PL, In the first sentence, You said you're willing to let the readers decide. But in your second sentence, it seems you've already decided for them.At this point, I'm willing to let the readers decide if the question was ever directly answered. It has not been.
It must be a great comfort to you to be able to unilaterally declare victory in this manner. Have you set a time and place for the victory party yet?puritan lad wrote:jlay,
You don't have to answer anything. That is your perogative. But calling it a "loaded" question is a copout, unless you can demonstrate how it is loaded.
I chose the Beast for a reason, since most people here still regard him as a future person (there are many other examples in Scripture). It is quite clear that this person is (or was) predestined to Hell. There is really no way around it, hence the silence concerning the question as well as the false charges that it is loaded.
I think I can safely say that, until this question is answered, it is "game, set, match".
Will anyone other than the judge, jury and fan club all rolled up into you be invited too? 
to Narnia... 
Before I answer first please review Rick's quote below...puritan lad wrote:...Can the Beast of Revelation be saved, or is he predestined to Hell?
Neo-x? Anybody?
Can the Beast of Revelation be saved, or is he predestined to Hell?RickD wrote:PL, I think I believe pretty much the same as jlay, as far as predestination.Predestination: Short answer. Events that occur transpire through the will of God.
Example: I soveriegnly create a scenario. There is a room with two doors, one red and one green. Everyone in the room can choose a door. The choice not to choose bears the same consequence as choosing the red door. Whoever enters the green door will experience the ultraphonic, supersonic, celestial sound machine. (USCSM) Those who do not will never hear it.
Therefore those who chose the green door are predestined to experience the USCSM. Those who choose the red door or make no choice are predestined to not hear.
Dr. Harry Ironside gave the illustration of the sinner coming to the door of salvation (John 10:9). Above the door was a sign which says, "Whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely" (Rev. 22:17). The sinner responds to this gracious invitation, trusts Christ and he is gloriously saved. He now turns around and looks at the door through which he had just entered. He sees above the door another sign which says, "Chosen...in Him before the foundation of the world" (Eph. 1:4). Both are true. Both are taught in the Bible. Both must be believed.
Zoe, Narnia. I would disagree with you...please show where is the emotionalism in this thread? Go back, there is a lot of scripture back in the pages which goes opposite the Calvinistic doctrine, (to some extent if not all) and which haven't been successfully interpreted into calvinism unless their natural meaning is rejected.Emotionalism.
And I don't think anyone is targeting Calvinists just because they are Calvinists, it is almost a healthy debate. As a matter of fact earlier the pressure was in reverse, then changed again. The thread started with Wesley and how it is opposite to Calvin's and from there on it has come here. No one is stopping anyone to make his case...didn't you read PL's Antichrist/beast questions?And finally, I'd just like to add that all the pressure has been on the Calvinists here. I haven't really seen a similar attempt in this thread to defend another school of thought or try to present a complete, coherent view on the subject. Its been made clear that there aren't a lot of people here who are going to go out on a limb to argue for Arminianism. The Calvinists have their beliefs out in the limelight for any and all to critique, can anyone else come up with a coherent, consistent, Scriptural interpretation?
PL, did you read my response to your Antichrist question, you can use the same for the beast or you can respond to it. Also you never responded to my answer to your 1 John 2:2 rendition.At this point, I'm willing to let the readers decide if the question was ever directly answered. It has not been.
Enjoy your victory. You have made the silver bullet to knock everything down which stands against Calvinism. I think you are first in history to do that. I don't think Calvin himself was able to accomplish such a feat. Congrats.game, set, and match
Here are some other commentaries:jlay wrote:Just a little of Calvin's own commentary. How Calvanists was Calvin?
On Isaiah 53:12--"I approve of the ordinary reading, that He alone bore the punishment of many, because on Him was laid the guilt of the whole world. It is evident from other passages, and especially from the fifth chapter of the Epistle to the Romans, that many sometimes denotes all."
On Mark 14:24 – "The word many does not mean a part of the world only, but the whole human race."
On Matthew 20:28–"‘Many’ is used, not for a definite number, but for a large number, in that He sets Himself over against all others. And this is its meaning also in Rom. 5:15, where Paul is not talking of a part of mankind but of the whole human race."
