Uber Genius

Now that you claim to be a Calvinist and we see your response to Calvin's double predestination theology of choosing some to be saved and others to be damned, how do you justify your claim say ,"Unless they repent and trust in Jesus," this is not something someone can chose to do under Calvinism. Humans are not free to respond to God in Calvin's view or Luther's Arminius is the one who tried to reform the Reformers by rejecting limited atonement, irresistible grace, and unconditional election. If you think that man can resist grace since "repent and trust" are human actions and if rejected demonstrate God's plan for election thwarted by human action. You need to remove human action from descriptions of God's salvation or equivocate terms by saying "repent and trust" are performed like a puppet on a string by those God would save.

That is the question we'd are looking at, but your statement about originating with Luther was false as was your claim about a nickname. we can argue the scriptural references in the soteriology section if you care to. But the fact that you are affirming non-Calvinistic views as Calvinism, and misunderstand the origin of the views Sam coming from Luther is inauspicious. nevertheless, those points are moot, the scriptures are more than adequate.

No. "For whom he died?" Love to see the reference that reads that way! "For all who receive him"! John 1:12 to as many as received him. John 3:16 whomsoever believes 2cor. 5:14,15 says he died "for all" twice 1 John 2:2 Jesus died for our sins but also the sins of the world romans 6:10 once for all your question is a trick question

So if you are talking about where the idea behind Calvinism came from, various post-nicene church fathers wrote about it but Augustine wrote extensively on the matter. Later during the early scholastic period Anselm renewed the idea. Later we had Aquinas holding to it. Finally Luther, Zwingli, melangrhon, then John Calvin held similar views! John Calvin is a historical figure. And the view ultimately is named after him...but he was late to the game. hope this helps.

Now this is a confusing question. it is God's plan. he chose it in order to pay for all men's who would confess him as lord. so you are asking how God can punish those he justified? He can't! help me better understand you.

I started by quoting CALVIN IN CONTEXT, if you believe that humans have anything whatsoever to do with salvation you are not a Calvinist! However, I invite you to find quotes by Calvin that refute my earlier quote by Calvin. I'm will to look at the evidence. Further you can take quotes in context from any of the half-dozen or so Calvinist theologians that are in the Evangelical church that I have mentioned.

Ephesians 1:4-14 read and then ask Why did he chose us (those whom are saved)? Answer: to be holy and blameless what did God predestine? (Not our salvation) Answer: our adoption to sonship Why were We chosen and predestined and put in him? Answer: to bring glory to Christ through our regenerated lives where we go on to rule and reign with him. (Not predestined for salvation not chosen for salvation)

Agreed. I too reject Calvinism!

Agreed! The question was to spur a conversation about the growing influence of Calvinism in the Evangelical church. "Conviction of their need," is both spiritual and rational, in my view. Firstly the HS works, secondly we consider through our faculty of introspection New feeling of moral accountability toward God, secondly we examine rational claims by Jesus and his followers to determine if true. Thirdly we decide to act an confess Jesus as Lord. Calvinist would rail on my discussion of human falculties, or examining claims, or deciding. Those terms are for synergists who think man can earn their way to heaven. I am not a Calvinist and so would take your advice to heart and work with the HS to both help them understand the scriptures, God's loving nature, his enormous price he paid by sending his son to die in our place, where they stand as sinners separate from god's grace, etc.

Yes but we dont have a discussion of how they got their names written in the lambs book of life. The Calvinists responds, yep, God filled that book out before he created one human being! Since human choice doesn't enter into salvation on Calvinism. That is why I think we need to go to passages about salvation specifically. But you passage from Roms. 2:15 does give us a clue "Their conscience bears witness!" why would a predestinated, chosen, member of the elect, who receives salvation as a functions of God's choice and work alone, make ... ANY REFERENCE TO HUMAN CONSCIENCE WHATSOEVER??? So that is one of hundreds of verses that cause us pause at the Calvinist reference. Great verse!

There are many things in scripture that are abhorrent but never-the-less true. I have a similar reaction but want to appeal to why it is a false representation. And encourage people to go to the soteriology section to start to engage the arguments for Calvinism intellectually.

So Clancy our discussion has morphed to unfold the true nature of Calvinism. This view that is growing in the Evangelical church and was predominant with reformers like Luther, Calvin and even snagged John Wesley holds that God forces man to receive him and forces man to reject him full apart from any foreknowledge of what that person would have freely chosen! I'm again playing devil's advocate here. It does seem amazing doesn't it.

God cannot lie. "19God is not a man, that He should lie, or a son of man, that He should change His mind. Does He speakand not act? Does He promise and not fulfill?" Numbers 23:19 God sends a lying spirit. "20and the LORD said, ‘Who will entice Ahab, that he may go up and fall at Ramoth-gilead?’ And one said one thing, and another said another.21Then a spirit came forward and stood before the LORD, saying, ‘I will entice him.’22And the LORD said to him, ‘By what means?’ And he said, ‘I will go out, and will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets.’ And he said, ‘You are to entice him, and you shall succeed; go out and do so.’ 23Now therefore behold, the LORD has put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these your prophets; the LORD has declared disaster for you.” 1 Kings 22:20-23 So God can't lie but he can use agents to lie? Note: I'm looking for thoughtful discussion here, not cutting and pasting someone else's thoughtful discussion. Although that method can be helpful I could do that myself if that was all I was interested in finding out.

