Is salvation through faith incomptatible with free will?

calvinistcorner.com/tulip.htm

Read this ^

>Calvinism is the biggest pile of flaming un-biblical horseshit imaginable.
Calvinism is the most biblical, it's based entirely on scripture
> not all Xians believe that explicit belief in Christ is necessary for salvation.
THIS is unbiblical. Have you read the Bible?

I have read the Bible. Including the 1 Timothy 4:10 that states that God is the saviour of all men "especially of those who believe".
Have you read the Bible?

How is such a God not evil though?
After all, this is denying free will so Adam and Eve commited the original sin because He willed it and he dooms people to a eternity of suffering just because he wants it.

What Paul is referring to is that Christ redeemed humanity as a class and those who believe specifically. The idea is that even unrepentant sinners are permitted to live out their lives according to their will even though they deserve death and thus they benefit from Christ’s sacrifice however it is only those who believe in Christ who receive the full benefit of eternal salvation. Essentially there are two benefits from Christ’s sacrifice; the first is not receiving the punishment we deserve in this life and this benefit applies to everyone regardless of whether they believe whereas the second benefit of life after death only applies to believers.

>What Paul is referring to is that Christ redeemed humanity as a class
...this isn't Calvinism.

Let's call this your first instance of "Well what the Bible is really saying is..."
Plain meaning my ass. Nobody engages in more exegetical gymnastics than Protestants in general and Calvinists in particular

'Does the bible teach that God lacks the ability to discriminate in the kind and nature of the love He exercises toward His creation?... Or is man superior to God in being able to discriminate in the matter of how he loves?' - Debating calvinism

God decrees all things to happen for his good will. This reality in my opinion, is much 'better' sounding than the alternatives 'free will' presents such as; Did God not know X would happen? Was there ever a possibility that Christs' sacrifice on the cross wouldn't have happened? etc

Given that God is impartial isn't he supposed to love all people the same and judge them according to one standard?

A temporal created being does not have the capacity to judge an eternal uncreated Being. If you don’t have the humility to accept this then you will always be confused.

Limited atonement is the idea that Christ’s payment of the sin debt applies only to those who believe and it does not contradict the idea that by becoming human, Christ reconciled humanity to God although it is only the elect who receive the full benefit of this reconciliation.

Paul’s words have to read in the context of Christ’s words and we know that universal salvation is false because Christ Himself said unrepentant sinners would be condemned. Therefore we cannot read Paul’s words to mean that salvation applies to everyone and must look for an alternative explanation.

But doesn't that make calvinism extremely unlikely unless you already drank the kool-aid?
Sure it's self-consistent to say "Whatever God do is good because is God" but that doens't prevent the calvinist claims of being incomptatible with any real morality or reason.

And loving such a God is impossible, all humans deep down would know that dooming sentient beings to suffer for all eternity because you want it so for some reason is bad, calvinists are simply in denial and cannot truly love God nor do their version of God is even good or lovable at all.

If a God was a cannibal incestious furry, would you say any of these three things are good?

>Therefore Exactly. we cannot read Paul’s words to mean that salvation applies to everyone and must look for an alternative explanation.
Paul's statement means that salvation is *potentially universal*, i.e. it is open to all. And this in that sense does apply to everyone. That is the only interpretation consistent with both Paul's words and Christ's.
>Christ reconciled humanity to God
>except for all the other parts of humanity He didn't
you people are hilarious. I'm loving this Calvinist dance routine.

Sound like she could be easily persuaded into a ffm threesome

'It should hardly be surprising, then, to discover that the bible plainly teaches that God's love is surely not less than man's. He is not less free than His creature in the matter of how He loves His creation. There is no basis in the bible for asserting that God's love knows no levels, kinds, or types...' -Debating Calvinism.

God loves plants, animals, believers, and unbelievers differently. Just as you have the capacity to have different types of 'love' (love for your wife vs love for your daughter) so does God.

