Calvinism and God's love for the cosmos.

[Ransom]

Did Cornelius hate God?

Cornelius is a bad example to use, because we only know about him since he trusted Christ and became Peter's first Gentile convert.

How about a devout Jew or a Gentile God-fearer who hears the Gospel but never receives Christ? Do they hate God?

God has to make the first step, whether through preaching, Creation, hardship, etc. God will always make the first step. However once He does that it is up to us on whether or not we can accept Him.

That is semi-Augustinianism. While it is at least marginally better than its semi-Pelagian counterpart (in which man makes the first step toward God), it is still a synergistic form of soteriology. The Bible teaches monergism, not synergism (i.e. that there is one, divine power that effects salvation, not a cooperative effort between God and men): "not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God" (John 1:13).

 

[Ransom]

I'm going off of your example. You stated a dead man can't accept Christ. Going off of that a dead man can't reject Christ either. Either change your analogy or understand that spiritually dead is not the same as a dead body.

There is such a thing as pushing an analogy too far, especially when doing so causes you to contradict Scripture. The Bible describes one dead in sin as being hostile to God--the dead man is, in fact, rejecting Christ. Being "dead in sin" is one illustration of what it means to be unregenerate. It does not mean an unregenerate person is comparable to a literally dead person in every sense.

I imagine this is why the Bible uses more than one metaphor to describe the condition of the unregenerate more roundly.

 

[Anon1379]

I'm going off of your example. You stated a dead man can't accept Christ. Going off of that a dead man can't reject Christ either. Either change your analogy or understand that spiritually dead is not the same as a dead body.

There is such a thing as pushing an analogy too far, especially when doing so causes you to contradict Scripture. The Bible describes one dead in sin as being hostile to God--the dead man is, in fact, rejecting Christ. Being "dead in sin" does not make you everything a literal dead person is, in some sense.

I imagine this is why the Bible uses more than one metaphor to describe the condition of the unregenerate more roundly.

I agree. The dead man can reject Christ. The dead man can also accept Christ.

First off acts 10:34. God is no respecter of persons. He views the "elect" and "non-elect" in the same boat. He gives both the same ability to accept and reject. He is "kind to the ungrateful and the wicked" (luke 6:35).  The grace of God has appeared unto all men (Titus 2:11). The Holy Spirit will work in the heart of man to "convict the world (not the elect) concerning sin and concerning righteousness, and concerning judgment: concerning sin, because they do not believe in me" (John 16:8). God has "not spoken in secret" God did not say to us "Seek me in vain!" (Is 45:19). God has not commanded "all people everywhere to repent" in vain. He tells the wicked to seek, call and to forsake his way, his thoughts and he will have mercy (is 55:6). If God predestinated men to salvation, then he calls the wicked in vain. If He know they can't accept, then why ask?

EDIT:
"Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God" Romans 10:17. Any man can have faith if they believe in the word of God. "Faith comes by hearing" not by God regenerating a man so he can have faith to now accept Christ. And then Romans 10:8 states the same with 9-13 being the Romans road. Faith is available to any man.

 

[Anon1379]

Did Cornelius hate God?

Cornelius is a bad example to use, because we only know about him since he trusted Christ and became Peter's first Gentile convert.

How about a devout Jew or a Gentile God-fearer who hears the Gospel but never receives Christ? Do they hate God?

God has to make the first step, whether through preaching, Creation, hardship, etc. God will always make the first step. However once He does that it is up to us on whether or not we can accept Him.

That is semi-Augustinianism. While it is at least marginally better than its semi-Pelagian counterpart (in which man makes the first step toward God), it is still a synergistic form of soteriology. The Bible teaches monergism, not synergism (i.e. that there is one, divine power that effects salvation, not a cooperative effort between God and men): "not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God" (John 1:13).

I would say a Catholic does not hate God, but does not have faith in God. The Catholic is working to appease God and to Him, and like the Jews, Christ is their stumbling block. They can't work to appease God cuz they all fall short. Paul also did not hate God, he was zealous for God in his persecution of the Jews. Once saved he didn't go from hating God to now loving Him. Even though he definitely had a greater love and appreciation of God afterwards.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A5000 using Tapatalk

 

[Twisted]

Paul also did not hate God, he was zealous for God in his persecution of the Jews.

How could a totally depraved man be "zealous for God"?

 

[Anon1379]

Paul also did not hate God, he was zealous for God in his persecution of the Jews.

How could a totally depraved man be "zealous for God"?

