File: random article i did not read.png (109 KB, 902x856)

109 KB PNG

I will now finish responding to that anon, having read romans 9. I couldn't help but read with the calvinist interpretation, until about verse 23, in which it seemed to implode.
>And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,
If God's sovereign will is to make people sin, and his moral will is to damn them, setting aside the contradiction where the bible says "neither tempteth he any man" (James 1:13). His actions here don't make sense (lifting up Pharoah for destruction as an example to everyone else), if indeed, as previously stated, men do not have free will, or the ability to make choices on their own. You likened us to Chatgpt in your last post, I don't think it's possible to scare Chatgpt by destroying an AI server in front of it, and if it were possible, we could as easily program it to be scared.
In general, I find this framework where you interpret God merely knowing the future, as a proof that he also causes all these things to create more problems than it claims to solve.

As far as I'm aware, Lutherans teach that you can lose your salvation if you sin big enough. I would liken this to a works salvation on the backend (keeping from sin to "maintain" your salvation, which is defined as a work in Jonah 3:10).

>>84556831
>>84551482

>I must ask why you bring that up: Because peter clearly had the fruits of the spirit. Again: The way fruits work is not that one is flawless but that the work is apparent.
Peter was clearly saved but came up short, since the spirit of the prophet is subject of the prophet (and I hope it is not a stretch to extend this to walking in the new man) it appears there are many Christians who fail more than they do right, or believe that an extremely low bar (showing up to church once a year) is sufficient. I imagine your counter to this will be something like "the regenerated Spirit will lead him to seek God and get knowledge", but, I must remind you of the large numbers of terrible, useless churches. Where if those people go to seek God there, and receive no useful knowledge, or are encouraged to be content with a low ambition for God, they'll likely stay doing very little, or nothing for God.
I base my thoughts here on this
>John 16:13
>Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.
The not speaking of himself, but what he hears is interpreted in my church as, what a saved Christian hears of the bible, the Spirit within him will help him to understand. If you hear little to no bible when you go to hear God, you won't hear the many encouragements of the bible telling you to improve, do more, etc. Especially as most Christian churches in the world offer no benefit, and are merely community centres, or the like. Quoting maybe 3 verses a sermon, and using nothing but anecdotes or something equally worthless to pad out the sermon.
I believe this framework offers a practical reason to why, as Roman 4:5 says, a man can do no work, but his faith will be counted for righteousness. I think the context here is in God's eyes, "easy believism" extends this to our eyes also.

themshits fr yo

>>84551553
I think it's pretty undeniable that Saul was saved, given he went to the same place as Jonathan and Samuel, unless Calvinists are proponents of "Soul Sleep" or some other doctrine that would lead to OT Saints not going to heaven as soon as they die.
>Sheol
This and hell are the same location, the sheol thing is a doctrine popularized by the quirks of these new bible translations (which I dislike), If I am not mistaken. There is no biblical basis for >a place that is neither heaven nor hell
I would be interested to see what the argument for this was.
The lake of fire is something else though.

>>Both of these are essentially dead works which do not save.
>Because salvation is by grace alone.
Claiming that choices can somehow be counted as a work stunned me, now that I've thought about it a bit more, I remember an orthodox Christian pulling the same thing a few years back when trying to defend works salvation to me. I think the clearest defence to this would be from Romans 9, which I read in preparation to respond.
>30 What shall we say then? That the Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith.
This verse says that righteousness is of faith, but also that this righteousness was attained by the gentiles. Grace is when you're given more than you deserve, God's Grace in the EB definition here would be being justified by God's works when our own were insufficient, as in, God's goodness, the LS interpretation comes off more sinister.
>you're saved because I chose for you, and not for another to be saved.
This sits at ill with me, because God does not respect persons, and condemning all to sin (and therefore be judged) but only justifying a few, would be doing a half job.

