and knew about the miracle workers but this knowing contained no love as it is plain, He never knew them. Revelation 20:15, And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.  This means that foreknow must carry the idea of approval. As one commentator stated it, “Whom HE foreknew” is virtually equivalent to “whom HE foreloved”.

Now this question comes to mind: if it is true that no one had been created at the time of this foreknowledge, on what basis does GOD "before life" love some and not the rest.
1.   Merit based Election before Creation?
The basis can not be, as some have suggested, some merit in the creatures, first because no one exists yet; second, because the ones HE foreloves will be just as defiled in life as any other; and third, because the Scriptures say election is not on the basis of the creature's works or choices in life, but rather on HIS unmerited favour: Romans 9:11 For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of GOD according to election might stand, not of works, but of HIM that calleth...  Romans 9:16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of GOD that sheweth mercy. Therefore, we can surmise that GOD does not "before life" love some because HE has divined that they will have some merit in their life.

2.  Election to Damnation before Creation Serves HIS Purpose?
Others have suggested that GOD "before life" loved only some because this is more beneficial for HIS purposes than if HE before life loved everyone. The explanation goes something like this:
The loved ones' eternal joy is directly proportional to their knowledge, appreciation, of GOD and the wonderfulness of their salvation. Therefore an increase of good comes forth from the eternal damnation of some persons for by their damnation, that is, the outcome of Adam's decision to sin, and HIS "before life" decision not to love these persons, two types of eternal blessings supposedly occur for the rest.

First, a fuller appreciation of several of God's attributes is made possible, which opportunity wouldn't be possible if all lived forever, that is, if HE "before life" loved them all. These attributes are usually said to be HIS justness (retribution, wrath) holiness and omnipotence.

Secondly, the truth regarding the elect's end apart from Christ's salvation is made fully known, which full knowledge makes possible the fuller appreciation of HIS salvation, for this salvation (hence, HIS mercy too) would not be so fully appreciated without the graphic depiction of both ends. Others even go so far as to say that their damnation is absolutely necessary in order that the purpose of GOD be able to be fulfilled by HIS elect, and they offer this explanation:
In order to live in eternity with GOD, we must live fully in the truth, which necessity necessitates having a perfect appreciation of GOD's attributes and HIS salvation, and that this perfect appreciation by HIS elect creatures is made possible first, only through witnessing HIS triumph over and judgement upon HIS enemies, and second, only when HIS perfection and our life in Christ are contrasted with the complete imperfections of the damned and the end we would have had, had HE not saved us.

Now, these are very hard positions to hold, for they fail on many accounts.

First, they both fail to answer or give a reasonable basis for why HE chose the particular ones HE did and why HE did not choose the rest. In other words, they both deny the faithful and unselfish character of GOD's love, in that they limit it without just cause and look on it as somewhat capricious.

Secondly, they both necessitate the unproven presupposition that it is impossible for GOD to perfect HIS creatures HIMSELF, that HE needs the presence of evil in order to bring HIS creation to its highest potential.  In other words we must accept, for example, that in GOD’S world one has to first be sick in order to be healthy, or sinful in order to be faultless [and the more sinful (or sick) the better].

Third, they both fail to satisfactorily answer the question of how the damnation of millions makes us more appreciative / perfect than would be the damnation of but one, since it is the moral depravity of those in hell that is supposed to make for the increased appreciation, perfection, and not the quantity of persons therein.

Fourthly, they both put a very small value on the worth of the individual creature in the eyes of GOD.

Well, since the reason for GOD's foreknowledge / forelove did not include everyone cannot be found in HIS divination of merit in some creatures and since a reasonable answer has not been put forward for why GOD does it particularly, we are left with but two conclusions; we must either look for the answer elsewhere, in some area we have not looked before, or we must put the basis of HIS foreknowledge down to unreasonable chance. This would mean that there is no reason for HIS particular "before life" love.
 [Aside: as I understand it, this is Calvin's failure to understand this doctrine correctly, especially in his doctrine of UNconditional election]

GOD's election / foreknowing is thus based on eenie, meenie, minie, mo, but how can you put your faith in a GOD like that? How much better to admit that we should start looking in some area we have not looked yet, and since we cannot find any of those, why not finally admit that we need a revelation from GOD to give us an infinitely loving answer to this problem?