>A temporal created being does not have the capacity to judge an eternal uncreated Being. If you don’t have the humility to accept this then you will always be confused.

Saying your beliefs are illogical is not arrogance, after all you are the one claiming that and you are not an eternal uncreated Being yourself.
You certainly don't think that denying the "truth" of islam, judaism,etc...is arrogance, you just don't believe the ones saying that because you find what they say unlikely for some reason.
Same things with non-calvinists about calvinisim.

If God has predestined you for an eternity of suffering from which you can do nothing to escape He hates you. There is no way around this.
Calvinism implies that God hates most of humanity.

>'It should hardly be surprising, then, to discover that the bible plainly teaches that God's love is surely not less than man's. He is not less free than His creature in the matter of how He loves His creation. There is no basis in the bible for asserting that God's love knows no levels, kinds, or types...' -Debating Calvinism.
>God loves plants, animals, believers, and unbelievers differently. Just as you have the capacity to have different types of 'love' (love for your wife vs love for your daughter) so does God.
Maybe a father who rape his daughter could still truly love her in some measure, but he is still an awful dad just like God is an awful god if he basically choose to send children he loves to Hell just because.

I am not sure if i understand the question correctly, are you now claiming to have a 'moral compass' superior to God's?

Loving a God that allows people who want to go to hell go to hell is not impossible. Everyone who does not have their heart of stone exchanged for a heart of flesh has 0 capacity to love God or turn from their sin...even while getting roasted in the pits of hell if you picked up a charred soul, dusted him off, and offered him eternal peace if he just goes over to heaven to worship God he would turn around and march straight back into hell.

Christ redeemed humanity as a category but it is only the elect who are redeemed specifically. Think of it like this; by installing a ramp a business becomes handicap accessible however only the specific handicap people who go to that business receive the benefit of that ramp. Just because the business is handicap accessible it doesn’t mean that every handicapped person will access it. Christ’s sacrifice is the ramp that allows humanity to access God however it is only the elect of humanity who actually use this access.

>If you can't know whether a religion is true or no, then how is it REALLY a choice?
Because you choose to go with it even though you're not sure if it's true or not.

you're talking like an Arminian you do realize that?

desu i don't think you can say God hates humanity, the fact that he let adam and eve live after they ate of the fruit when he clearly said you shall die if you eat of it was an example of unimaginable grace. The fact that sinners can experience rain, love, happiness are all examples of grace.

Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use?

Sure but how people who are lucky and make the right choice by pure luck are reconcilied with God while the unlucky ones somehow reject God?

So a father has the right to rape his daughter?

The primary distinction between Arminianism and Calvinism is the extent that the individual is responsible for accepting Christ which doesn’t apply to the example I gave. To use that example, an Arminian perspective is that the handicap people choose to go up the ramp whereas a Calvinist would say that the owner of the business went out and tied a rope around the specific handicap people he wanted and pulled them up the ramp himself.

No I am saying you are the property of the eternal creator of the universe, he created you, and has the right to do whatever he wills with you. The fact that any of us sinners are still breathing in His air right now is an example of his grace, patience, and mercy.

'the question isn't why he wont save them all, but why he saved even 1'

Do you plan on having children?

If God willed it sure.

Creating someone doesn't give you that kind of right, let's not think about God one minute and let just say that you had children and that since in that thought experiment your children belong to you instead of God, would it be right for you to kill or torture them if you wanted to?

>im a faggy dickhead, so here's my faggy dickhead interpretation of god

thanks for sharing

I really don't know what you're asking for. You're comparing apples to oranges, God is the pinnacle of truth and righteousness. Everything that he does is good.

Is it that you are uncomfortable with the fact that God controls everything? Even who lives and who dies?

How do Calvinists interpret this?
biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ezekiel 18:23&version=KJV

>God is the pinnacle of truth and righteousness. Everything that he does is good.