File: Screenshot 2025-11-04 022431.png (263 KB, 1581x568)

263 KB PNG

>>84551670
>With Saul, I don't think there is any good fruit in his life that we know of. There were gifts, but that only means that he was enlightened, not that he was saved.
If you're still using the fruits in his life to mean the fruit of the Spirit, Galatians 5:23 lists meekness as a fruit.
Saul is addressed with this quality in 1 Samuel 15:17 "little in thine own sight". When he was to be made king, he even went and hid himself.
>But possibly he also merely has muddied the spirit for a while like David when he comitted adultery.
Basically, the disagreement seems to be over how muddled saved Christians can be.

>>84551963
>(For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;)" Romans 9:11
And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me. John 12:32
>"As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated." Romans 9:13
He's talking about the Kingdom's the descended from these men. If you study Esau's life, he was blessed by God, and Jacob bowed down to him. God hated the Edomites for their sins, and destroyed them. (Obadiah 1:8-15)
>"For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth." Romans 9:17
This runs converse to your point. Pharoah was lifted up to be destroyed as a reprobate, basically he was Romans 1'd. There would be no purpose in exalting a sinful guy and destroying him publicly, if this had no effect on the decision making process of the Israelites and Egyptians. The reprobate process in Romans 1 is also framed as if it's the result of one's free will.
>Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
Choosing to be unthankful leads them to become reprobates.

File: 82452.png (561 KB, 653x831)

561 KB PNG

>>84556958
>>84551670
continuing
>"Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?
Truly, God can influence some people to have hardened, or receptive hearts. The fact that this is only mentioned a few times in the bible leads me to conclude that this is an exceedingly rare occurrence, although in cases like a world leader, whose actions affect dramatically the whole world, of course God is going to influence them more (which is why that verse in proverbs is given).
>I think this is the clearest passage.
If there is no clearer passage, it does not bode well for this doctrine.

>I think that cheap grace and easy believism, if it is indeed not true, will lead to many people being damned because of a false sense of security.
>The thing is that preaching the gospel and calling people to repentance is a means of salvation.
My church believes the same, we even have it on our tracts, I was saved without understanding repenting, so I believe it to be redundant, as our culture has a pretty catholic understanding of salvation, I'm worried people will confuse "repent" for "apologize for sins". Nonetheless, it is true that people getting a substandard or shallow Gospel explanation is a real danger, and we try guard against this by being thorough, though this issue is most often championed by loser churches, who do little to no proper outreach, and rely instead of methods like tracts (fine if you're small, if you're a decent size, this is just disobedient).

File: 1532074321158150420.jpg (106 KB, 800x1000)

106 KB JPG

>>84557001
>I am sure you are familliar with the parable of the Sower, I would say that they participated for a while but then fell away and were never truly saved.
I take this to be categories of ways people can receive the Gospel, and not 25% of the outcomes.
>category A: Those by the way side are they that hear; then cometh the devil, and taketh away the word out of their hearts, lest they should believe and be saved.
(most people)
>Catergory B: They on the rock are they, which, when they hear, receive the word with joy; and these have no root, which for a while believe, and in time of temptation fall away.
Christians who get backslidden and stop attending church (still saved, but worldly, God won't bless them)

>C: And that which fell among thorns are they, which, when they have heard, go forth, and are choked with cares and riches and pleasures of this life, and bring no fruit to perfection.
Saved Christians who are worldly, haven't fallen away, but sin in their life limits them from being used by God, this is like Demas. (2 Timothy 4:10)

>D: But that on the good ground are they, which in an honest and good heart, having heard the word, keep it, and bring forth fruit with patience.
Productive Christians who produce fruit.
Now this is where I must hammer down that the fruit of Christians is other Christians, and not the fruit of the Spirit, I will prove this using the parable from earlier in Luke, and not the interpretation.
Luke 8:8 (the good fruit)
>And other fell on good ground, and sprang up, and bare fruit an hundredfold. And when he had said these things, he cried, He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.
Now, you can't produce thirty love, sixty joy, an hundred peace, etc, but a productive Christian can certainly win a hundred souls to Christ in their lifetime. (In case you're afflicted by the common calvinist urge to balk at the term "soulwinning", Paul himself uses it in 1 Corinthians 7:16 and 1 Corinthians 9:22, furthermore, romans 10:14.

>>84556831
Thanks for all your answers!