Now, according to pre-conception theology, the "before life" love (foreknowledge) of GOD, that is, HIS pre-life approval of some and rejection of the rest is based on the prior uncoerced (that is, free will) choice of the creature (in Sheol, before physical creation)  and on HIS infinite love, which means that HE will never stop loving anyone who can possibly ever come to glorify HIM.  Herein is the reason why HE loved some "before this life" and why HE did not love the rest.

Some had chosen to eternally defile themselves and some had not. Some had decided to never ever fulfil HIS purpose in our creation and some were still able to fulfil HIS purpose, some willingly, (angels) and others only if HE was infallibly gracious (election) to them (His fallen church). Yes and He predestined these to be conformed to the image of HIS Son, and HE predestined the other evil ones for the Day of Judgement and established them for the correction of the fallen elect.

 Now, I ask you, which doctrine is the more scriptural and reasonable and compatible with the attributes of GOD?


2 Timothy 1:9 Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to HIS own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began. This Scripture does not prove that we existed before our conception. The reason I am including it is that I believe that it does not invalidate preconception theology, and I am sure a lot of people will think that it and others like it do.

May I submit that when the Scriptures speak of works in relation to our election, they are referring to only our works after we're born, ie, no one was elected on account of any works they would do in this life.

Now, if there is anyone who would like to disagree with me on this and would like to debate whether Paul intended that our pre-earthly life works were also to be included in the works that were excluded as part of the basis of GOD's election, I would be very interested in seeing your argument. I suppose this isn't necessary, but I would like to (first) point out that any such argument must admit to our pre-existence.

The second thing I would like to point out is that we were called according to HIS purpose. This must mean so that we could fulfil HIS purpose for us.  But if this is so, then there must be an uncoerced choice on our part if we are ever to have the possibility of glorifying GOD. His purpose for us necessitates a free will choice to join, agree to, that purpose or it is a tape recorder type of agreement.

Therefore I say that being called according to HIS purpose and grace is almost exactly the same as saying, being called in accord with our uncoerced choice and HIS covenant, and if making that choice is a work, since earthly works are out, then it is the same as saying, Being called in accord with a pre-conception work and HIS gracious covenant to those who performed that work.

The third thing I would like to point out is that the angels are elected too. 1 Timothy 5:21  I charge thee before GOD and the Lord Jesus Christ, and the elect angels... Angels are a lot different than men (at least, that is what many believe), i.e., they do not have what is usually called “racial solidarity”. This means that they have to make all their own choices. No one else can make them for them and they can not be held accountable for someone else's evil choices.  In other words, Adam's choices do not affect them at all (supposedly). Perhaps you would like to tell me on what basis GOD elected  only some of them?

If it was not on the basis of their individual choices, then they had to be elected before the satanic rebellion, at least. But if GOD's election took place before the satanic rebellion, would this not lead us into the pretty incredulous situation of some unblemished creatures being unjustly un-predestined to remain in heaven, (or: predestined for Hell)? And what reasonable basis can we put forward for this situation other than HE simply did not want them to be with HIM forever? This situation does not look too good, does it?

Well then, what if no one was elected before the rebellion, that is, what if GOD's election took place after the rebellion? Then GOD's election took place after they all had made an eternal choice, and presumably that choice would be taken into account when GOD was doing HIS electing. It would have to be if HE was holy and just.

Now, the main thing I am trying to bring out with all of this is that when we just begin to consider the election of angels, we run into some pretty unreasonable implications if we leave out their choice as being a part of the basis of their election, and the only other real alternative necessitates that we accept that their eternal choice was at least a part of the basis of their election.

Well, if you are willing to accept the possibility of their choice / works being a part of the basis of their election, why can that not be a part of the basis of ours too?


May I submit that the only thing going against that possibility is the presupposition that Paul, in  2 Timothy 1:9 is excluding all our works, and I have to admit, that is what it seems to say, that is, what it seems to say until we look at Paul's definition of elective works in  Romans 9:11 For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of GOD according to election might stand, not of works, but of HIM that calleth.