>creates man knowing full well what what every single individual human will ever do in advance, yet disavows himself of any responsibility whatsoever
>implying thats truthful
>implying thats righteous
>implying thats good

Honest opinion? I just think that a God who basically choose to torture the beings he creates is bad, unlovable and even deserving of hate.
There are obvious forms of evil and if God is doing these then he is just logically impossible and those believing in that version of God must be wrong.
And you seems to me to be a fanatic devoid of any true morality or emphaty, would you do awful things like murdering someone if God said that you must?

>the fact that [idea I have no proof of and will never at any point in time have proof of]
What did he mean by this?

>creates man knowing full well what what every single individual human will ever do in advance, yet disavows himself of any responsibility whatsoever
>implying thats truthful
>implying thats righteous
>implying thats good

Would it be 'better' in your world view that God wasn't aware of impending sin and suffering? Would it be 'better' in your opinion that God would be 'unable' to prevent sin even if he really wanted to?

I think both of those options paint a dangerous picture of God...it demonstrates a God that isn't fully in control of his own creation. Evil exists, we observe it everyday, is this evil purposeless? Or is it a means to an end? I think Scripture supports the view that God is fully in control of everything within his creation.

Also I can't find the video by William lane craig right now but in one of his lectures he was talking to someone and said something along the lines of 'You are assuming that this universe isn't the universe, out of many different possible universes, where evil and suffering are manifested least'. It may be the case that a world like ours can't exist without some amount of evil.

Again, everyone who does not have their heart of stone exchanged for a heart of flesh has 0 capacity or interest in loving God or turning from their sin...even while getting roasted in the pits of hell if you picked up a charred soul, dusted him off, and offered him eternal peace if he just goes over to heaven to worship God he would turn around and march straight back into hell.

Where did you read that?

James white.

Because a literal logical impossibility is better? saying that God can be good when doing objectively bad things is like saying he could create a rock he couldn't lift because he is God and must be able to do everything even logicial impossibilities.

Maybe there are no good answers and that could be an evidence for something being wrong in most theologies or even that the bible cannot be true, this is indeed a real possibility but I fail to see how calvinisim's answer is better than the ones of other christian theologies.

Predestination is more logical to me, especially when even in science and philosophy you don't need an absolute degree of physical non-determinism for a reasonable amount of free will being possible.
Most people wouldn't consider human free will being fake just because from a physical viewpoint humans are only affected by macroscale phenomena and so are "physically" determinist, you can still make choices even if you are outside causes and effects like if you were affected by non-deterministic phenomena like subatomic particles.

The Biblical God desires that all people should come to a knowledge of the truth and be saved. The Calvinist God decrees that some people live in falsehood forever and be damned.
The Biblical God does not rejoice in the death of the wicked. The Calvinist God does.

Oh, please, there are certainly plenty of humans who are living decent lives if you stop being hypercritical, are christians and devoted to God and yet are not necesirally "chosen" according to calvinism.

And saying the same thing again and again will not make it more true, possible and logical.

"God is Good because he is God" is a tautology.

I am having trouble understanding you but I don't think anything you said has contradicted what I've said. Unbelievers can live 'decent' lives but their hearts are still in the wrong place and will choose sin over God every time.

Why did God made them that way then? if they are not responsible then wouldn't curing them of that or just forgiving them be the least of the evils?

that's a mistranslation ripped from it's larger context (which was talking about earthly rewards and punishments)

'If, as we have seen the bible teaches the absolute sovereignty of God over His creation and that he has a purpose He is accomplishing in all that happens as part of his divine decree, what of the obvious fact that man makes choices and God holds him accountable for them? As the 1689 confession says:

From all eternity God decreed all that should happen in time, and this He did freely and unalterably, consulting only His own wise and holy will. Yet in so doing He does not become in any sense the author of sin, nor does He share responsibility for sin with sinners. Neither, by reason of His decree, is the will of any creature whom He has made violated; nor is the free working of second causes put aside; rather is it established.

