A charitable reader would have understood that I limited 'nobody' to human beings. Jesus said that an eternal fire was prepared for the devil and his angels, not for human beings. Human beings only get the eternal fire if they refuse to repent and work for the Kingdom of God.
Me having sympathy for the devil. Are there no depths to which you will not stoop to tarnish your opponents?
I realize that your image is more important to you than any potential harm you do to others, but a better question is whether there are no depths to which you will not stoop to tarnish God and the Gospel as you customize a designer-theology to pander to your sentimental fancies.
"I realize that your image is more important to you than any potential harm you do to others..."
Preventing harm to others is not accomplished by telling lies about other people. Though I really shouldn't have to spell this out to you (even if I am increasingly unsurprised that I have to), I have ZERO sympathy for the devil. At baptism I renounced Satan and all his works. Any suggestion that I and the devil agree on anything is a vicious calumny.
By God and the Gospel, I take it you are referring to your own brand of designer-theology supralapsarian hyper-Calvinism, which as far as I can tell does far more harm and drives far more people to atheism than other articulations of the Gospel.
Yes, it's a sentimental fancy to imagine the complete destruction of those who reject Christ. It's a sentimental fancy to believe that God punishes sin in history with death, disease and futility. It's a sentimental fancy to believe that Christ's atoning work extends to the whole world.
"...I have ZERO sympathy for the devil. At baptism I renounced Satan and all his works. Any suggestion that I and the devil agree on anything is a vicious calumny."
You're too far down the ladder to know where the orders originate. I wouldn't expect the receptionist at a shell corporation to be in the loop.
But don't worry. And the rate you've been attacking fundamentals of the faith, you're overdue for a promotion.
"By God and the Gospel, I take it you are referring to your own brand of designer-theology supralapsarian hyper-Calvinism..."
No, I'm referring to generic evangelical doctrines like penal substitution, retributive justice, &c.
The fundamentals of the faith are HERE. You don't get to accuse me of being a heretic unless I contradict one of those statements.
Penal substitution is a theological innovation. The Church never affirmed any particular understanding of the atonement as fundamental. If I'm on the road to hell for rejecting it, at least I'm in good company (Justin Martyr, Athanasius, Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory of Nazianzen, Augustine, etc.)
And as for retributive justice:
"He does not deal with us as our sins deserve, he does not repay us as our misdeeds deserve." (Psalm 103:10)
"What has happened to us is a result of our evil deeds and our great guilt, and yet, our God, you have punished us less than our sins have deserved and have given us a remnant like this." (Ezra 9:13)
And don't give me this 'The Cross is retroactive' stuff. If God was holding back to unload our punishment on Jesus, he would never have punished any sin up until that point, at least not of the elect. The plain and simple lesson of these passages (others could be cited) is that God does not exact full retributive justice. He chooses which sins he will fully punish, which sins he will attach a reduced sentence to and which sins he will wink at (Acts 17:30) or blot out altogether.
I would just add that the word ἄγγελος means "messenger." Hellfire is prepared for Satan and his messengers, which could mean demonic beings and/or humans who as sinners by default do his bidding. Anyone who does not bring the true gospel is a messenger of Satan.
Steve said "You're too far down the ladder to know where the orders originate."
Steve, its comments like this that detract from any merit your arguments posses in favour of your positions.
You have no basis to declare JD Walters down the ladder, given that God, and God alone, judges?
You don't know who is saved and who is not. To declare another professing Christian (who holds Christ as his saviour), even one who does not adhere to Calvin's doctrine, as lost is completely presumptuous, and lacks Christ's grace (who you are also called to reflect).
Furthermore, your snide comment about reputation shows that you lack Biblical understanding. Any Christian who values the name Christ should protect his reputation as a Christian, because Christ Himself is judged when a Christian is.
Have you not read how Israel profaned God's Holy name? [Lev 22:32][Eze 36:21-22][Eze 39:7] Have you not read how God remove his Holy name from those people [Isa 65:15] as a consequence of their profanity?
In both the old and new covenant are those who are called by God as a consequence of God's promise to Abraham to bestow a great name [Gen 12:2].
God does not magnify the name of a mere man. Instead he magnifies His own name but places it upon His people. Bearing a name that points to God is how God blessed Abraham (and offspring)! When God changed Jacob's name to Israel, whose meaning points back to God Himself [Gen 32:28], God was faithful to his promise to Abraham.