Now, I do not think that I will get much argument when I say that the works of  2 Timothy 1:9 are the same works as are mentioned in this verse in Romans. In other words, Paul defines works the same in both verses. And just how does he define works? Well, in Romans, Paul is referring to Genesis 25:22 And the children struggled together within her. The children are Jacob and Esau, and Paul says that at the time of GOD's statement to Rebecca, to the effect that the elder shall serve the younger, that neither of them had done any good or evil (works).

But the reason Rebecca had prayed to GOD was that she was having such a hard time of it because Jacob and Esau were fighting so much in the womb. Now, if they were fighting, at least one, if not both, had to be being evil, that is, doing evil works, since it is impossible that both were following the Holy Spirit in their struggles with each other. So, although it is possible that neither was being good, it is impossible that neither was being evil. Well now, we either have a blatant contradiction and must dismiss Paul's works theology as being somewhat amiss, or we have to admit that the Pauline definition of works does not exclude pre-birth works from being a part of the basis of our election.

In fact, by his omission of their pre-birth works in those works that are excluded as being a part of the basis of our election, he must be inferring that some pre-birth works have something to do with it. To say this all another way, what we have here in Romans is a classic example of a Scripture with some missing words, that is, what Paul is really saying is, neither having done any good or evil (works on the post-birth side of the womb) that the purpose of GOD according to election might stand, not of works (done on the post-birth side of the womb) but of HIM that calleth (when one is on the post-birth side of the womb).

Thus we can see that Paul did not exclude our pre-birth works from being a part of the basis of our election.
 
Title: Re: From a Calvinist perspective
Post by: Bladerunner on July 10, 2019, 08:31:11 pm
So Ted T. ...after all that you said above, I am still lost on what your position is concerning the Bible and the fact that GOD's WORD said in:

Romans 8:29-30..."For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.  v30...Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified."

If you believe in Jesus and His WORD, the Bible then You have to believe in the above scripture! Simple as that.  You either do or you don't!

Blade



My goodness...you say that as is if it were some great challenge. I believe this is scripture but I bet I do not agree with your interpretation of it. Sit comfy, this is long...

 Romans 8:29 For whom HE did foreknow, HE also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of HIS Son. From this verse we can see that the predestination of the elect is based on the foreknowledge of GOD. Now everyone admits that in this verse, the word “fore” means before life. Therefore, they think that it also means before creation as if our earthly life was the same as our created spirit life. I wonder if this is a valid and reasonable link to make?

Ted. Yes, foreknowledge would mean before we are born and Yes, in that verse it could and probably does mean before creation yet it does not say so. Our created spirit life begins when GOD breaths the First breath into your nostrils. Or do you think it just happens and you breath that first breath automatically?

Blade




[/quote]
Title: Re: From a Calvinist perspective
Post by: suvel on July 10, 2019, 08:46:56 pm
Great post Bladerunner, and I too agree with much of the Calvinist doctrine except the free will part. I also find it hard to accept that some people were born to go straight to hell and God knows it ahead of time. Why bring them into the world? I have see some good Calvinist VS Open Theist debates. Maybe we could post a good one here and comment as we watch?

John Calvin was born yesterday 510 years ago in Noyon France.
Seldom has any figure been so universally revered and reviled at the same time.
Mostly he is reviled ( by believers as well) by those who’ve never read him.
Calvin did not make up the word “predestination”.
He found it in Holy Scripture.
It is almost impossible to believe that he wrote Institutes of the Christian Religion in his mid-twenties.
He sustained profundity, intensity and variety on every page at a level unimaginable.
There were over a thousand years between Augustine and Calvin.
It’s been over half a thousand years since Calvin.
Whence cometh such another? It is hard to imagine, yet we await.
Title: Re: From a Calvinist perspective
Post by: Bladerunner on July 12, 2019, 08:45:31 pm
Great post Bladerunner, and I too agree with much of the Calvinist doctrine except the free will part. I also find it hard to accept that some people were born to go straight to hell and God knows it ahead of time. Why bring them into the world? I have see some good Calvinist VS Open Theist debates. Maybe we could post a good one here and comment as we watch?

