yw wrote:
No!
God is not the author of sin!
“In the chapter on providence [WCF] we read,-"The almighty power, unsearchable wisdom, and infinite goodness of God, so far manifest themselves in his providence, that it extendeth itself to the first fall, and all other sins of angels and men, and that not by a bare permission, but such as hath joined with it a most wise and powerful bounding, and otherwise ordering and governing of them, in a manifold dispensation, to his own holy ends; yet so as the SINFULNESS thereof PROCEEDETH only FROM the CREATURE, and not from God; who being most holy and righteous, neither is, nor can be, the author or approver of sin." God fulfills his decrees by his providential and gracious influences. With the sinful actions of angels and men, his providential influence only is concerned. He PERMITS their sinful dispositions, but does not PRODUCE THEM. Yet he does more than barely to permit; he bounds, directs, restrains and controls their actions to his own holy ends. And inasmuch as he simply PERMITS and CONTROLS the sinful actions of men, he is not the AUTHOR or APPROVER of sin.”

Worldly Wise wrote:
Listen to Mohler's 8 minute commentary on Paul this week. He's not nearly as pro-life as he's leading us to believe.

Mike wrote:
None, but there's always...
Matthew 7:11
"If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him?"

Lurker wrote:
Ever notice that not one freewiller will step forward and make a case for their belief system? Instead they just sit back and deny everything that is presented in defense of the system they reject. It's the oldest trick in the book.

Another view wrote:
John do you sin as a believer? If so, is "effectual grace" (meaning "irresistible grace"?) strong enough to bring you to Christ but so weak that you can still sin, even with a "freed will" as you claim? Do consult your calvinian metaphysics manual before replying.

Rom 7:23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.

Rom 7:24 O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?

Another view wrote:
Ah, but their election makes them special and gives them grounds to brag.

1 Corinthians 1:26-31: "For you see your calling, brethren, that not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called. But God has chosen the foolish things of the world to put to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to put to shame the things which are mighty; and the base things of the world and the things which are despised God has chosen, and the things which are not, to bring to nothing the things that are, that no flesh should glory in His presence. But of Him you are in Christ Jesus, who became for us wisdom from God—and righteousness and sanctification and redemption— that, as it is written, “He who glories, let him glory in the Lord.”

john anticalvin wrote:
Matthew 18:
9. And He also told this parable to certain ones who trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and viewed others with contempt:
Sounds kind of like Calvinist I know who demean non-Calvinist as simplistic, ignorant, or unsaved.
10. Two men went up into the temple to pray, one a Pharisee, and the other a tax-gatherer.
11. The Pharisee stood and was praying thus to himself, 'God, I thank Thee that I am not like other people: swindlers, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax-gatherer.
12. I fast twice a week; I pay tithes of all that I get.'
Notice how the Pharisee is quick to give God the glory for making him the way he is, better then all the sinners and non-Pharisee temple goers. I can't help but think of the Calvinist who exalt their group over others in the church because they obey the law, unlike those evil free-willers, lol.

John Yurich USA wrote:
Yes Humanism is a religion just as Atheism is a religion. Both are religions where man is god.

Mike wrote:
I was wondering about the thoughts that say that God chooses particularly, without regard as to anything of the chosen, and at the same time that he is no respecter of persons. "No respecter" would make the choosing random, not particular.

Mike,

Howard Dotson wrote:
This is disgraceful dog whistling.
President Obama is equal to Senator
Santorum as lay member of a church.
Every time we say, This is what the
Bible says," we need to be humble.
Every interpretation comes through our
own prism.
The social gospel is based on
scripture and sound theology.
The rights of women to have
reproductive health is based on the
foundational principles of justice in our sacred texts.

Mike wrote:
The question the questions bring up for me is, is God a respecter of persons?

Cauvin_Arminius wrote:
Are you saying that people in the OT were regenerated? If so, care to prove it?
Also, since the OT is a pretty big book, you should have no problem proving from the OT that saving faith was a gift. I will wait to see the scripture reference.

I'll do you one better, you'll get a treatment:

http://www.faithalone.org/news/y2004/04B2.html

You: "The orthodox system presents a god who creates the majority simply to damn them so that he can get pleasure from their damnation."

He gets pleasure and glory from His justice and that His purpose might stand, but where do you get the idea it is pleasure in damnation?

You: "He elects the few to salvation irrespective faith or any other act, thereby negating his justice."

And the cross isn't His justice?

"And then he mocks his creatures by commanding something that they are incapable of thereby adding to their guilt and torments in hell, again for his own pleasure."

Cauvin_Arminius wrote:
There are 2 main theological systems which have developed to explain the data of scripture.
The big deal is that some Church councils have declared one to be heretical, and so those who see themselves as "orthodox" have a great deal to lose if their orthodoxy is overturned.
The fact is that the so called "heretical" system actually provides a better explanation and retains a proper balance between human responsibility and Gods sovereignty, leaving God as a loving, compassionate God, whilst leaving the creature accountable. The orthodox system presents a god who creates the majority simply to damn them so that he can get pleasure from their damnation. He elects the few to salvation irrespective faith or any other act, thereby negating his justice. And then he mocks his creatures by commanding something that they are incapable of thereby adding to their guilt and torments in hell, again for his own pleasure.
Bottom line, the God of the Bible is at stake, and as John ac points out in his previous post, so is a proper understanding of the Bible

You what wrote:
Because he has perverted the Christian faith so much that the "god" of his imagination is a cruel tyrant and monster, who is even more evil than the worst sinner on earth. How can this be gloryfying to the true God?

Calvinism is false wrote:
That is most definitely the implication of what is believed by the calvinists and somehow they think this is glorifying to God!

If you will go trusting a calvinist lexicon
But seriously, you have no fixed principles in interpreting those terms and interpret them in accordance with your theology. Why cannot "all" mean "all"? Because it creates a problem for your theology, not because it is inconsistent with the teachings of scripture.

john anticalvin wrote:
Marty...Knowing Calvinism as I do, I already predicted your response. World might or could mean something else, but not really. In 1 Chronicles 16:30 it reads, "Tremble before Him, all the earth; Indeed, the world is firmly established, it will not be moved." Do you worry that the world is going to fly out of orbit or do you understand the meaning of the word "world" when you aren't apologizing for Calvin's theology? You are right about something though, Calvinism isn't able to be taken rationally!