Welcome to Gaia! ::

I would ask that you do not call this a "theory." It is rooted in the Word of God. So please, if anything, it is not a "theory." Call it doctrine, if you will, but theory does not suit it.



This is what I like about the Gospel. You are humbled. "How can one be sure that they are saved?" Simple. You see the way you live. Do you live in accordance with the Word of God? Better to examine your life daily, rather than acting as though you are saved and have not a care in the world. Better to know whether or not one is saved, rather than being told, "You are saved, but you still have carnal lusts," or "You are a carnal Christian." I would recommend that you read 2 Peter 1:3-11. Furthermore, if you want to know as to whether or not you are saved, read the Epistle of First John. There are things that John brings up that shows who is and who is not a believer in Christ. To me, when I read it, it is very illuminating, as though there is a light.



Would you really care, if you were predestined to hell? You seem to care enough to see how to figure out if you're saved or not. Would an unbeliever do this? It is not because you accepted Christ into your heart, or that you confessed Him as Lord, or that you confessed that you are a sinner. What makes you a Christian is when the Holy Spirit regenerates you. Any person can call themselves "Christian," but they are not a Christian until the Holy Spirit has caused them to be born again. Only one who is born again would accept the Gospel, for they were elected by the Father, redeemed by the Son, and born again by the Holy Spirit. This was a major issue for me, so convicting to my heart, that I wanted to deny it. But I could never forget the words, "Regeneration precedes faith." In other words, before you have faith, you first must be born agan.



I'm sure you can. I am not, but I hope in Christ, for it is not what I've done, no deed that I've committed, that would bring me to salvation.



This is hyper-Calvinism. "Sit down, young chap! There is no need to preach the Gospel, for God is the one who elects!" But, what if God uses us as a means to get to the ends? In other words, what if God uses us to preach the Gospel, so that God may elect some unto heaven? Paul writes in Romans 10:14, 15, "How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? And how can they preach unless they are sent? As it is written, 'How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!'" You know, it is as though you believe that Calvinists, when they say that they believe in predestination, are fatalists.

I know I've posed this question before, but it seems that it cuts right to the heart of the issue, so I'll ask it again:
Assuming that Calvinist doctrine is correct, why then have I not been saved? Because of the sins of two people many long generations removed from myself, I am in a position where I cannot, by my own power, bring myself to salvation and so I need God's direct intervention in my life to effect the transformation that will ultimately get me into heaven. However, that transformation has clearly not taken place, meaning that I have been excluded from the Kingdom of heaven without one bit of bloody say in the matter. So, I ask you, why is this the case, and moreover, how is it fair to me and every other reprobate out there who is in the exact same position? And, no, ineffability is not an acceptable answer.

Theo--because, despite the name-change, that's still how I think of you--I don't care about whether Calvinist doctrine is biblically accurate. As you observed, I'm not exactly what you'd call God-fearing. My question, as I made pretty clear, presupposes that Calvinist doctrine is correct. My question is how that doctrine can be considered just. How is it just to elect certain people while allowing the rest of them to languish in a state of depravity that isn't of their own making and which they cannot extricate themselves from?

And what I am doing is trying to figure out what you believe. Theo, you've told us again and again what you don't believe (equal ultimacy), but what you have not told us is what you do believe. How do you say that not being elected to heaven does not automatically send you to hell? Is there some third place that you have failed to mention?


My little proof had three lines of substance (the 'therefore' symbol does not count). I was referring to the third line.


Meh, we're used to slow points in debates.

No, no it does not. Maybe I'm just a recalcitrant atheist with an egalitarian streak, but I still have problems with a God who uses the wicked for his own ends (whatever those may be) and then punishes them for being little more than cogs in his grand design. To draw an analogy, that's rather like playing a chess match, sacrificing a pawn, and then smashing it into little bits because it got itself captured—a situation that you created.


Yeah, but did I or anyone else have a say in the matter? Seems to me that I'm in a bit of a double-bind here: I'm a sinner because Adam sinned against God. But I can't do anything about it, so all I can do is sit around twiddling my thumbs while I wait for God to take pity on me and rework my otherwise sinful programming so that I can start being righteous. And if he doesn't decide to save me, then I'm damned. Can you see how I might find this to be a bit perturbing?


You'll excuse me if I say point-blank that I consider that to be rubbish. The 'freedom of man' that you speak of is the freedom of prisoners. Absent God's intervention, man is free only to do evil in your theology. To say that that represents freedom is to say that an incarcerated man is free because he can do whatever he wants within his cell, so long as it doesn't involve that which the jailer or the physical realities of the surrounding stone prohibit.


Let's extend that metaphor a bit. So humans are fig trees: it's in our nature to sin/bear figs. Clearly, God is not terribly fond of fig trees. Therefore, in his infinite wisdom, he has chosen to transform a certain number of fig trees into, say, pear trees, which he does like. However, God also decides that he's going to punish the remaining fig trees for being...fig trees. For doing what comes naturally to them and what they couldn't change even if they wanted to. He could change all the fig trees to pear trees, but apparently he'd rather have a few fig trees left over to kick around; and, guess what, the poor fig trees can't do a bloody thing about it. They've just got to sit there and take it and wish that that stupid ur-fig tree hadn't decided to piss God off way back when.