John Calvin was born yesterday 510 years ago in Noyon France.
Seldom has any figure been so universally revered and reviled at the same time.
Mostly he is reviled ( by believers as well) by those who’ve never read him.
Calvin did not make up the word “predestination”.
He found it in Holy Scripture.
It is almost impossible to believe that he wrote Institutes of the Christian Religion in his mid-twenties.
He sustained profundity, intensity and variety on every page at a level unimaginable.
There were over a thousand years between Augustine and Calvin.
It’s been over half a thousand years since Calvin.
Whence cometh such another? It is hard to imagine, yet we await.
good post suvel

Blade
Title: Re: From a Calvinist perspective
Post by: Ted T. on September 02, 2019, 03:48:30 pm
 
Ted. Yes, foreknowledge would mean before we are born and Yes, in that verse it could and probably does mean before creation yet it does not say so. Our created spirit life begins when GOD breaths the First breath into your nostrils. Or do you think it just happens and you breath that first breath automatically? Blade

Our creation as spirit persons was loooong before the creation of the physical universe which all the sons of GOD saw Job 38:7 and sang HIS praise.  When the breath from GOD moves sinners from the spirit world into the world of man it is called a sowing, not a creation because the devil sows also.
Title: Re: From a Calvinist perspective
Post by: Bladerunner on September 02, 2019, 07:25:37 pm
Ted. Yes, foreknowledge would mean before we are born and Yes, in that verse it could and probably does mean before creation yet it does not say so. Our created spirit life begins when GOD breaths the First breath into your nostrils. Or do you think it just happens and you breath that first breath automatically? Blade

Our creation as spirit persons was loooong before the creation of the physical universe which all the sons of GOD saw Job 38:7 and sang HIS praise.  When the breath from GOD moves sinners from the spirit world into the world of man it is called a sowing, not a creation because the devil sows also.

It seems you have lost all contact for the Bible.  really sad.

Blade
Title: Re: From a Calvinist Perspective: Comments
Post by: patrick jane on July 02, 2020, 10:53:12 am
(https://www-images.christianitytoday.com/images/118182.jpg?w=700)
https://www.christianitytoday.com/news/2020/july/aimee-byrd-genevan-commons-reformed-opc-facebook-comments.html







How a Reformed Facebook Group’s Private Comments Turned Into a Public Dispute












The social media saga involving Aimee Byrd and Genevan Commons calls for discipline, justice, and restoration beyond “cancel culture.”


In an era when swift social media reactions and public repudiations offer an instantaneous form of rebuke and discipline, what role does the church have in holding its leaders and members accountable for online speech?

Aimee Byrd has found herself at the center of this question. The author of Why Can’t We Be Friends?, Byrd has come under fire from some within her Reformed theological tradition for her latest book, Recovering from Biblical Manhood and Womanhood.

The fight has largely played out on blogs and in private online discussions, but also has Byrd and her critics each calling for Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC) sessions (church elders) to take action.

Two weeks ago, screenshots from a private Facebook group called Genevan Commons were posted on an anonymous website that describes itself as an “archive of reviling, cyberbullying, harassment, sexism, and racism among church officers and laypeople.”

Byrd’s supporters have challenged the harsh comments within the Facebook group’s threads, including remarks that address her motives, appearance, and relationship with her husband. They’ve asked whether the leaders responsible will be held accountable for the remarks.

“We are greatly concerned that officers of the church, who have sworn to be accountable to ‘their brethren in the Lord’ would attempt to hide behind a group that pledges itself to secrecy, as if ‘locker room talk’ could somehow be exempted from the accountability of the church on the basis of an alleged right to privacy,” read a statement signed by several dozen OPC pastors and elders.

Byrd was well known for blogging as “The Housewife Theologian” at the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals and for co-hosting the Mortification of Spin podcast with Carl Trueman and Todd Pruitt. The Alliance ended its years-long partnership with Byrd earlier this month after she declined to answer questions related to her latest book.

While Genevan Commons represents a small sliver of the Reformed corner of the Christian internet, believers across traditions have followed Byrd’s saga as a case of online chatter turned ugly.

In the quick back-and-forths in posts and comments, arguments over competing doctrine can easily collapse into character assassination and unbiblical speech, said Daniel Darling, author of A Way with Words: Using Our Online Conversations for Good.