Acts 22:3 (LEB)- I am a Jewish man born in Tarsus in cilicia, but brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel, educated according to the exactness of the law received from our fathers being ZEALOUS for God, just as all of you are today.

 

[HammondCheese]

Paul also did not hate God, he was zealous for God in his persecution of the Jews.

How could a totally depraved man be "zealous for God"?

Acts 22:3 (LEB)- I am a Jewish man born in Tarsus in cilicia, but brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel, educated according to the exactness of the law received from our fathers being ZEALOUS for God, just as all of you are today.

That was a bit of a rhetorical question from Twisted... One that RansomBathwater asks himself in the mirror every morning.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

[Anon1379]

Paul also did not hate God, he was zealous for God in his persecution of the Jews.

How could a totally depraved man be "zealous for God"?

Acts 22:3 (LEB)- I am a Jewish man born in Tarsus in cilicia, but brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel, educated according to the exactness of the law received from our fathers being ZEALOUS for God, just as all of you are today.

That was a bit of a rhetorical question from Twisted... One that RansomBathwater asks himself in the mirror every morning.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Ahh went right over my head lol

Sent from my ONEPLUS A5000 using Tapatalk

 

[Ransom]

I agree. The dead man can reject Christ. The dead man can also accept Christ.

No, you don't agree. You directly contradicted what I have been saying.

When we say a man is "spiritually dead," we mean neither more nor less than what Paul means when he says the man lives by the flesh (Rom. 8:5ff). His mind is set on the things of the flesh. He is hostile to God. He cannot submit to God or please God.

There is no state where a man can either choose to accept Christ or reject Christ. The man in the flesh rejects Christ. The man in the spirit accepts Christ. There is no third alternative. It is as simple as that.

First off acts 10:34. God is no respecter of persons. He views the "elect" and "non-elect" in the same boat.

"So Peter opened his mouth and said: 'Truly I understand that God shows no partiality, 'but in every nation anyone who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him'" (Acts 10:34-35). The distinction being made is between Jews and Gentiles; God does not play favourites among the nations, with one way of salvation for the Jew and another for the Gentile. You are abusing this verse if you say it has anything to do with the "elect" vs. the "non-elect."

I'll be glad to tackle the rest of your verses, once you have demonstrated that you can handle them responsibly, without abusing them like you have this one.

 

[Ransom]

I would say a Catholic does not hate God, but does not have faith in God.

And again you assume there is a position of neutrality or indifference, which the Scriptures do not teach.

Some Catholics are saved and will receive eternal life. Some Catholics are lost and will receive eternal punishment. Not a single Catholic (or any human being) is in a third position where he can go either way.\

Paul also did not hate God, he was zealous for God in his persecution of the Jews.

You mean the persecution of the Christians.

And you don't recognize the inherent contradiction in this? Blaise Pascal once wrote that no one does evil so gleefully as one who does it out of religious conviction. Saul of Tarsus was the embodiment of this. He was "zealous for God," or so he thought, but he hated God's true worshippers who had received his Messiah. If Paul truly loved God then, he would have not rebelled against God by persecuting his Son.

 

[Ransom]

That was a bit of a rhetorical question from Twisted... One that RansomBathwater asks himself in the mirror every morning.

No, the rhetorical question I ask myself every morning is, "Is HammondCheese's mom ever mortified that she willingly brought this vapid moron into the world?"

 

[Anon1379]

I would say a Catholic does not hate God, but does not have faith in God.

And again you assume there is a position of neutrality or indifference, which the Scriptures do not teach.

Some Catholics are saved and will receive eternal life. Some Catholics are lost and will receive eternal punishment. Not a single Catholic (or any human being) is in a third position where he can go either way.\

Paul also did not hate God, he was zealous for God in his persecution of the Jews.

You mean the persecution of the Christians.

And you don't recognize the inherent contradiction in this? Blaise Pascal once wrote that no one does evil so gleefully as one who does it out of religious conviction. Saul of Tarsus was the embodiment of this. He was "zealous for God," or so he thought, but he hated God's true worshippers who had received his Messiah. If Paul truly loved God then, he would have not rebelled against God by persecuting his Son.

You cannot possibly tell me that all lost Catholics hate God.  Saying that some are saved is just wrong. Sure some might, but you cannot add to the Gospel of Christ. The vast majority  love God, but misunderstand his message and our lost. I noticed  that you have now refained from saying hate God. You know its not true. Not every lost person hates God, they may hate his message and his salvation plan but not God. And mate you aren't arguing with me, you are now arguing with Paul. He stated that was zealous. Not thought he was zealous, but he was zealous. Then he states that the Jews are in the same boat. 