The truth is presented in numerous passages of scripture such as Genesis 50;20, where Joseph, in the presences of his brothers, refers back to their betrayal of him: "As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good in order to bring about this present result, to preserve many people alive.' -Debating Calvinism

This concept is called 'compatibalism'

>decreed all
>nor does He share responsibility for sin
these are incompatible.

Isn't calvinism denying compatibalism except maybe during this life in worldy matters?
People generally argue about free will in christianism because of the notion of divine judgement and all, they don't care nearly as much mundane free will.

I don't believe in luck. Where someone is born and who he is, is not a matter of chance. And the details of who is ultimately saved and who isn't are up to God.

So if salvation is not truly a choice for at least some, is God the one responsible for the damnation of these persons?

It would be better in my world view if god didn't allow sin and suffering to exist, because free will is on overrated meme and people don't need bad to appreciate good when a god can pump that understanding directly into their brains.

>I think both of those options paint a dangerous picture of God...it demonstrates a God that isn't fully in control of his own creation.
It paints the picture that god was an invention of ancient men with antiquated modes of thinking.

Theoretically speaking. God knows what kind of a person everyone will be, one being born at the "wrong place" might be born there with God's foreknowledge that he will be damned eventually anyway.

The responsibility is still on that person, as he is guilty of what he is accused off, even if he was born to be guilty of it.

I think every Christian, or at least every young Calvinist, becomes frustrated with these concepts a few times in their walk 'Why didn't God do this' or 'why didn't God do that' but it is important to keep in mind that God is an infinite being and our brains are about three pounds. Assuming that you could do God's job better is incredibly arrogant and prideful. Ask Satan how questioning God worked out for him....actually I don't think its a good idea to ask Satan anything LOL

do you think God wants all people to come to a knowledge of the truth?

I think God wishes to and eventually will fulfill His work in all of HIS people. 'All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out.'

That's theoretically retarded.

Please answer the question.

its important to keep in mind that you can brush away every problematic argument regarding god with "muh mysterious ways"

like why even waste your time embarrassing yourself shouting "YEA WELL YOURE NOT GOD NOW ARE YOU HUH"

why not just remain silent

Just for the sake of the argument, you do know that people critizing your beliefs are just critizing mere claims among many others and so it's not arrogant to doubt the word of calvinists.

I did, God will have exactly what he wants every time without fail. Clearly there are people on earth who are not going to heaven, who aren't saved, who have no knowledge of God...Did God fail in trying to reach these people? When they eventually go to hell will they be punished for sins Christ already died for? No, God has chosen a select to save, hence; 'All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out.'

>no u

>Did God fail in trying to reach these people?
No you fucking nimwit THEY FAILED IN REACHING OUT TO HIM

So let my get this straight, you assume your salvation rests upon whether or not you 'reach out' ? It has nothing to do with you, salvation is a spiritual gift that cannot be earned.

Yeah because it's not God who made reality in a way making impossible for them to reach to him.

>It has nothing to do with you
Where does the Bible say this?
Salvation is only possible through the individual believer voluntarily cooperating with God's gracious offer of salvation. You don't have everything to do with it, but you don't have nothing to do with it either.

Go back to my first comment.

That's not a gift if God is the same entity sending people to Hell because of he wants so.
He is not a saviour at all in calvinism.

1) Dorea, meaning “a free gift.” This word lays particular stress on the gratuitous nature of the gift—it is something given above and beyond what is expected or deserved. Every New Testament occurrence of this word is related to a spiritual gift from God. It is what Jesus offers to the Samaritan woman at the well (John 4:10). It is called the “free gift” in Romans 5:15. It is the “unspeakable [or indescribable] gift” in 2 Corinthians 9:15. This gracious gift is identified as the Holy Spirit in Acts 2:38; 8:30; and 11:17.