“I think a lot of pastors and leaders forget that when they’re online, they’re in public,” said Darling, vice president for communication at National Religious Broadcasters.

Joe Thorn, a pastor and podcaster based in Illinois, said pastors whose discussions and ministry extend online need to become fluent in apologizing for their mistakes. He told CT he’s seen too many fellow pastors respond to online criticism by defending their own stances and growing more convinced of their own righteousness.

Thorn himself has had to apologize, publicly and privately, for things he’s said online. “My life is accountable to the elders and congregation of Redeemer Fellowship,” he said—and that includes the comments he makes on his social media accounts and as co-host of the Doctrine and Devotion podcast.

In Byrd’s case, most of her fiercest critics are OPC pastors and elders. The denomination is relatively small, with about 300 congregations across the US and Canada. As a member, Byrd pledges to submit to the governance of her congregation and “heed its discipline, even in case you should be found delinquent in doctrine or life.”

So far, her leaders have not subjected her to church discipline over her books or blog posts, which she says are in line with the confessions of her faith.

But that hasn’t stopped her critics. When members of the Genevan Commons found Byrd’s accountability lacking, they wrote blog posts with specifics about how to oppose what they described as Byrd’s feminism. Byrd told CT that her detractors called ahead to at least one of her speaking engagements to inform the retreat center of concerns over Byrd’s teachings.

Group leaders have defended their remarks and the Genevan Commons group.

“The idea that I’ve tried to create a place where we are unaccountable is foolish,” wrote Shane Anderson on The Daily Genevan in April. “In life many discussions are considered appropriately private, and yet the Christian ought to know he can be brought to account both by church discipline now and on the day of judgment before Christ. I have no problem with that, and they should stop pretending that I have some secret, hidden agenda or actions.”

The anonymous website GCScreenshots featured not only the Facebook group’s remarks against Byrd and other Reformed women, but also a list of the hundreds of Facebook users who belonged to the group, including the church affiliations of the pastors and elders who were members.

Todd Pruitt, who has publicly defended Byrd, lamented that the hundreds of users who never slandered Byrd appeared on the list of members. Both he and fellow podcast co-host Carl Trueman heard from dozens of men who belonged to the group but didn’t realize it or never commented. One pastor told Pruitt his wife’s employer was contacted over his membership in the group.

Steven Wedgeworth, a Presbyterian Church in America pastor who appeared to make crude comments in a screenshot posted by the site, alleging that the images were edited to omit context or to wrongly indicate that some of his negative comments were about Byrd.

Byrd fired back on her blog last week, disputing Wedgeworth for minimizing the group’s slanderous comments.

“I’m tired of making a case that is blatantly obvious,” wrote Byrd, referencing that multiple sources have surfaced screenshots showing similar patterns of harmful language. “Why do I have to say all this? Why am I the one defending my reputation? When will there be a conversation about qualifications for those in spiritual authority over Christ’s sheep?”

Concerned OPC elders have been working to assemble evidence of sinful speech from the group. Mark Garcia, an OPC minister and president of the Greystone Theological Institute in Coraopolis, Pennsylvania, said denominational leaders had contacted him privately for advice on the best way for a presbytery to discipline those who penned the comments in question.

When Garcia saw rude messages in the Genevan Commons group, he says, he left the group and used his personal Facebook page to repudiate the sinful things others said about Byrd. (Former members say the group still exists, but it’s smaller and more tightly moderated.).

Garcia believes it’s fair to critique Byrd’s work online, but a discussion of “the ethics of her behavior, deceit, and the like” does not “belong in those contexts, in social media, or anywhere else except for the one context where the Lord has provided for her accountability: her session,” he told CT.

Garcia is continuing to pray that God will “bring swift justice, peace, and unity to his people in the ministry of his wise Spirit.” He fears the process will be hampered by allegations of slander both on the part of Byrd’s critics and her supporters.

But there’s good reason the church doesn’t match the pace of so-called cancel culture, leaders say. Within the church, the goal of discipline is restoration and growth in godliness, as opposed to in the broader culture, where the goal is punitive silencing and ostracizing.