I actually listened to half of the sermon you linked yesterday.
The thing is that it is wrong to read biblical prophecies in the way that he does:
Often a prophecy refers to many things at once with the pattern being: already but not yet.
For example the Isaiah prophecy about a son being born; the son IS born then to Isaiah, but also the true son is Jesus Christ.
And like the prophecies about the kingdom of God: the Kingdom has come, but it also will come when Jesus returns.

To that I will give you just some more verses that may be helpful:

Make sure that no one is immoral or godless like Esau, who traded his birthright as the firstborn son for a single meal. You know that afterward, when he wanted his fathers blessing, he was rejected. It was too late for repentance, even though he begged with bitter tears.
Hebrews 12:16-17
That passage clearly calls him a Godless man, and that it was too late for repentance; which is terrifying.
Or do you think that a Born again person can be a Godless man?
I think that a Godless man is always someone who is not saved in the Bible.
Like it always constrains the Just (who lives through faith) and the Godless.

Another very interesting example is this:

Satan rose up against Israel and incited David to take a census of Israel.
1 Chronicles 21:1
And again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah.
2 Samuel 24:1

It literally says that the LORD Incited David to sin, where as the other passage says that it was Satan.

The way reformed theology solves this is that God allowed Satan (as he did with Job) to do it.
However it was Gods deliberate plan.
Because we know that this counting was the way by which the location was revealed where the temple is to be built.

>>84557035
>>If this was repeated with the quotes removed, like is basically stated in Romans 4:5, would you be opposed to this?
>I think this is just physically impossible.
I would agree, if it weren't so common.

>84552213
>Yes. It is the sovereign will of God. But God also hates this.
This is where Calvinism begins to sound schizophrenic to me.
>Can two walk together, except they be agreed? (Amos 3:3)
>It says it was Gods PLAN and Foreknowledge, so it was Gods plan even though it is a Sin. But God can not sin.
I think you are mixing up foreknowledge with orchestration, it was a sin because they chose to do it.

My proof for our sin not being caused as part of God's sovereign will (aside from James 1:13) is
>Deuteronomy 22:25-26
>But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die.

>But unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; there is in the damsel no sin worthy of death: for as when a man riseth against his neighbour, and slayeth him, even so is this matter:
Since it is so here, I do not believe God's moral will would allow his "sovereign will" to do such a thing.
>"You intended to harm me, but God intended it for good to accomplish what is now being done, the saving of many lives." (Genesis 50:20)
This is an example of God using their sin for good, rather than him preordaining, it's an encouragement that God can help us in any situation. The sin was normal, but Joseph rising from prison to the number 2 in the land was highly unusual. It's easy to see which part was of God here.

>Also Romans 1
>Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
>Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
This is another example of God reacting to the choices of man.

>>84557053
Thank you for coming back
>Often a prophecy refers to many things at once with the pattern being: already but not yet.
That preacher does believe in dual-fulfilment, I learned of that interpretation method from him.

>Or do you think that a Born again person can be a Godless man?
>I think that a Godless man is always someone who is not saved in the Bible.
The KJV just calls him profane, I would liken him to the prodigal son, preachers kids who go crazy as a teenager, but return later on are pretty common. I think it relates to Proverbs 22:6
>Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it.
When people are young, they tend to go amiss, when they're old, they return to how they were raised, generally.

I must go attend midweek service, but I will be back to finish responding later tonight.
>>84552213
>>This is how it works: God gives them over to their own Sins. So The evil of man is already there, but God resists it sometimes more sometimes, less.
This passage is about God removing the conscience and what baptists call the "governor" or "limiter" of a person, as a punishment for their sin.

Also I must add that I believe reprobates could be saved if they could believe (the bible says whosoever believeth) but being given over in their minds, they cannot believe, therefore I would not liken the only group who for sure cannot get saved while still alive to Esau, who was repentant. This carries also to Judas, who killed himself because he was so repentant, and went to hell, instead of putting his faith in Christ.

>It literally says that the LORD Incited David to sin, where as the other passage says that it was Satan.
This is a good argument. I've already made my argument rest on the fact that God will not tempt man to sin. I will ask about it at church.

