Mageth

You appear to be floundering around, trying to cover your tail. Meanwhile, the content of your responses continue to appear to contain contradictions.

You earlier said "A person does not have to do anything to be saved except seek God's mercy."

It is notable that Jesus didn't say to the lawyer, "Thou hast answered wrong: a person does not have to do anything to be saved except seek God's mercy."

rhutchin

Deut 24
16 The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.

Psalm 103
6 The LORD executes righteousness and judgment for all that are oppressed.
7 He made known his ways unto Moses, his acts unto the children of Israel.
8 The LORD is merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and plenteous in mercy.
9 He will not always chide: neither will he keep his anger for ever.
10 He hath not dealt with us after our sins; nor rewarded us according to our iniquities.
11 For as the heaven is high above the earth, so great is his mercy toward them that fear him.
12 As far as the east is from the west, so far hath he removed our transgressions from us.
13 Like as a father pities his children, so the LORD pities them that fear him.
14 For he knows our frame; he remembers that we are dust.

rhutchin

Your comments do not deal with that which I said. Doesn't Luke 10 lead to the conclusion that actions do make a difference?

Certainly a person can seek salvation through actions even if it is still true that a person does not have to do anything to be saved except seek God's mercy. So where is the contradiction?

show_no_mercy

Deutetronomy 24 is usually cited as an explicit refutation of Christian theology. What sin did Jesus commit that entiteld his death?

What, exactly, does this have to do with Jesus nullifying Adam's curse - which is Christian (not Hebrew bible) theology?

HelpingHand

We do not believe whatever we want, we believe whatever we believe. There is no 'wanting' in believing. So Deus is right, whether it was God who predestined him to believe or not, belief is not a choice.

Besides, Calvinists believe that everything is predestined (well, there are of course, various types of Calvinism, maybe you belong to a 'milder' variant). 'Everything' would include beliefs.


E.g. I would very much like to believe that there is a loving God looking after us, but, as it is, I don't believe that.

I have not chosen to believe anything.


Regards

Walter

Deus Ex

I think you miss the point as usual.

According to Calvinism all people are born with a fallen Adamic nature that does not seek God and will not believe the bible is truth. Only a person who is predestined to receive God's grace will turn to God and see the truth in the bible. Thus a person would be predestined to be a Christian believer or not.

You typically argue as if Jesus died for everyone's sins--not just the elect--and that all can be saved if they so choose. This is NOT a Calvinistic belief; it is an Arminian Christian belief.

I am not sure that you are clear on your own theology.

Theistic determinism is not compatible with people having a free choice in salvation. If I have a choice that can go either way, then what does it mean to say that I am predestined. Predestination means that I have only ONE possible choice that I can make: the one that I was predestined to make.

Mageth

Maybe it does. However, the conclusion that actions do make a difference doesn't mesh well with "A person does not have to do anything to be saved except seek God's mercy."

If it is true that "a person does not have to do anything to be saved except seek God's mercy," then, to be complete, Jesus's answer to the lawyer's question should have been "Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live. As an alternative, do whatever the hell you want, have fun, get drunk, visit harlots, curse God, abuse the poor, or whatever else floats your boat, and then seek God's mercy, and thou shalt live."

In this more complete answer, which is formulated according to your notions, your actions don't appear to make one damn bit of a difference as to whether one obtains "eternal life," as one could not do what the lawyer answered and still obtain eternal life. Throwing in the "just ask for mercy" out makes it so. Hence the contradiction in your position.

Contradiction or no, it's a rather absurd position you're painting.

Johnny Skeptic

Message to rhutchin: Consider the following from a Calvinist website:

http://www.calvinistcorner.com/tulip.htm

The website says "God offers to all people the gospel message. This is called the external call. But to the elect, God extends an internal call and it cannot be resisted." If that is true, if God chose before the foundations of the world to save John Smith, there is nothing that John Smith can do to resist God. Therefore, there are not any good reasons for John to ask God for his mercy at this time since soon or later, he will not be able to resist God.

There is not anything in Calvinism that says that asking for God's mercy is a necessary requirement in order to become saved.

Romans chapter 9 says that God can harden whoever's heart that he wants to. That is futher evidence again salvation as a result of free will. Some Scriptures do imply that human choices make a difference, but that is not what Romans chapter 9 says.

It is interesting to note that there is not any credible historical evidence that God inspired some Bible writers to write about predestination. If a God inspired the Bible, no one knows which parts he inspired and preserved.

rhutchin

Cited? By whom? Nonetheless, when Paul says, the wages of sin is death, he says the same thing. What Paul says is not foreign to the OT.

Jesus committed no sin that entitled His death. Thus, His death could be a propitiation for the sins of others rather than His own.

When Paul says, the gift of God is eternal life, he says nothing new that was not already stated in the OT.

rhutchin

A person has two choices. He may seek salvation through adherence to the law or he may seek salvation through God's mercy.

The situation did not require an extended discussion. Jesus accepted the lawyers understanding of the situation and did not push the lawyer beyond that point. Going further was not necessary.

How is it that one could not do what the lawyer answered. Certainly the lawyer thought he could do it. I see no contradiction and don't understand your argument.

Absurd? What could make it absurd? Perhaps some well placed assumptions on your part would eb needed.