“The wheels of Presbyterian justice move slowly. There’s wisdom in that,” said Pruitt, who recently deleted his Twitter account out of concern he was spending too much time in fruitless debates. “Sometimes in our zeal to be vindicated we can cause collateral damage that’s ungodly.”

The opportunities to speak out and offer influence also heap additional responsibility on Christian leaders. Just look at the warning of “stricter judgment” in James 3:1, followed by the instructions around taming the tongue, said Darling.

“When you speak online, people are watching. We have to weigh our words,” he said. “We forget that bearing false witness online is an actual sin.”
Title: Re: From a Calvinist Perspective: Comments
Post by: Bladerunner on September 23, 2020, 07:35:02 pm
(https://www-images.christianitytoday.com/images/118182.jpg?w=700)
https://www.christianitytoday.com/news/2020/july/aimee-byrd-genevan-commons-reformed-opc-facebook-comments.html







How a Reformed Facebook Group’s Private Comments Turned Into a Public Dispute












The social media saga involving Aimee Byrd and Genevan Commons calls for discipline, justice, and restoration beyond “cancel culture.”


In an era when swift social media reactions and public repudiations offer an instantaneous form of rebuke and discipline, what role does the church have in holding its leaders and members accountable for online speech?

Aimee Byrd has found herself at the center of this question. The author of Why Can’t We Be Friends?, Byrd has come under fire from some within her Reformed theological tradition for her latest book, Recovering from Biblical Manhood and Womanhood.

The fight has largely played out on blogs and in private online discussions, but also has Byrd and her critics each calling for Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC) sessions (church elders) to take action.

Two weeks ago, screenshots from a private Facebook group called Genevan Commons were posted on an anonymous website that describes itself as an “archive of reviling, cyberbullying, harassment, sexism, and racism among church officers and laypeople.”

Byrd’s supporters have challenged the harsh comments within the Facebook group’s threads, including remarks that address her motives, appearance, and relationship with her husband. They’ve asked whether the leaders responsible will be held accountable for the remarks.

“We are greatly concerned that officers of the church, who have sworn to be accountable to ‘their brethren in the Lord’ would attempt to hide behind a group that pledges itself to secrecy, as if ‘locker room talk’ could somehow be exempted from the accountability of the church on the basis of an alleged right to privacy,” read a statement signed by several dozen OPC pastors and elders.

Byrd was well known for blogging as “The Housewife Theologian” at the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals and for co-hosting the Mortification of Spin podcast with Carl Trueman and Todd Pruitt. The Alliance ended its years-long partnership with Byrd earlier this month after she declined to answer questions related to her latest book.

While Genevan Commons represents a small sliver of the Reformed corner of the Christian internet, believers across traditions have followed Byrd’s saga as a case of online chatter turned ugly.

In the quick back-and-forths in posts and comments, arguments over competing doctrine can easily collapse into character assassination and unbiblical speech, said Daniel Darling, author of A Way with Words: Using Our Online Conversations for Good.

“I think a lot of pastors and leaders forget that when they’re online, they’re in public,” said Darling, vice president for communication at National Religious Broadcasters.

Joe Thorn, a pastor and podcaster based in Illinois, said pastors whose discussions and ministry extend online need to become fluent in apologizing for their mistakes. He told CT he’s seen too many fellow pastors respond to online criticism by defending their own stances and growing more convinced of their own righteousness.

Thorn himself has had to apologize, publicly and privately, for things he’s said online. “My life is accountable to the elders and congregation of Redeemer Fellowship,” he said—and that includes the comments he makes on his social media accounts and as co-host of the Doctrine and Devotion podcast.

In Byrd’s case, most of her fiercest critics are OPC pastors and elders. The denomination is relatively small, with about 300 congregations across the US and Canada. As a member, Byrd pledges to submit to the governance of her congregation and “heed its discipline, even in case you should be found delinquent in doctrine or life.”

So far, her leaders have not subjected her to church discipline over her books or blog posts, which she says are in line with the confessions of her faith.

But that hasn’t stopped her critics. When members of the Genevan Commons found Byrd’s accountability lacking, they wrote blog posts with specifics about how to oppose what they described as Byrd’s feminism. Byrd told CT that her detractors called ahead to at least one of her speaking engagements to inform the retreat center of concerns over Byrd’s teachings.