In [Acts 11:26] another New Covenant name which also points to God was given. There is no greater name than one given by God or one that points to God. (To be called after Christ is better than to be called after anyone else).
Perhaps you should try exercising more grace in your own dealings with those you attempt to refute since Christ is judged by your attitude.
I always thought Romans 3:24-26 was a reference to the propitiatory work of Christ working retroactively.
"being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God sent forth as a propitiation by his blood, through faith, to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his forbearance, God had passed over the sins formerly committed, to demonstrate at the present time his righteousness, that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus."
In my judgment, the text seems to refer to God's righteousness in his dealings in both past and present. It suggests that without the work of Christ, the righteousness of God is called into question by him passing over the sins formerly committed. "Sins formerly committed" I take to mean committed prior to the cross work of Christ.
On the penal substitutionary view, it would make perfect sense to call God's righteousness into question if he was just passing over people's sins prior to the work of Christ, since the Old Testament sacrifices could not truly pay the penalty for sin. If the cross work of Christ vindicates God in his dealings with past sins, then it would seem to suggest that the cross does work retroactively.
I think that there indications that some of the Early Church Fathers thought and wrote and thus taught in Penal Substitutionary terms even if they did not exclusively use the term.
The Work of Christ was not under attack in the first centuries of the church, so a well thought out doctrine was not necessary.
I believe Calvin himswelf said that Penal Substitution is the organizing idea around which and through which all other ideas of the work of Christ can find their meaning. So, I believe he allowed for thinking about the work of Christ in terms other then Penal Substitution.
An unfortunate tendency that one notes in some discussions is this stooping to terms and name calling that is not helpful.
Mr. Walters, I do belive the Substitutionary Motif finds defense and confirmation in the Biblical writings and your attempts to argue otherwise are not convincing.
"You have no basis to declare JD Walters down the ladder, given that God, and God alone, judges?"
i) That's ironic considering the fact that you yourself are nothing if not judgmental.
ii) Oh, and yes, the Bible commands Christians to evaluate false teachers.
"You don't know who is saved and who is not. To declare another professing Christian (who holds Christ as his saviour), even one who does not adhere to Calvin's doctrine, as lost is completely presumptuous, and lacks Christ's grace (who you are also called to reflect)."
I didn't say anything about JD's salvation or lack thereof. You're projecting.
"Furthermore, your snide comment about reputation shows that you lack Biblical understanding. Any Christian who values the name Christ should protect his reputation as a Christian, because Christ Himself is judged when a Christian is."
You and JD are more concerned with your own reputation than God's reputation. However, JD dishonors God by impugning his character when JD insinuates that God punishes sinners beyond what they deserve. That would be the definition of unjust punishment.
"Have you not read how Israel profaned God's Holy name? [Lev 22:32][Eze 36:21-22][Eze 39:7] Have you not read how God remove his Holy name from those people [Isa 65:15] as a consequence of their profanity?"
Which is why it should concern you when JD defames the name of God. But since you're a man-pleaser, all you care about is human reputation rather than God's honor.
"Perhaps you should try exercising more grace in your own dealings with those you attempt to refute since Christ is judged by your attitude."
Perhaps you shouldn't be so judgmental. Or do you think hypocrisy is a Christian virtue?
Steve wrote "i) That's ironic considering the fact that you yourself are nothing if not judgmental."
You were judging his salvation which is the domain of God. Although you're hiding behind a metaphor now (or warped logic), it was clear when you wrote it what you were saying. It is un-Christ-like.
I am judging the fruit of your labour. That is not the domain of God and in fact taught by Jesus.
You're not contending for the Lord when you contending for Calvin and denigrate other believers' faith. Stick to your theological position, and leave the ad hominem attacks aside.
As I wrote above; any God-believing person ought to preserve their Christ-given reputation for by it - Christ is judged. This is hardly man-pleasing and you know it.
Furthermore you might want to think more carefully about equating Calvinism with the Gospel. Calvin gave us Calvinsism, whereas Christ gave us the Gospel. Only one is true.
Your presumption to speak for God, and lack of Christ-likeness in your dealings with other Christians is a concern for more than just Calvinists.
Furthermore you might want to think more carefully about equating Calvinism with the Gospel. Calvin gave us Calvinsism, whereas Christ gave us the Gospel. Only one is true.
Is the suggestion being made that Calvinism is totally wrong. Nothing redeeming in it? That would trouble me greatly as being a position open to great question.