>>84556860
The fruits of the spirit are in nature, not in visible result.
If someone is saved but goes to a horrible church like that, then he will not be as productive.
However he will still have the good fruits of the spirit.

But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.
Galatians 5:22-23

>>84557035
The idea that the fruits of the spirit is other Christians is probably the root cause of this error.
I would say that this is impossible because:
I planted the seed, Apollos watered it, but God has been making it grow. So neither the one who plants nor the one who waters is anything, but only God, who makes things grow.
1 Corinthians 3:6-7

So therefore: no one can make another Christian because it is God alone who makes things grow.

>>84556831
>I don't think it's possible to scare Chatgpt
It actually is possible to scare ChatGPT, in the same way as how the model remembers things by putting them into memory.
So if something is written down for all times and chatGPT knows it to be true it is affecting its actions.
Or in this concrete example God literally influenced ChatGPT, simply because ChatGPT had the Bibel among its training data and therefore it knows about the pharaoh, and therefore if you ask it something its answers will be different than they would have been had that not been written in the bible.
Please dont think that the idea that we have no free will means that ordinary influences do not matter.
The problem of free will is a very old philosophical problem, and my biggest issue with free will - even before I was saved - has always been that its impossible to define what it actually does.
Like: could you tell me, what ability does free will actually grant you?
I too believe that we can make rational choices. But precisely because they are rational they are not free, because they are the best choice we can make given our set and setting.
How can we chose something other than that which seems right to us?

Actually I would go one step further:
Not even God has free will in the sense that people understand the term.
Because God cant sin, and whoever knows the good he can do and does not for him it is sin.
Therefore since God is all powerful and all knowing, he can only do the best possible thing as otherwise it would be sin; and God cant sin.
Therefore it is actually interesting because this leads to the conclusion that it was impossible for God to create anything better then what is.
Which is correct because everything exists for the glory of God, and it sure does.


Need to go to work, read the rest later

>>84557113
>The problem of free will is a very old philosophical problem, and my biggest issue with free will - even before I was saved - has always been that its impossible to define what it actually does.
Haha, I hated deterministic philosophy, even before I was saved, because it leads to weakness and discouragement. It seems like our personalities play a role in framing our doctrine.

>It literally says that the LORD Incited David to sin, where as the other passage says that it was Satan.
After thinking about this a little bit, the same way a lying spirit went to Ahab at God's approval, whereas God wouldn't lie (he would have been delivered if he listened to Micaiah 1 Kings 22:22-27), and the same way David was tempted by Bathsheba, when he wasn't working (and would have been delivered if he listened to his servants reproof that she was married) (2 Samuel 11:3)), My assumption is that David was tried in a similar way somehow.
And indeed
>2 Samuel 24:1 And again the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah.
Doing a census wasn't actually the sinful part, it was not paying the ransom.
Exodus 30:12-16 for full context, I will just post 12
>When thou takest the sum of the children of Israel after their number, then shall they give every man a ransom for his soul unto the Lord, when thou numberest them; that there be no plague among them, when thou numberest them.
Like when Urijah died, it probably resulted from not knowing how to go about it.

>>84557098
>Their fruits
and
>The fruit of the Spirit
are clearly different. One is the fruit of the false prophet, or of a good preacher, another is the fruit of the Spirit.

>1 Corinthians 3:6-7
You've used this as a proof against calling Christians the fruit of Christians, but the context of this verse is exactly that.
>because it is God alone who makes things grow.
I expected this argument so I pre-answered it in that post.

>>84557653
Without God obviously salvation is impossible, but without a human preacher, salvation won't occur either, as said in romans 10:14
>How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?
But, again this is supposing every man possesses freewill, where our division lies.
>what ability does free will actually grant you?
Responsibility. Of our our actions, and an obligation towards our family, community, nation. NEETs and nihilists, and others who shirk their responsibility towards these, and contribute less than they should often parrot determinist philosophy, hence my dislike.

What's up with all the instructions and "choices" (as you put it) in the bible if there's no active will on the opposite side?
Has God's sovereign will usurped his moral will in your eyes?