The adverb form of this word is dorean, translated “freely” in Matthew 10:8; 2 Corinthians 11:7; Revelation 21:6; 22:17. In Romans 3:24, immediately following God’s pronouncement of our guilt, we have this use of dorean: “Being justified FREELY by His grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus.” The gift of salvation is free, and the motive for the gift is nothing more than the grace of the Giver.

2) Charisma, meaning “a gift of grace.” This word is used to define salvation in Romans 5:15-16. Also, in Romans 6:23: “For the wages of sin is death, but the GIFT [charisma] of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.” This same word is used in conjunction with the gifts of the Spirit received after salvation (Romans 12:6; 1 Timothy 4:14; 2 Timothy 1:6; 1 Peter 4:10).

Obviously, if something is a “gift of grace,” it cannot be earned. To work for something is to deserve it, and that would produce an obligation—a gift of debt, as it were. That is why works destroy grace (Romans 4:1-5; 11:5-6).

-Gotquestions . 0rg

Haven't you ever heard of Isaiah 64:6 ?

are you this fucking dense?

He is a savior, because he succeeded at saving the people he predestined and came to save. ALL that the father has GIVEN me WILL come to me.

No but seriously, are you this fucking dense?

Its 11:57 pm here and I need to be up in a few hours for class. good convo, i pray you receive the answers God intends you to have. peace.

>If you can't know whether a religion is true or no, then how is it REALLY a choice?
thats why it's called "faith"

Does God want all men to be saved
Yes or No.

Not that user, but Yes; God wants everyone to be saved. But you have to choose to be saved, because he gave us free will - hence how everything has gone so weird from the beginning - and because his covenant with us requires that we choose him.

As for works, no, they do not earn salvation; but common wisdom is that the saved shall WANT to do works, because they have felt the holy spirit enrich them with grace and a desire to do good for their fellow man

Well clearly you're not him because you gave a direct coherent answer to my question. What denomination are you?

Lapse, but I was raised Presbyterian Evangelical, one of the innumerable protestant offshoots.

That's not what "saving" means, I'm sorry but words have a precise meaning.

>words have a precise meaning.
Not to post modernists', which is why they are a cancer devouring civilization

I don't really agree with you, but still thanks for being more reasonable than the calvinist.

are you still a believer?

In God yes, in Church; no

No one was talking about post-modernists.

they are everywhere and must be rooted out like the vermin they are

The Christian God?

Yes, though I am one of those hippy Omnist faggots who believes in all religions, the Christian God is the one I choose to worship and pray to

Why do you claim to worship the Christian God but refuse fellowship with His body?

>Why do you call me, 'Lord, Lord,' and do not do what I say?

Because the Bible is not infallible.

Because churches are just social clubs; they serve a social function. Very little - if any - actual philosophical introspection goes on there. I didn't feel a need to belong to a social club and, by in large, people in Church are as much assholes as people you meet outside of church.

Because if God wanted to guide humanity to profound truths, he wouldn't give those truths to a single isolationist warrior tribe in the middle of a desert and then wait a few million years for news to leak out so people could stop going to hell

On that note, hell is not biblical, it is a folk myth that sprang up connected to Judaism (it was never a part of Judaism either though) and was later reinforced by Catholic Fan Fiction like the works of Dante Aligheri

The Devil does not appear in the bible, only The Serpent/Deciever who tricks Adam and Eve; and The Nemesis/Prosecutor who appears in the book of Job and also later tempts Jesus.

Because the sacrament is metaphorical, transubstantiation is verifiable false.

Because Jesus did not fit the prophecized necessities of being a Messiah by the very fact that he died, and everything that followed was his followers making things up to justify themselves even after the Romans killed him.

Because the prophecized messiah isn't even a good thing for everyone else, as he was always explicitly a Jewish Messiah, and was never meant to be anything more than the next Jewish King who resurrected the nation of Israel.

Because my apologetics professor tried to convince me that, even though the Sun existed at the dawn of the universe, it did not actually give off light or energy until God said "let there be light". Also the Biblical Flood was the first time it rained.