"Furthermore you might want to think more carefully about equating Calvinism with the Gospel. Calvin gave us Calvinsism, whereas Christ gave us the Gospel. Only one is true."
in my previous comment to indicate I was reacting to what was written.
"Hellfire is prepared for Satan and his messengers, which could mean demonic beings and/or humans who as sinners by default do his bidding. Anyone who does not bring the true gospel is a messenger of Satan." -pilgrim
That's an interesting thought.
Jesus spoke to the Jews of His day:
"“If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and I am here. I came not of my own accord, but he sent me. Why do you not understand what I say? It is because you cannot bear to hear my word. YOU ARE OF YOUR FATHER THE DEVIL, and your will is to do your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies. But because I tell the truth, you do not believe me. Which one of you convicts me of sin? If I tell the truth, why do you not believe me? Whoever is of God hears the words of God. The reason why you do not hear them is that you are not of God.”"
And also here:
"“The one who sows the good seed is the Son of Man. The field is the world, and the good seed is the sons of the kingdom. The weeds are the sons of the evil one, and the enemy who sowed them is the devil. The harvest is the close of the age, and the reapers are angels. Just as the weeds are gathered and burned with fire, so will it be at the close of the age. The Son of Man will send his angels, and they will gather out of his kingdom all causes of sin and all law-breakers, and throw them into the fiery furnace. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. Then the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father. He who has ears, let him hear."
We are all sons of God's wrath, really. But God can save and have mercy on whom He desires, though it doesn't seem fair to us, does it.
If a governor goes to death row and allows one of the prisoners to go free, then we say he must let all them go free. But it's his authority to free and to not free. This is acrude way of explaining the gospel, but it helps a bit.
"Is the suggestion being made that Calvinism is totally wrong. Nothing redeeming in it? That would trouble me greatly as being a position open to great question."
No Grev, the suggestion being made is that Calvinism is NOT the Gospel, and shouldn't be mistaken for such.
We are called to contend for Christ which is something entirely different than contending for Calvin.
As a theological position, Calvinism should defend itself within the faith, but in doing-so realize it is doing so against other believers.
"You were judging his salvation which is the domain of God. Although you're hiding behind a metaphor now (or warped logic), it was clear when you wrote it what you were saying. It is un-Christ-like."
i) Reasserting your sheer imputation doesn't make it any truer. You're seeing things. Perhaps you should make an appointment with a psychiatrist.
ii) But as far as that goes, there's nothing wrong with forming a provisional assessment about somebody's salvation. That's part of judging false teachers in the NT.
iii) God's domain lies in actually meting out justice, not in merely forming value-judgments.
I can justifiably form a provisional judgment about the fate of Nero, Muhammad, John Spong, or Vicki Gene Robinson–to name a few.
"You're not contending for the Lord when you contending for Calvin and denigrate other believers' faith."
i) You're the one who's obsessing over Calvinism. You came here with a chip on your shoulder regarding Calvinism, and you've been using the debate with JD as a pretext to denigrate the faith of Calvinists.
ii) You're the one who keeps dragging Calvinism into the discussion. But my debate with JD hasn't centered Reformed distinctives. Rather, we've been debating generic evangelical essentials like penal substitution, retributive punishment, and eternal punishment.
"Furthermore you might want to think more carefully about equating Calvinism with the Gospel. Calvin gave us Calvinsism, whereas Christ gave us the Gospel. Only one is true."
False dichotomy–which begs the question of whether or not Calvinism is Biblical.
BTW, I see that JD has posted a mea culpa. Under the circumstances, it would be gratuitous and inappropriate for ἐκκλησία to keep fueling the fire. Time to let the fire die down. Further incendiary comments by him will be deleted.
"No Grev, the suggestion being made is that Calvinism is NOT the Gospel, and shouldn't be mistaken for such."
How is the following not the gospel?
Thomas Manton wrote:
"Election is ascribed to God the Father, sanctification to the Spirit, and reconciliation to Jesus Christ... The Son cannot die for them whom the Father never elected, and the Spirit will never sanctify them whom the Father hath not elected nor the Son redeemed."
Would love to know how that is not the gospel, these words from the pen of a decidely Calvinist preacher if I am not mistaken.
A charitable reader would have understood that I limited 'nobody' to human beings. Jesus said that an eternal fire was prepared for the devil and his angels, not for human beings. Human beings only get the eternal fire if they refuse to repent and work for the Kingdom of God.
ReplyDeleteMe having sympathy for the devil. Are there no depths to which you will not stoop to tarnish your opponents?