Group leaders have defended their remarks and the Genevan Commons group.

“The idea that I’ve tried to create a place where we are unaccountable is foolish,” wrote Shane Anderson on The Daily Genevan in April. “In life many discussions are considered appropriately private, and yet the Christian ought to know he can be brought to account both by church discipline now and on the day of judgment before Christ. I have no problem with that, and they should stop pretending that I have some secret, hidden agenda or actions.”

The anonymous website GCScreenshots featured not only the Facebook group’s remarks against Byrd and other Reformed women, but also a list of the hundreds of Facebook users who belonged to the group, including the church affiliations of the pastors and elders who were members.

Todd Pruitt, who has publicly defended Byrd, lamented that the hundreds of users who never slandered Byrd appeared on the list of members. Both he and fellow podcast co-host Carl Trueman heard from dozens of men who belonged to the group but didn’t realize it or never commented. One pastor told Pruitt his wife’s employer was contacted over his membership in the group.

Steven Wedgeworth, a Presbyterian Church in America pastor who appeared to make crude comments in a screenshot posted by the site, alleging that the images were edited to omit context or to wrongly indicate that some of his negative comments were about Byrd.

Byrd fired back on her blog last week, disputing Wedgeworth for minimizing the group’s slanderous comments.

“I’m tired of making a case that is blatantly obvious,” wrote Byrd, referencing that multiple sources have surfaced screenshots showing similar patterns of harmful language. “Why do I have to say all this? Why am I the one defending my reputation? When will there be a conversation about qualifications for those in spiritual authority over Christ’s sheep?”

Concerned OPC elders have been working to assemble evidence of sinful speech from the group. Mark Garcia, an OPC minister and president of the Greystone Theological Institute in Coraopolis, Pennsylvania, said denominational leaders had contacted him privately for advice on the best way for a presbytery to discipline those who penned the comments in question.

When Garcia saw rude messages in the Genevan Commons group, he says, he left the group and used his personal Facebook page to repudiate the sinful things others said about Byrd. (Former members say the group still exists, but it’s smaller and more tightly moderated.).

Garcia believes it’s fair to critique Byrd’s work online, but a discussion of “the ethics of her behavior, deceit, and the like” does not “belong in those contexts, in social media, or anywhere else except for the one context where the Lord has provided for her accountability: her session,” he told CT.

Garcia is continuing to pray that God will “bring swift justice, peace, and unity to his people in the ministry of his wise Spirit.” He fears the process will be hampered by allegations of slander both on the part of Byrd’s critics and her supporters.

But there’s good reason the church doesn’t match the pace of so-called cancel culture, leaders say. Within the church, the goal of discipline is restoration and growth in godliness, as opposed to in the broader culture, where the goal is punitive silencing and ostracizing.

“The wheels of Presbyterian justice move slowly. There’s wisdom in that,” said Pruitt, who recently deleted his Twitter account out of concern he was spending too much time in fruitless debates. “Sometimes in our zeal to be vindicated we can cause collateral damage that’s ungodly.”

The opportunities to speak out and offer influence also heap additional responsibility on Christian leaders. Just look at the warning of “stricter judgment” in James 3:1, followed by the instructions around taming the tongue, said Darling.

“When you speak online, people are watching. We have to weigh our words,” he said. “We forget that bearing false witness online is an actual sin.”


The problem is that they do not deliver the words of GOD...instead they use their own words.

Blade
Title: Re: From a Calvinist Perspective: Comments
Post by: Chaplain Mark Schmidt on September 23, 2020, 10:13:50 pm
While I think you can have a discussion and even disagree on how you interpret what is said.  What never changes is the word of God.  I do my best to clarify what is mineand what is God's words. 

Multiple media can be a great tool or something to be horrified on how it is used for personal agendas.
Title: Re: From a Calvinist Perspective: Comments
Post by: Bladerunner on September 23, 2020, 11:38:40 pm
While I think you can have a discussion and even disagree on how you interpret what is said.  What never changes is the word of God.  I do my best to clarify what is mineand what is God's words. 

Multiple media can be a great tool or something to be horrified on how it is used for personal agendas.

While I might be speaking with references, I had rather go to His word any ole day.

Blade