On John 1:29 – "And when he says the sin OF THE WORLD, He extends this favour indiscriminately to the whole human race....all men without exception are guilty of unrighteousness before God and need to be reconciled to Him....Now our duty is, to embrace the benefit which is offered to all, that each of us may be convinced that there is nothing to hinder him from obtaining reconciliation in Christ, provided that he comes to him by...faith."
On John 3:16 – "He has employed the universal term whosoever, both to invite all indiscriminately to partake of life, and to cut off every excuse from unbelievers....He shows Himself to be reconciled to the whole world, when He invites all men without exception to the faith of Christ."
On Romans 5:18 – "He makes this favor common to all, because it is propoundable to all, and not because it is in reality extended to all (i.e. in the experience); for though Christ suffered for the sins of the whole world, and is offered through God’s benignity indiscriminately to all, yet all do not receive Him."
On Galatians 5:12 – "It is the will of God that we should seek the salvation of all men without exception, as Christ suffered for the sins of the whole world."
On Colossians 1:15–"This redemption was procured by the blood of Christ, for by the sacrifice of His death all the sins of the world have been expiated."
On Hebrews 5:9–"He (the writer of Hebrews) has inserted the universal term ‘to all’ to show that no one is excluded from this salvation who proves to be attentive and obedient to the Gospel of Christ."
Ok, I'm just going to start working back here, in no specific order.1over137 wrote:Here are some other commentaries:jlay wrote:Just a little of Calvin's own commentary. How Calvanists was Calvin?
On Isaiah 53:12--"I approve of the ordinary reading, that He alone bore the punishment of many, because on Him was laid the guilt of the whole world. It is evident from other passages, and especially from the fifth chapter of the Epistle to the Romans, that many sometimes denotes all."
On Mark 14:24 – "The word many does not mean a part of the world only, but the whole human race."
On Matthew 20:28–"‘Many’ is used, not for a definite number, but for a large number, in that He sets Himself over against all others. And this is its meaning also in Rom. 5:15, where Paul is not talking of a part of mankind but of the whole human race."
On John 1:29 – "And when he says the sin OF THE WORLD, He extends this favour indiscriminately to the whole human race....all men without exception are guilty of unrighteousness before God and need to be reconciled to Him....Now our duty is, to embrace the benefit which is offered to all, that each of us may be convinced that there is nothing to hinder him from obtaining reconciliation in Christ, provided that he comes to him by...faith."
On John 3:16 – "He has employed the universal term whosoever, both to invite all indiscriminately to partake of life, and to cut off every excuse from unbelievers....He shows Himself to be reconciled to the whole world, when He invites all men without exception to the faith of Christ."
On Romans 5:18 – "He makes this favor common to all, because it is propoundable to all, and not because it is in reality extended to all (i.e. in the experience); for though Christ suffered for the sins of the whole world, and is offered through God’s benignity indiscriminately to all, yet all do not receive Him."
On Galatians 5:12 – "It is the will of God that we should seek the salvation of all men without exception, as Christ suffered for the sins of the whole world."
On Colossians 1:15–"This redemption was procured by the blood of Christ, for by the sacrifice of His death all the sins of the world have been expiated."
On Hebrews 5:9–"He (the writer of Hebrews) has inserted the universal term ‘to all’ to show that no one is excluded from this salvation who proves to be attentive and obedient to the Gospel of Christ."
On Ephesians 1:4 „According as he hath chosen us. The foundation and first cause, both of our calling and of all the benefits which we receive from God, is here declared to be his eternal election. If the reason is asked, why God has called us to enjoy the gospel, why he daily bestows upon us so many blessings, why he opens to us the gate of heaven, — the answer will be constantly found in this principle, that he hath chosen us before the foundation of the world. The very time when the election took place proves it to be free; for what could we have deserved, or what merit did we possess, before the world was made? How childish is the attempt to meet this argument by the following sophism! “We were chosen because we were worthy, and because God foresaw that we would be worthy.” We were all lost in Adam“
On Romans 9:15 „By this oracle the Lord declared that he is a debtor to none of mankind, and that whatever he gives is a gratuitous benefit, and then that his kindness is free, so that he can confer it on whom he pleases; and lastly, that no cause higher than his own will can be thought of, why he does good and shows favor to some men but not to all.“
On John 17:9 „ ... the prayers which we offer for all are still limited to the elect of God. We ought to pray that this man, and that man, and every man, may be saved, and thus include the whole human race, because we cannot yet distinguish the elect from the reprobate … Christ expressly declares that they who are given to him belong to the Father; and it is certain that they are given so as to believe, and that faith flows from this act of giving. If the origin of faith is this act of giving, and if election comes before it in order and time, what remains but that we acknowledge that those whom God wishes to be saved out of the world are elected by free grace? Now since Christ prays for the elect only, it is necessary for us to believe the doctrine of election, if we wish that he should plead with the Father for our salvation “
Hmmm, is Calvin consistent?
