rhutchin

Or not predestined to be a believer. One is not predestined to be a non-believer as no action is required to gain that outcome. You might be predestined to believe in Christ but not predestined to reject belief in Christ as this is the natural condition of all people. Everyone starts out not believing in Christ.

I may argue that Christ is the propitiation for everyone's sins but never that Christ died for everyone's sins. You seem to read that into my comments not having a solid understanding of Calvinism.

This is somewhat convoluted. Predestination means only that God will bring about the salvation of certain people whom He has personally chosen to save (Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.). It does not prevent any other person from seeking salvation of their own volition. For example, do you know of anything that prevents you from seeking salvation should you want to do so? Are you not free to do so and is it not your choice?

Deus Ex

So a person that God has not predestined to salvation can seek salvation on his own and become saved? Never heard a Calvinist say that before. Doesn't sound like the 5 point Calvinism that I know.

Anyhow, it does not matter to me whether you are Calvinist, Arminian, Protestant, or Catholic because I disagree with all of them.

There is no good reason to believe the bible is a revelation from God.

There is insufficient evidence that many of the events narrated in the bible ever even happened.

Just seemed odd for a Calvinist to push Pascal's Wager. Now I know why you do.

Petergdi

I think you misunderstand. Calvinism is a form of compatibilism. Both God's eternal decree and our choices exist and do not contradict each other.

Peter.

spamandham

....well, obviously the nonexistence of gods would be a consideration.

Deus Ex

I am not going to belabor this point too long. But, if I am predestined to never be saved then how can it be said that I ever had a choice? It may seem to me like I had a choice, but since the outcome is predetemined then really I never did have a choice.

According to Calvinism I cannot go against my fallen nature unless God intervenes. If God does not choose me, then I will not be saved. Period.

Compatibilism is being used to hide from the logical consequence of Calvinism: that God willingly foreordains the majority of the world to hell for following their nature that they were born with. It makes God morally culpable for an unbeliever's unbelief.

Anyway, this conversation probably belongs in the Abrahamic forum, so I will drop it. If you would like to start a thread there on Calvinism, then I would be happy to participate.

rhutchin

Exactly. As the Bible says, a leopard cannot change its spots. It's just who he is. So, Johnny Skeptic cannot change who he is as you cannot. Yet, you and Johnny Skeptic are different from a leopard in that God has given you a mind that can reason about your situation.

So, can a man who does not believe in God ever exercise his freedom to choose to seek God's mercy? He can because everything he needs to do so is available to him. Will he do so? No, because he simply does not want to and this he decides freely without his decision being influenced by God.

Johnny Skeptic

Let's consider a hypothetical skeptic named John Smith. John is an agnostic. He is convinced that it is a virtual certainty that no God from any religious book exists, that since the universe is infinite, an infinite number of possible Gods exist, and that if a God exists, he is deisist, and that there is not any credible evidence that the deist God poses any danger to skeptics after they die. John believes that if a God exists who will judge mankind, he will judge mankind based upon some kind of merit, not upon faith. John detests any possible God who insists upon faith without providing a lot of tangible, first hand evidence, and lots of personal, tangible conversations. John believes that there is not any fair, just, and reasonable goal that a loving, merciful God would not be able to accomplish with killing injuring and killing people with hurricanes. John believes that no God would claim that he is not the author of confusion, but frequently causes needless confusion, often even among conservative Christians, the issue of slavery over the past 2,000 years being a good example. John believes that no loving, merciful God would send people to hell for eternity without parole. John believes that a loving, merciful God would be able to achieve any fair, worthy, and just goal without injuring and killing people with hurricanes.

Since John believes that the odds are astronomical that the odds of risk are far greater from an infinite number of possible Gods than from the God of the Bible, if John should pray at all, he should first pray and ask any of the infinite possible number of Gods for mercy. Then, if he wishes, he can ask the God of the Bible for mercy with the belief that the odds are astronomical that he does not exist. I doubt that the Bible implies that it would be helpful for a man to pray like that.

It is interesting to note that any skeptic who has diligently studied various religions, atheism, and agnosticism in a search for the truth has in effect asked all Gods for mercy.

Johnny Skeptic

I suggest that we get back on topic. The title of this thread is "Inauthentic sayings of Jesus." How do Christians propose that historians decide what Jesus probably said, and what he probably did not say?

Johnny Skeptic

Regarding "the people who wrote it," there is not sufficient evidence regarding who wrote the Gospels.

Regarding "what they thought they were doing," why are you impressed by that? Joseph Smith thought that God had contacted him. So what? The Bible writers were frequently impressed by second hand evidence. So what?

rhutchin

Shows how little you know about Calvinism. For Calvinism to be valid, it must accurately depict the situation that exists. This applies especially to those whom God does not predestine to salvation. You are in this category. You have the freedom to seek salvation on your own and become saved. So, will you? Calvinism says that you will not. Has Calvinism accurately portrayed you and the decision you have made regarding salvation? If yes, then Calvinism is a valid theology.

Which is what Calvinism says you should think. This confirms that Calvinism has accurately portrayed who you are and that it is a valid theology.

Don't know if you do know. Pascal's Wager argues that a person who seeks his own self interest should logically decide to seek salvation since this is in his self interest. Calvinism says that a person in whose self interest it is to seek salvation and who is able to understand how this is in his self interest will always choose not to do so. If people acted contrary to this, then Calvinism would not be a valid theology.