>How can we choose something other than that which seems right to us?
Easily. A man has many influences, and not all men are rational, and even the rational mind can identify what's best for me in my career, or for my hobbies, for my social life, for the obligation to my family, as it is said:
>Proverbs 14:12 There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.
Obviously you can't reform the flesh, but the extent of this is overexaggerated. Unsaved smokers quit smoking, unsaved buddhists go weeks without eating, etc.

>and whoever knows the good he can do and does not for him it is sin.
This is a good verse to pull, and I believe it lays another brick around the grave of this "Sovereign will" philosophy.
>Therefore it is actually interesting because this leads to the conclusion that it was impossible for God to create anything better then what is.
Which is why it's impossible that God should have programmed men to sin before the world, and that the bible merely implies he knew of every event instead.

>>84557731
The mechanics of salvation are:

Saved Christian (w Holy Ghost indwelling)
->
Receptive hearer listens (God can influence this (as with Pharoah) which is why we pray that he'd soften their hearts)
->
Preaches the word of God (which is Spirit) (Romans 10:14/ John 6:63) / The word convicts the unsaved person as a sinner (Acts 2:37)
->
Belief is put on Jesus Christ (Romans 10:9), resulting in salvation.

If any of these aspects are absent:
>God's word
>The Holy Spirit
>The saved preacher
>The receptive hearer
No salvation will occur, I haven't included the extremely obvious (Christ paying for sin, living a sinless life, applying his blood on the mercy seat in Heaven), but these are obviously necessary too.

I think somewhere you asked what occurs when someone we believe to be saved (though we cannot know anyone's heart, only God can (Acts 15:18)) leaves and starts going to an orthodox church instead.
I agree, we'd probably call them unsaved, but it could be some other factor like
>community motivations
>cultural reasons (carnal)
>romantic motivations, etc
They'd be an idiot in those cases, but a saved person could do realistically do something like this. Even I spent a few months at a reformed church, when I was away from home, where the preaching was really terrible (taped alistair begg sermons on many nights), but I stayed because the community was good, rather than going to a better church I felt less comfortable in.

>>84557771
>The word convicts the unsaved person as a sinner
(In their hearts, so they recognize the need of a spiritual Savior

>>84557771
>responsibility
I believe that there is no free will, but that people are responsible anyway.
The idea that you are only responsible if you could have chosen otherwise leads to the denial of responsibility.
Calvinism teaches you that you are always responsible for everything.
Even things which are objectively out of your control.
The best example of this is that God makes it clear that he will avenge the sins of the fathers on the sons in the third and fourth generation of those who hate him.
This means that you are responsible for the sins of your father.
Now - God also says that the son shall not die for the father, as punishment.
So there is a tension there:
And that is exactly the same kind of tension as between sovereign will and moral will:
You have responsibility for the sins of your father.
But you are not guilty of the sins of your father.

This also has very practical consequences, for example when God sends war over a country because of the sins of said country, then by definition you will experience these consequences of war even though you did not commit the sins that happened that incited the LORD to anger.

As a Calvinist I would say that I am responsible for my own sins, for the sins of my country, my family and my parents.
And I think the Bible makes it very clear that this is how it is, for example Issiah constantly associates himself with the sins of the country, even though he himself is not to blame for them.
Responsibility does not mean that I personally could have done otherwise.
Anyone who says that having no free will frees you from responsibility understands nothing, and if he calls himself a Calvinist then that is exactly what is meant by hypercalvinism.

> The saved preacher
Thats actually donatism btw. Which is explicitly condemned as a heresy.
You can be saved even with an unsaved preacher.

Because its the word of God alone that saves.

>>84557771
Should we honestly just do a voice call sometime?
I feel like this type of discussion is too much for 4chan like this, and its probably getting in the way of evangelizing the robots here with how filled these threads are now with complex theology that is probably intimidating to most people.

truly cannot think of a deity least worthy of worship than the abrahamic niggergod. it makes so incredibly happy to think in a few generations you'll all be religious minorities, and I will treat you as such.