I realize that your image is more important to you than any potential harm you do to others, but a better question is whether there are no depths to which you will not stoop to tarnish God and the Gospel as you customize a designer-theology to pander to your sentimental fancies.
ReplyDelete"I realize that your image is more important to you than any potential harm you do to others..."
ReplyDeletePreventing harm to others is not accomplished by telling lies about other people. Though I really shouldn't have to spell this out to you (even if I am increasingly unsurprised that I have to), I have ZERO sympathy for the devil. At baptism I renounced Satan and all his works. Any suggestion that I and the devil agree on anything is a vicious calumny.
By God and the Gospel, I take it you are referring to your own brand of designer-theology supralapsarian hyper-Calvinism, which as far as I can tell does far more harm and drives far more people to atheism than other articulations of the Gospel.
Yes, it's a sentimental fancy to imagine the complete destruction of those who reject Christ. It's a sentimental fancy to believe that God punishes sin in history with death, disease and futility. It's a sentimental fancy to believe that Christ's atoning work extends to the whole world.
I await your next false accusation.
JD WALTERS SAID:
ReplyDelete"...I have ZERO sympathy for the devil. At baptism I renounced Satan and all his works. Any suggestion that I and the devil agree on anything is a vicious calumny."
You're too far down the ladder to know where the orders originate. I wouldn't expect the receptionist at a shell corporation to be in the loop.
But don't worry. And the rate you've been attacking fundamentals of the faith, you're overdue for a promotion.
"By God and the Gospel, I take it you are referring to your own brand of designer-theology supralapsarian hyper-Calvinism..."
No, I'm referring to generic evangelical doctrines like penal substitution, retributive justice, &c.
The fundamentals of the faith are HERE. You don't get to accuse me of being a heretic unless I contradict one of those statements.
ReplyDeletePenal substitution is a theological innovation. The Church never affirmed any particular understanding of the atonement as fundamental. If I'm on the road to hell for rejecting it, at least I'm in good company (Justin Martyr, Athanasius, Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory of Nazianzen, Augustine, etc.)
And as for retributive justice:
"He does not deal with us as our sins deserve, he does not repay us as our misdeeds deserve." (Psalm 103:10)
"What has happened to us is a result of our evil deeds and our great guilt, and yet, our God, you have punished us less than our sins have deserved and have given us a remnant like this." (Ezra 9:13)
And don't give me this 'The Cross is retroactive' stuff. If God was holding back to unload our punishment on Jesus, he would never have punished any sin up until that point, at least not of the elect. The plain and simple lesson of these passages (others could be cited) is that God does not exact full retributive justice. He chooses which sins he will fully punish, which sins he will attach a reduced sentence to and which sins he will wink at (Acts 17:30) or blot out altogether.
I would just add that the word ἄγγελος means "messenger." Hellfire is prepared for Satan and his messengers, which could mean demonic beings and/or humans who as sinners by default do his bidding. Anyone who does not bring the true gospel is a messenger of Satan.
ReplyDeleteSteve said "You're too far down the ladder to know where the orders originate."
ReplyDeleteSteve, its comments like this that detract from any merit your arguments posses in favour of your positions.
You have no basis to declare JD Walters down the ladder, given that God, and God alone, judges?
You don't know who is saved and who is not. To declare another professing Christian (who holds Christ as his saviour), even one who does not adhere to Calvin's doctrine, as lost is completely presumptuous, and lacks Christ's grace (who you are also called to reflect).
Furthermore, your snide comment about reputation shows that you lack Biblical understanding. Any Christian who values the name Christ should protect his reputation as a Christian, because Christ Himself is judged when a Christian is.
Have you not read how Israel profaned God's Holy name? [Lev 22:32][Eze 36:21-22][Eze 39:7] Have you not read how God remove his Holy name from those people [Isa 65:15] as a consequence of their profanity?
In both the old and new covenant are those who are called by God as a consequence of God's promise to Abraham to bestow a great name [Gen 12:2].
God does not magnify the name of a mere man. Instead he magnifies His own name but places it upon His people. Bearing a name that points to God is how God blessed Abraham (and offspring)! When God changed Jacob's name to Israel, whose meaning points back to God Himself [Gen 32:28], God was faithful to his promise to Abraham.
In [Acts 11:26] another New Covenant name which also points to God was given. There is no greater name than one given by God or one that points to God. (To be called after Christ is better than to be called after anyone else).