 

[Ransom]

You cannot possibly tell me that all lost Catholics hate God.

That's what it means to be lost. So yes, I can.

I noticed  that you have now refained from saying hate God.

I haven't changed my tune at all. Either you are all in for God, or you are his enemy. There is no third way.

And mate you aren't arguing with me, you are now arguing with Paul. He stated that was zealous.

How could Paul be truly zealous for God and disobedient to him at the same time?

I'm actually agreeing with Paul, who wrote of religious Jews (as he once was): "I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge. For, being ignorant of the righteousness of God, and seeking to establish their own, they did not submit to God?s righteousness. For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes" (Romans 10:2-3).

They were zealous for God, but like Paul's, their zeal was ignorant and misplaced. What they thought was righteousness was disobedience and rebellion. Otherwise, why would the zealous Paul need to be set straight by the resurrected Jesus, whom he persecuted (Acts 9:4-5)?

Paul put no confidence in his zeal as a Jew. As he wrote to the Philippians:

If someone else thinks they have reasons to put confidence in the flesh, I have more: circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; in regard to the law, a Pharisee; as for zeal, persecuting the church; as for righteousness based on the law, faultless.

But whatever were gains to me I now consider loss for the sake of Christ. What is more, I consider everything a loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have lost all things. I consider them garbage. . . . (Phil. 3:4-8)

Doesn't read to me like, in hindsight, he had a high view of his Jewish religiosity, does it?

 

[Anon1379]

You cannot possibly tell me that all lost Catholics hate God.

That's what it means to be lost. So yes, I can.

I noticed  that you have now refained from saying hate God.

I haven't changed my tune at all. Either you are all in for God, or you are his enemy. There is no third way.

And mate you aren't arguing with me, you are now arguing with Paul. He stated that was zealous.

How could Paul be truly zealous for God and disobedient to him at the same time?

I'm actually agreeing with Paul, who wrote of religious Jews (as he once was): "I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge. For, being ignorant of the righteousness of God, and seeking to establish their own, they did not submit to God?s righteousness. For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes" (Romans 10:2-3).

Their (and Paul's) zeal was ignorant and misplaced. What they thought was righteousness was disobedience and rebellion. Otherwise, why would the zealous Paul need to be set straight by the resurrected Jesus, whom he persecuted (Acts 9:4-5)?

I'm not fighting you on that. The Jews and Paul's zeal was misplaced. They thought they were doing God a favour. I agree with you. I am saying that not all lost people hate God.  Paul did not hate God. Catholics don't hate God. All lost people today do not hate God. Before I was saved I didn't hate God. Do I love and understand Him more a whole lot more now? Yeah of course

 

[Ransom]

Paul did not hate God.

He hated Jesus. Therefore, he hated God.

His sincerity cut no ice with the Almighty. He was sincerely engaged in false worship and rebellion against his creator.

 

[Anon1379]

Paul did not hate God.

He hated Jesus. Therefore, he hated God.

His sincerity cut no ice with the Almighty. He was sincerely engaged in false worship and rebellion against his creator.

Good point. But my point still stands. Catholics do not hate God. That is my point. Not all lost people hate God. Paul did hate Christ. But he still loved God. Now he certainly misunderstood Christ and how he was God. But the fact remains he was still zealous for God. As i stated earlier Cornelius did not hate God before salvation. You wrote it off because he got saved. But he still loved God before salvation. You can't dodge that fact

Sent from my ONEPLUS A5000 using Tapatalk

 

[Ransom]

Good point. But my point still stands. Catholics do not hate God.

And how does God feel about it?

 

[voicecrying]

Not all lost people hate God. Paul did hate Christ. But he still loved God.

Can one really love another that they do not know? I'd agree that some lost people love the god that they understand incorrectly, but that's not the God of the Bible.

 

[Anon1379]

Not all lost people hate God. Paul did hate Christ. But he still loved God.

Can one really love another that they do not know? I'd agree that some lost people love the god that they understand incorrectly, but that's not the God of the Bible.

Then who was Cornelius talking to?

Sent from my ONEPLUS A5000 using Tapatalk

 

[Anon1379]

Good point. But my point still stands. Catholics do not hate God.

And how does God feel about it?

Sadness. God does not rejoice over the wicked perishing. He does not take pleasure in them not following him. It has to hurt knowing his children call upon his name every day but are so very far away.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A5000 using Tapatalk