Will Friedum wrote:
We haven't had too much discussion. I haven't even made use of your keywords. Like I said, I'm just asking simple questions and I don't feel you are answering appropriately, which is only leaving me more confused. [Or possibly all the more clear that Calvinism is of the devil]
As for "harmitology," I'll assume that means the study of harmony.(?) And I don't know what a Pelagian is.
Maybe somebody else can help me out.

Will Friedum wrote:
I think you're only complicating things Rogerant. I'm just asking simple questions so I can understand better. Regardless of any "primary" or "secondary" cause, the bottom line is that only God is the creator of life. And if he creates life that can do nothing but sin, then it appears he would be unjust in damning them because its not possible for the sinners to believe in God and not sin. So to claim that the sinners are only getting what they deserve and what they have chosen seems very incorrect.

Will Friedum wrote:
Thank you again. So if God made all of us after Adam and we are not capable of being sinless, then God made us sinners (or with a sin nature that can only sin). Correct?

Are you saying that God has offered mercy and grace to all since Genesis 3:16?
Still wondering about love too.

No god has not offered mercy and grace to all since Geneses 3:16. He was not required to. I did not say all anywhere. He only offered it effectually to his elect.

Will Friedum wrote:
Rogerant,
To keep it simple here, God forces people to love and obey him.
Rogerant says yes.
Man can make robots and puppets that do what he says too.
Rogerant says yes.
So, I'm still perplexed about how man can truly love God if man is forced.
Rogerant says: "He did not make them sinners that they became. WE make us the sinners that we became."
This statement implies that man is capable of being sinless. Please clarify further.

Man is not compelled by God to sin. When man is in rebellion all God has to do is tell him not to do something, and man will do it in response. Have you never raised a teenager?

Calvinist Understanding wrote:
Rant 1: "And it is because of the fact that the reprobate desire not to believe and give thanks to God that God has the right (the divine prerogative) to do with them as He wills."
This is a matter of justice, not an arbitrary prerogative. So he will do with them what justice demands.
Rant 2: "..The reprobate do not want God's Holy love in Christ and they never will. They despise God's sovereign love and His right to do what He wants with them. ...."
This seems a most odd statement, when you have already acknowledged that both lumps deserve the same fate! Would those from the lump unto honor have had a different attitude and viewpoint? If not, why predicate this solely to the reprobate?

Rant 2 response: Both lumps are the same, dead in trespasses and sins, apart from God's predestinating the elect to eternal life and placing them "in Christ" at the cross. Then the Holy Spirit regenerates them and then they come to Christ.

Calvinist Understanding wrote:
Roger
I think you are losing the picture. You rave and rant about the reprobate, but if the 2 lumps are from the same clay, which you concede, then they are equally vile before God, and equally deserving of the same end. Surely the point of the passage is that "God will have mercy on whom he will have mercy and whom he will he hardeneth".. in other words the basis of one's election is known to God alone.

Calvinist Understanding wrote:
Roger
In your last post - are you arguing that God made the reprobate the sinners that they became in order to damn them?

Will Friedum wrote:
If the Spirit "convinces" and "compels" and the sinner cannot resist or refuse, then to me that amounts to force and the creation of a robot which cannot truly love. Man can create the same.

Lurker wrote:
I don't believe Roger used the words "God forces people..." Did God the Son "force" Paul on Damascus Road?

I believe that the Holy Spirit convinces and "compels" the elect to come to Christ. He reveals the beauty of the mercy of Christ, and the ugliness of their own sins and then the elect loath themselves.

Ezekiel 36:26 A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh. And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them.

Will Friedum wrote:
Anyone can help me out with my previous question if they desire.

Note here, Paul rebukes your very question. Who are YOU o man...

If you still have questions, I recommend that you read the following chapter dealing with the subject.

Calvinist Understanding wrote:
Mike this is a debate amongst calvinists

Clyde wrote:
Rom 4:2 For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.
Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?
(James 2:21-22)
Hmm... not quite as easy a topic as some make it seem.

James chapter 2 deals with our witness before the rich and the poor man who have come into the church. James writes that we are justified by our works as christians, before others. So in other words, since you ARE a Christian, now work out your faith before others with works, not showing any partiality amongst those who come into the church. This is established by James writing "What doth if profit, my brethren though a man SAY he hath faith and not works" and "Yea, a man may SAY, Thou hast faith"

Patience wrote:
My dear Sir,
Justification started in Genesis when God killed an animal - shed blood - and provided a covering for Adam and Eve.
It continued with the sacrificial system of the Jewish people - looking forward to the time when the promised Messiah would shed His own blood to save His people from their sins.

So, justification is not confined to Romans 4. It is the thread throughout Scripture.

Patience wrote:
Tell me dear sir, what does Rev. 22:11 mean, "Let the one who does wrong, still do wrong;
and let the one who is filthy, still be filthy;
and let the one who is RIGHTEOUS still PRACTICE righteousness; and
let the one who is holy, still keep himself holy."
IOW, if our righteousness is totally, and only IMPUTED - a legal transfer, if you will - what could possibly be the implication of this verse?

Patience wrote:
If there are none righteous according to Romans 3:10, then WHO are the RIGHTEOUS in 1Pet 4:18?

Who are the Beloved? the persons to whom the letter was written as identified in 1:1 "Peter...to the strangers scattered thoughout..., Elect according to the forenknowledge of God the Father through sanctification of the Spirit, UNTO obedience,,,Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again...Who are kept by the power of God...

Yes, the letter is written to the elect of God, those who has begotten us by his predestinating love. In that we have become the Beloved of God, from the foundation of the world. The reprobate have not received this love.

John UK wrote:
I'm sorry Biblion, but Jesus gives justification and sanctification as a package in salvation. No-one ever got justified without any good works following, and even these works, as I have already said, were fore-ordained by God.
To Jesus be glory, yes! He has all the glory. Amen and Amen.

I don't think anyone here really understands where you stand on any of these doctrines.

SC wrote:
Incidentally would you care to argue with James when he wrote:
"Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?" Jas 2.21
"Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only." Jas 2.24

DJC49 wrote:
John UK was looking into 1 John 3:8 ............. NOT John 3:8, Roger.

pew view wrote:
There is no such thing as a 4 point calvinist. Either you are and can perceive the TULIP, and it's links, - or you are not. Simple eh?

Just as there is no such thing as a 1,2,3 point Calvinist. There is no middle ground.