Perhaps you should try exercising more grace in your own dealings with those you attempt to refute since Christ is judged by your attitude.
I always thought Romans 3:24-26 was a reference to the propitiatory work of Christ working retroactively.
ReplyDelete"being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God sent forth as a propitiation by his blood, through faith, to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his forbearance, God had passed over the sins formerly committed, to demonstrate at the present time his righteousness, that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus."
In my judgment, the text seems to refer to God's righteousness in his dealings in both past and present. It suggests that without the work of Christ, the righteousness of God is called into question by him passing over the sins formerly committed. "Sins formerly committed" I take to mean committed prior to the cross work of Christ.
On the penal substitutionary view, it would make perfect sense to call God's righteousness into question if he was just passing over people's sins prior to the work of Christ, since the Old Testament sacrifices could not truly pay the penalty for sin. If the cross work of Christ vindicates God in his dealings with past sins, then it would seem to suggest that the cross does work retroactively.
Hello:
ReplyDeleteI think that there indications that some of the Early Church Fathers thought and wrote and thus taught in Penal Substitutionary terms even if they did not exclusively use the term.
The Work of Christ was not under attack in the first centuries of the church, so a well thought out doctrine was not necessary.
I believe Calvin himswelf said that Penal Substitution is the organizing idea around which and through which all other ideas of the work of Christ can find their meaning. So, I believe he allowed for thinking about the work of Christ in terms other then Penal Substitution.
An unfortunate tendency that one notes in some discussions is this stooping to terms and name calling that is not helpful.
Mr. Walters, I do belive the Substitutionary Motif finds defense and confirmation in the Biblical writings and your attempts to argue otherwise are not convincing.
ἘΚΚΛΗΣΊΑ SAID:
ReplyDelete"You have no basis to declare JD Walters down the ladder, given that God, and God alone, judges?"
i) That's ironic considering the fact that you yourself are nothing if not judgmental.
ii) Oh, and yes, the Bible commands Christians to evaluate false teachers.
"You don't know who is saved and who is not. To declare another professing Christian (who holds Christ as his saviour), even one who does not adhere to Calvin's doctrine, as lost is completely presumptuous, and lacks Christ's grace (who you are also called to reflect)."
I didn't say anything about JD's salvation or lack thereof. You're projecting.
"Furthermore, your snide comment about reputation shows that you lack Biblical understanding. Any Christian who values the name Christ should protect his reputation as a Christian, because Christ Himself is judged when a Christian is."
You and JD are more concerned with your own reputation than God's reputation. However, JD dishonors God by impugning his character when JD insinuates that God punishes sinners beyond what they deserve. That would be the definition of unjust punishment.
"Have you not read how Israel profaned God's Holy name? [Lev 22:32][Eze 36:21-22][Eze 39:7] Have you not read how God remove his Holy name from those people [Isa 65:15] as a consequence of their profanity?"
Which is why it should concern you when JD defames the name of God. But since you're a man-pleaser, all you care about is human reputation rather than God's honor.
"Perhaps you should try exercising more grace in your own dealings with those you attempt to refute since Christ is judged by your attitude."
Perhaps you shouldn't be so judgmental. Or do you think hypocrisy is a Christian virtue?
Steve wrote "i) That's ironic considering the fact that you yourself are nothing if not judgmental."
ReplyDeleteYou were judging his salvation which is the domain of God. Although you're hiding behind a metaphor now (or warped logic), it was clear when you wrote it what you were saying. It is un-Christ-like.
I am judging the fruit of your labour. That is not the domain of God and in fact taught by Jesus.
You're not contending for the Lord when you contending for Calvin and denigrate other believers' faith. Stick to your theological position, and leave the ad hominem attacks aside.
As I wrote above; any God-believing person ought to preserve their Christ-given reputation for by it - Christ is judged. This is hardly man-pleasing and you know it.
Furthermore you might want to think more carefully about equating Calvinism with the Gospel. Calvin gave us Calvinsism, whereas Christ gave us the Gospel. Only one is true.
Your presumption to speak for God, and lack of Christ-likeness in your dealings with other Christians is a concern for more than just Calvinists.
Furthermore you might want to think more carefully about equating Calvinism with the Gospel. Calvin gave us Calvinsism, whereas Christ gave us the Gospel. Only one is true.
ReplyDeleteIs the suggestion being made that Calvinism is totally wrong. Nothing redeeming in it? That would trouble me greatly as being a position open to great question.