The quote from his will, by the way, was a mistranslation from the french.Teach all nations. Here Christ, by removing the distinction, makes the Gentiles equal to the Jews, and admits both, indiscriminately to a participation in the covenant. Such is also the import of the term: go out; for the prophets under the law had limits assigned to them, but now, the wall of partition having been broken down, (Ephesians 2:14,) the Lord commands the ministers of the gospel to go to a distance, in order to spread the doctrine of salvation in every part of the world. For though, as we have lately suggested, the right of the first-born at the very commencement of the gospel, remained among the Jews, still the inheritance of life was common to the Gentiles. Thus was fulfilled that prediction of Isaiah, (49:6,) and others of a similar nature, that Christ was given for a light of the Gentiles, that he might be the salvation of God to the end of the earth.
PL, Uh, anyone who willfully denies Christ is predestined for Hell. I think everyone here agrees on that, and I already stated such.I chose the Beast for a reason, since most people here still regard him as a future person (there are many other examples in Scripture). It is quite clear that this person is (or was) predestined to Hell.
Couldn't or didn't?Calvin could not believe in both election and a universal atonement as those who presented these will have us believe.
The Gospel offer? What, offer someone a lie? "Christ died for you...well maybe,...if you are elect. If you are reprobate then he didn't die for you. And if reprobate, I asked you to believe that Christ died for you, I would be asking you to believe a lie. And since few will find the narrow road, odds are, Christ didn't die for you."Not all of the selected quotes are contextually relevant to atonement, but to the gospel offer.
I read the whole thing, Zoe...without a direct reference to Phillips, the statement about emotionalism sounded more like a general sweep, about all of which was argued opposite to Calvinism, and my response was addressed towards that. Most people like to use emotionalism to quickly discredit any argument against Calvinism.lol, much of this would be very clear had you read the entire response.
Yes, one should be in-line with the scriptures.I'm saying that when we resort to emotions to judge God it's inappropriate, that's all.
What does God's speaking Word accomplish?God foreknew the result that his speaking word would have and can thus do as he so wills for his purposes.
The result of God's spoken Word is not a passive result that God then chooses to use after the fact. but it accomplishes all that God purposes (or predestines). We see an even better example with Pharoah, where God plainly says that he will harden Pharoah's heart so that he would not obey, not because he would not obey."so shall my word be that goes out from my mouth; it shall not return to me empty, but it shall accomplish that which I purpose, and shall succeed in the thing for which I sent it." (Isaiah 55:11)
All true, but doesn't answer the question. Can the beast make a decision for Christ and be saved? Why not? If God already foreknows the choice, then how can that choice not be predestined?B.W. wrote:Now this beast, from whom does his power come from - God or devils? Rev 16:13-14 answers this and illustrates a complete rejection of the Lord by this beast.
It was found in him, ordained by God, who "...does according to his will among the armies of heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth; and none can stay his hand or say to him, "What have you done?""(Daniel 4:35). God did not just suddenly "find" iniquity in Satan and have to scramble around to fix the mess by sending Christ as "Plan B". Everything that happens has been ordained by God before the foundation of world, including Satan's iniquity and man's fall,B.W. wrote:Now a question back to you – Was Satan’s sin placed or found in him?
I don't believe we are being "targeted" either. It is Calvinism itself that grates the senses. We all like to think that we are in charge of our destinies, and it can be difficult to realize that we are not. But for those who understand the doctrines of sovereign grace, and that God has guaranteed us an inheritance, leaving nothing to operate outside of His sovereign will, it is a great comfort.narnia4 wrote:Maybe I'll try to expound on my thoughts on emotionalism later when I have more time.
And I don't believe that Calvinists are being targeted out of maliciousness or just because they're Calvinists. What I'm saying is- If not Calvinism, then what? To me that question hasn't been answered, not even close.