Not sure how this relates to salvation via Calvinism. Seems to me that no matter what one's view of salvation, judgement is the same.

The question wiggles is asking (I believe based on this topic in the OP) Isn't "Is there more than one way of salvation," but "Does the ramifications of the question I asked that all non-Christians are necessarily going to hell?" Of course even on Calvinism the answer is no. God could force someone to choose him before they die.

I'm implying that 30% of Evangelicals are commuted to that claim! Calvinism claims that God creates men with the full knowledge that they will never have the free will to chose to follow him!!! Further that God will punish them for actions they had no freedom to refrain from doing. This makes the world one big kobuki theater and God force she men to act out his play! Then judges them and sends them to hell for it! Further, every week I run into people praising CALVINIST Pastors completely unaware of their treacherous views on salvation, God's Sovereignty, God's love for only the elect, Jesus death only possibly counting for a few who didn't choose to follow him (since no one can choose to follow him). Ever heard a pastor preach quoting R.C. sproul, D.A. Carson, Tim Keller, John Piper, John MacArthur? All believe those false views stated above.

Josh MacDowell used to argue deductively from the Bible's inerrancy. Loved Josh, but here it seems that the most effective way to respond is to appeal to our faculties of knowledge: God gives everyone: senses intropection rationality memory testimony moral intuition (conscience) Scientific knowledge is weighted on senses, rationality (some memory and testimony and introspection involved). Religious knowledge is weighed on testimony, memory of religious experiences, rationality, introspection. Not really senses unless you have some religious experience involving the senses. using a person's argument and apply it to its own claims Hawking attacks a strawman (religious knowledge is about authority), and then appeals to how science works at knowledge. But science doesn't work if we use Hawking's definition. Because it is continually FALSIFIED! So I set the trap early by asking my interlocutor, "Is Hawking claiming because science is unfalsifyable we can trust it?" most fall into the trap. If he is not claiming that then the fact that over time we slowly gain knowledge about the physical world through science can be countered by congrats, we slowly gain knowledge about the spiritual world in the same fashion, slowly over time, as a result of continued interaction with texts.

Yes, your point seems to be Hawking has attacked a strawman. Certainly that is true. "The Bible said it, I believe it, that's settles it," might be considered to be an authoritarian viewpoint. i think what Hawking is getting at is how knowledge is acquired by religious pro ouncemnet by authors of scripture or the Pope (for Catholics anyways). But Hawkings misses the point. He is unfamiliar with the roles of testimony, and memory, and rationality, and introspection involved in engaging Biblical narratives. We gain knowledge in many the same ways juries gain knowledge about truth claims in court. Would Hawking like to destroy the legal system as well? What about Foensic science? How about history, which is based on testimony? Does Hawkings believe that his mother existed, if she died, and her documents attesting to her existence burned up, would he be in a position to say I know I had a mother but I can't know who she was even though I was raised by her and have thousands of experiences of her in my memory. So what Hawking misses is he wants to destroy almost all knowledge humans have in order to destroy knowledge of God. That seems extreme. And obviously false, as he misunderstands the limits different types of knowledge have.

A recent poll (2014 or so) found 30% of Evangelicals to be Calvinists. I gave what Calvin's response to my friend would be in my post. I reject Calvin's doctrine as more abhorrent than most cult groups because Calvinism destroys the nature of God to be an incoherent God! on Calvinism GOD ONLY LOVES THOSE HE CHOOSES TO LOVE so he is NOT all-loving He creates men who are predestined to go to hell! Not just NOT all-loving but here he is evil. So I do respond the way you suggest. Yet I frequently run across Evangelical Pastors referring to R.C. Sproul, John McArthur, D.A.Carson, Tim Keller, John Piper in their preaching. They will adopt Calvinist views without knowing the entailment of such views. i respond like you suggested. Thanks.

Yes. Referring to the approach many Christians have adopted of not understanding the difference between use of philosophy to form or defend Biblical doctrine, and using Biblical prooftexts about worldly wisdom/philosophy to attempt to refute Biblical doctrines. Your example about the concept of the trinity is apt. Many respond that since the word "trinity," doesn't appear in the therefore there was no such teaching. What really happened was the Church Father's asked how can we view the statements about Jesus, the Father, the HS and account for them, all of them. Example: Hypothesis 1 -We can look at the oneness passages when two figures are in passage as one in essence. HYpothesis 2'- we can look at oneness passages as one in person, which means God changes roles from Father, to Son, to HS. Problem with hypothesis 2 is that we see multiple characters numerous times in the same scene. Was Jesus praying to himself in the Garden of Gethsemane? Was the Father praising himself at Jesus' baptism, was the HS landing on himself in that scene? So based on incoherence of the hypothesis and sometimes just the lack of explanatory power (ability to explain all the seiptural data), one view was chosen over another. These types of discussions are the preponderance of the 10s of thousands of pages of church fathers writings.