Sorry -- I did not set off the comment
ReplyDelete"Furthermore you might want to think more carefully about equating Calvinism with the Gospel. Calvin gave us Calvinsism, whereas Christ gave us the Gospel. Only one is true."
in my previous comment to indicate I was reacting to what was written.
"Hellfire is prepared for Satan and his messengers, which could mean demonic beings and/or humans who as sinners by default do his bidding. Anyone who does not bring the true gospel is a messenger of Satan." -pilgrim
ReplyDeleteThat's an interesting thought.
Jesus spoke to the Jews of His day:
"“If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and I am here. I came not of my own accord, but he sent me. Why do you not understand what I say? It is because you cannot bear to hear my word. YOU ARE OF YOUR FATHER THE DEVIL, and your will is to do your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies. But because I tell the truth, you do not believe me. Which one of you convicts me of sin? If I tell the truth, why do you not believe me? Whoever is of God hears the words of God. The reason why you do not hear them is that you are not of God.”"
And also here:
"“The one who sows the good seed is the Son of Man. The field is the world, and the good seed is the sons of the kingdom. The weeds are the sons of the evil one, and the enemy who sowed them is the devil. The harvest is the close of the age, and the reapers are angels. Just as the weeds are gathered and burned with fire, so will it be at the close of the age. The Son of Man will send his angels, and they will gather out of his kingdom all causes of sin and all law-breakers, and throw them into the fiery furnace. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. Then the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father. He who has ears, let him hear."
We are all sons of God's wrath, really. But God can save and have mercy on whom He desires, though it doesn't seem fair to us, does it.
If a governor goes to death row and allows one of the prisoners to go free, then we say he must let all them go free. But it's his authority to free and to not free. This is acrude way of explaining the gospel, but it helps a bit.
Grev said:
ReplyDelete"Is the suggestion being made that Calvinism is totally wrong. Nothing redeeming in it? That would trouble me greatly as being a position open to great question."
No Grev, the suggestion being made is that Calvinism is NOT the Gospel, and shouldn't be mistaken for such.
We are called to contend for Christ which is something entirely different than contending for Calvin.
As a theological position, Calvinism should defend itself within the faith, but in doing-so realize it is doing so against other believers.
ἘΚΚΛΗΣΊΑ SAID:
ReplyDelete"You were judging his salvation which is the domain of God. Although you're hiding behind a metaphor now (or warped logic), it was clear when you wrote it what you were saying. It is un-Christ-like."
i) Reasserting your sheer imputation doesn't make it any truer. You're seeing things. Perhaps you should make an appointment with a psychiatrist.
ii) But as far as that goes, there's nothing wrong with forming a provisional assessment about somebody's salvation. That's part of judging false teachers in the NT.
iii) God's domain lies in actually meting out justice, not in merely forming value-judgments.
I can justifiably form a provisional judgment about the fate of Nero, Muhammad, John Spong, or Vicki Gene Robinson–to name a few.
"You're not contending for the Lord when you contending for Calvin and denigrate other believers' faith."
i) You're the one who's obsessing over Calvinism. You came here with a chip on your shoulder regarding Calvinism, and you've been using the debate with JD as a pretext to denigrate the faith of Calvinists.
ii) You're the one who keeps dragging Calvinism into the discussion. But my debate with JD hasn't centered Reformed distinctives. Rather, we've been debating generic evangelical essentials like penal substitution, retributive punishment, and eternal punishment.
"Furthermore you might want to think more carefully about equating Calvinism with the Gospel. Calvin gave us Calvinsism, whereas Christ gave us the Gospel. Only one is true."
False dichotomy–which begs the question of whether or not Calvinism is Biblical.
BTW, I see that JD has posted a mea culpa. Under the circumstances, it would be gratuitous and inappropriate for
ReplyDeleteἐκκλησία to keep fueling the fire. Time to let the fire die down. Further incendiary comments by him will be deleted.
"No Grev, the suggestion being made is that Calvinism is NOT the Gospel, and shouldn't be mistaken for such."
ReplyDeleteHow is the following not the gospel?
Thomas Manton wrote:
"Election is ascribed to God the Father, sanctification to the Spirit, and reconciliation to Jesus Christ... The Son cannot die for them whom the Father never elected, and the Spirit will never sanctify them whom the Father hath not elected nor the Son redeemed."
Would love to know how that is not the gospel, these words from the pen of a decidely Calvinist preacher if I am not mistaken.