Indeed. Because with the benefit of faith I could easily say, 'Well, that's God for you—what a character! Well, I'm sure he knows what he's doing.' I'd rather not, thank you.


Yeah, but they don't reject it of their own volition; they reject it because the sins of Adam prevent them from accepting it. The reprobate are brought down to hell by the sins of their ancestors and by the wrath of God, who after all these years has still not seen fit to forgive the first man's error and give humanity back it's capacity to freely choose right from wrong. The twin authors of damnation here are Adam and God: Adam for his sins, and God for his unwillingness to help those that Adam's sin left utterly incapable to do God's will.

there are verses directly showing that we ARE predestined for hell or heaven. it is not the fault of man but the action of god. and heres why....

if you "believe" in god, then you are not considered natural man (yet again im posting it because i have a feeling people are failign to consider what the verse im posting is trully saying....so ill post it yet once again...



people who "can" believe are predestined to




no, they reject it because they have no choice according to 1 cor 2:14. if god says we ALLLL deserve hell, then we'd all end up in hell if it werent for gods intervention wouldnt we? think about it...

No, I meant just that. According to the doctrine of total inability, human beings cannot freely choose to accept salvation. Moreover, any good that we attempt will be flawed in everything from its motive to its implementation. We are not merely tempted by sin in this formulation, we are enslaved by it. As I said, we are forced to sin because Adam put us in a state where—absent God's intervention—we can do nothing but sin. This is why, as you say, we are all 'naturally' destined for hell. I can understand that.

What I don't understand is the doctrine that God would save only some, but not all, of mankind from that fate. If He either saved everyone or allowed everyone to descend to hell, that would at least make sense. However, I find the idea that God would save only some of mankind when he has the power to save all of mankind to be reprehensible.

Except, it is not like a game of chess. Who is God playing against? Satan? Himself? Really, my theology does not support neither a fatalistic or mechanistic view.



"Perturbing," it might be to you, but I am not here to satisify one's own sentiments. I am not here to say what might please your ears. If you want that, go to an Arminian or any person who believes in a teaching that Evangelicals teach today. Of course, every Christian is Calvinistic in prayer, though he may not realize it, for when that man bows his head and clasps his hands together, he asks God for this and for that, thus, he shows his reliance on the sovereignty of God. Furthermore, if he goes about to pray for any sinner or his unbelieving friend, he is relying on God to save him, even though he believes that it is up to man to choose, since God has done His part.



You are absolutely correct. I should have said the "bondage of man," instead of the "freedom of man," since what I said may have been misleading.



But he is so free as to do what pleases him, and that is sin. If he did not desire sin, he would not do it. He makes the choice, and the choices are by his very nature. Because man has a sinful nature, known also as the "flesh," he sins by his own will, for that is what he is inclined to do. If he had a desire for God, he would worship God. But because his heart is darkened, and his mind depraved, he desires only to do those things. Before man can have a desire for God, he must be born again, and when he is born again, he will have faith in God. If he is not a slave to sin, he is a slave to righteousness. Either way, man is bound by one thing or another.



This is a nice imagery, one that I've used myself in the past. Christ said that whoever sins is a slave to sin. He also said that the truth shall set you free. The last time I checked, Paul wrote that the wicked suppress the truth. Christ said also that you shall be free indeed, if the Son sets you free.



Yes, I suppose that He is not, since, if I recall, it was Christ who caused a fig tree to never bear figs anymore. That, of course, was a parable shown through an act, rather than word, to demostrate that mere semblance without substance profits nothing. Of course, I also used the fig tree as an example, since that is what is used in the Word of God. But, I shall move along.



Why would He like the pears trees? What have they done, that caused them to be pleasing to God? If anything, good comes from God, and God would only be so delighted in said "pear" trees, since it is His goodness that is cast upon them. For similarly, man is declared righteous before God, because the righteousness of Christ is imputed on man, so that instead of seeing man, God sees Christ, His Only-Begotten Son, who obeys and pleases the Father. It is not, therefore, the works of man that pleases God. Rather, it is the works of Christ, who ascribes His works to us, as though we had done the works, and thus, are pleasing in the sight of God the Father. You would know well that this is the doctrine taught by Protestantism.



First, read Matthew 7:16-20. Christ speaks of false prophets, and this is what He says of them, using trees and fruits as analogies. "By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them" So, Christ states even that a good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and that a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. Can a sinner bear good deeds? It is not of his nature, and he does all things according to his nature. This is why I asked, "If a fig tree chose to bear any kind of fruit, what kind of fruit would it choose to bear?" Obviously, that of which is its own nature. Similarly, man is inclined to do what is sinful, because that is what he so desires. If man did not desire to sin, he would not. But because he does, he chooses to do so. Thus, his will is in accordance with his nature and desires. He is free, insofar as doing what is sinful, but nevertheless, is free from righteousness.