https://www.amazon.com/Ante-Nicene-Fathers-Writings-D-Apostolic/dp/1602064695 Volume 1 of ten volume set all written before Nicea. Example: From Discourse 1 by Athanasius "Against the Arians" Chapter 2. Extracts from the Thalia of Arius. Arius maintains that God became a Father, and the Son was not always; the Son out of nothing; once He was not; He was not before his generation; He was created; named Wisdom and Word after God's attributes; made that He might make us; one out of many powers of God; alterable; exalted on God's foreknowledge of what He was to be; not very God; but called so as others by participation; foreign in essence from the Father; does not knowor see the Father; does not knowHimself. [Athanasius then responsed to Arius' claims] And the mockeries which he utters in it, repulsive and most irreligious, are such as these :— 'God was not always a Father.' but 'once God was alone, and not yet a Father, but afterwards He became a Father.' 'The Son was not always;' for, whereas all things were made out of nothing, and all existing creatures and works were made, so the Word of God Himself was 'made out of nothing,' and 'once He was not,' and 'He was not before His origination,' but He as others 'had an origin of creation.' 'For God,' he says, 'was alone, and the Word as yet was not, nor the Wisdom. Then, wishing to form us, thereupon He made a certain one, and named Him Word and Wisdom and Son, that He might form us by means of Him.' Accordingly, he says that there are two wisdoms, first, the attribute co-existent with God, and next, that in this wisdom the Son was originated, and was only named Wisdom and Word as partaking of it. 'For Wisdom,' says he, 'by the will of the wise God, had its existence in Wisdom.' In like manner, he says, that there is another Word in God besides the Son, and that the Son again, as partaking of it, is named Word and Son according to grace. And this too is an idea proper to their heresy, as shown in other works of theirs, that there are many powers; one of which is God's own by nature and eternal; but that Christ, on the other hand, is not the truepower of God; but, as others, one of the so-called powers, one of which, namely, the locust and the caterpillar , is called in Scripture, not merely the power, but the 'great power.' The others are many and are like the Son, and of them David speaks in the Psalms, when he says, 'The Lord of hosts' or 'powers.' And by nature, as all others, so the Word Himself is alterable, and remains good by His own free will, while He chooses; when, however, He wills, He can alter as we can, as being of an alterable nature. For 'therefore,' says he, 'as foreknowing that He would be good, did God by anticipation bestow on Him this glory, which afterwards, as man, He attained from virtue. Thus in consequence of His works fore-known , did God bring it to pass that He being such, should come to be.' 6. Moreover he has dared to say, that 'the Word is not the very God;' 'though He is called God, yet He is not very God,' but 'by participation of grace, He, as others, is God only in name.' And, whereas all beings are foreign and different from God in essence, so too is 'the Word alien and unlike in all things to the Father's essence and propriety,' but belongs to things originated and created, and is one of these. Afterwards, as though he had succeeded to the devil's recklessness, he has stated in his Thalia, that 'even to the Son the Father is invisible,' and 'the Word cannot perfectly and exactly either see or know His own Father.' but even what He knows and what He sees, He knows and sees 'in proportion to His own measure,' as we also know according to our own power. For the Son, too, he says, not only knows not the Father exactly, for He fails in comprehension , but 'He knows not even His own essence;'— and that 'the essences of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost, are separate in nature, and estranged, and disconnected, and alien , and without participation of each other ;' and, in his own words, 'utterly unlike from each other in essence and glory, unto infinity.' Thus as to 'likeness of glory and essence,' he says that the Word is entirely diverse from both the Father and the Holy Ghost. With such words has the irreligious spoken; maintaining that the Son is distinct by Himself, and in no respect partaker of the Father. These are portions of Arius's fables as they occur in that jocose composition. Above was a small sample of claim counterclaim format common in ante-nicene church fathers writings. OThers include significant scripture references. In fact there is so much scripture reference that if we were to destroy every NT in the world, we could reproduce the NT with the exception of a handful of verses just by quoting from church father's work.

Great response. By looking at all the scriptures that referred to a topic the early church fathers were able to examine people's arguments and premises based on scriptural references. They often would argue advanced philosophical arguments to show that certain inferences didn't explain all themscriptural data and sometime led to complete contradictions.

Just seeing this now or else I would have point people back to your response rather than sharing my view which is exact the same. thanks.

So I like the passages you cited. How do we sort out traditions of say keeping the sabbath, or ritual feast days, or Jewish oath rituals that Paul observed? Further couldn't we just hurl the epithet: [insert view we disagree with here] is a Satanically induced, tradition/ philosophy of man that nullifies God's word, and be done with the conversation?

Well-put! Colossians 2: 4 "I say this so that no one will deceive you by smooth rhetoric." 8 "See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, which are based on human tradition and the spiritual forces of the world rather than on Christ." Further down we see that Paul is talking about the Judaizers. So someone who uses there arguments to falsify the revelation ornate God found in the scriptures. Since Paul uses smooth rhetoric and philosophy to make many of his arguments it seems clear he is not talking about just any human smooth rhetoric or any philosophical argument!