• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

Why do other Christians hate Calvinist so much?

Status
Not open for further replies.

His_disciple3

Newbie
Nov 22, 2010
1,680
33
as close to Jesus as I can be
✟24,575.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Do you go to a church? Does this church have Pastors, Elders, Deacons?

That is my question that you did not answer.
no here was your question, man you even add to or take away from your own words:
Originally Posted by VCViking
Do you go to a church? Does this church have Pastors, Elders, Deacons? If you do, then you sit under their peaching and teaching. Are they liars because they are men?

and actually there are three questions here if I was suppose to answer each one, I thought I answered the over all question you were asking? because you said I didn't answer your question, if you wanted an answer for each question you should have said you forgot to answer one of my questions, there is a misunderstanding on my part by what you exactly meant to say. so I will answer your 1st two questions if that will make you happy? yes I go to church and our church preaches the Bibical 5 offices of a Church not three. but I can't speak for all that go to church with us. But I think My pastor would approve of me saying, that if all His people were in the presence of God, we should all say You are Holy God Almighty and we are all of unclean lips!
 
Upvote 0

His_disciple3

Newbie
Nov 22, 2010
1,680
33
as close to Jesus as I can be
✟24,575.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
,

Obviously it means "all men", but the question is, what does "all men" mean? You act as if there's only one possible meaning for the Greek phrase that is translated into "all men". Is that just ignorance or are you purposely ignoring the other possibilities? Such as "Jews and Gentiles both" as opposed to just Jews only?

In the context of John 12 some Greeks had just approached Christ, thus Christ says "I will draw all men to me"

It cannot possibly mean "every individual" as Christ does not draw 100% of individuals. For in that very same chapter (John 12) it says "therefore they could not believe because God is blinding their eyes and hardening their hearts" (v40)

It is contradictory to say that God is drawing 100% of individuals but at the same time be hardening and blinding some individuals. So either the Bible is contradictory or your understanding of the phrase "all men" is wrong. You are ignoring the context of the passage. You are ignoring the other meanings of the word "all" in the Greek. You assert (with no scholarly evidence or arguments) that the word "all" always and without exception means "every single individual since Adam". On what basis do you insist that?


.

it is not contradictory to say that God will draw all men Jesus didn't say at that time I have drawn all men , But He said I WILL draw all men. so either Jesus didn't say what He said or Your understanding of when Jesus said I will draw all men, is a misunderstanding, are you saying that the ones that God blinded, that He won't open theirs eyes again and draw them to Him Through Christ Jesus, and to say that He won't draw all men is unbibical, for 1 John 2 says that He died for the Whole world, so John being one of the elect said that He didn't just die for our sins, but for the sins of the whole world, but a calvinist can't say this. for limited atonement won't allow such a teaching, even though it is taught plainly from scriptures.
 
Upvote 0

DeaconDean

γέγονα χαλκὸς, κύμβαλον ἀλαλάζον
Jul 19, 2005
22,188
2,677
63
Gastonia N.C. (Piedmont of N.C.)
✟115,334.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
But wait, can we really be so sure about that Dean? Take a look at Hebrews 12:15, unless I see im seeing it wrong it is mans responsibility to lay hold of the grace laid before him by God. Go on to Hebrews 12:17 and you will see the results of what happens to the one who fails to lay hold of that grace.

I don't see that here:

"Looking diligently lest any man fail of the grace of God; lest any root of bitterness springing up trouble you, and thereby many be defiled; Lest there be any fornicator, or profane person, as Esau, who for one morsel of meat sold his birthright. For ye know how that afterward, when he would have inherited the blessing, he was rejected: for he found no place of repentance, though he sought it carefully with tears." -Heb. 12:15-17 (KJV)

Ernest Reisinger wrote:

In the study of man’s will, the question is usually asked like this: How can a person be a free and responsible agent if his actions have been foreordained from all eternity? This is a logical question indeed.

To put the question another way, How can an action be known to God before it takes place and yet be freely performed by a free, moral agent?

The 121 Westminster divines were aware of this question and they addressed it with candor when they drafted their Confession. They said, “God has freely and unchangeably ordained whatsoever comes to pass.” That is divine sovereignty. They immediately added, "Yet so as to thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offended to the will of the creature, nor is the liberty of contingency of the second cause taken away, but rather, established,"

Sometimes the question comes in this form: Is not God unjust to require what men do not have the ability to perform? I answer:
  • Yes, God is unjust, unless He first gave the ability to perform what He requires.
  • Yes, God is unjust, unless man, by his own will, brought this inability upon himself.
  • Yes, God is unjust in requiring that which man cannot perform, unless such a requirement which is impossible to meet is designed to lead him to acknowledge and deplore his inability.
This is the real problem with the multitude of efforts by those who come running on the scene of human turmoil with this sentimental pity for man in his present condition. They immediately begin to charge God with being unjust.

When we see sickness, death, war, pain, murder, rape, robbery, and lawlessness we ask, “How did this come about?” The answer is: Sin! Sin! Sin! Man’s sin! How did the prodigal son come to feeding pigs? By living in sin!

If I believed that God made man like he is, and then condemned him for what he is, I would curse God and die—such a God would be a monster. But instead, “Truly, this only I have found: that God made man upright, but they have sought out many schemes” (Eccl. 7:29; emphasis mine).

Who but God can fully comprehend how an action that was known of God before it was done can be freely performed by man? However, our inability to understand how something should actually come to be is not sufficient ground for affirming that it cannot be.

It should not surprise us or discourage us that there is divine foreknowledge of all human actions on the one hand
and free agency on the other hand.

We have a similar problem with God’s commanding men to do what they do not have the will or ability to do since they must act in accordance with their nature. For example, when God commanded Lazarus to “come forth from the grave,” he was dead and did not have the ability to obey or respond to our Lord’s command—unless God did
something for him.

Another example is the poor man in the gospels who had been powerless for thirty-eight years and had no native ability to obey our Lord’s command to “take up your bed and walk.” The power came from the one who gave the command.

We are considering in this chapter these two truths: (1) Man is a free agent and is responsible for his actions; (2) Man’s actions are foreknown by an omniscient God. Both of these truths are clearly set out in the Holy Scripture many times in the same verse. For example, in Acts 2:23 we read, “Him [Christ], being delivered by the determined purpose and foreknowledge of God, you have taken by lawless hands, have crucified, and put to death” (emphasis mine).

This verse clearly teaches that the crucifixion of our Lord was planned, predicted, and determined before it happened and all the devils in hell or men on earth could not keep Jesus from the cross—it was determined by a sovereign God. Yet at the same time, wicked men—acting freely—were charged with this wicked act.

In Acts 4:24—30, God puts these two truths side by side without apology or explanation. Here this apparent contradiction and seeming conflict is expressed in a prayer.

“So when they heard that, they raised their voice to God with one accord and said: ‘Lord, You are God, who made heaven and earth and the sea, and all that is in them, who by the mouth of Your servant David have said: “Why did the nations rage, and the people plot vain things? The kings of the earth took their stand, and the rulers were gathered together against the LORD and against His Christ.” For truly against Your holy Servant Jesus, whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the people of Israel, were gathered together to do whatever Your hand and Your purpose determined before to be done. Now, Lord, look on their threats, and grant to Your servants that with all boldness they may speak Your word, by stretching out Your hand to heal, and that signs and wonders may be done through the name of Your holy Servant Jesus.”
Peter and John were in prison when they prayed this prayer. Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the people of Israel, were said to be carrying out what God had purposed and determined was to be done before it was actually done.

In the first truth we see that Cod is one hundred percent sovereign in planning and determining. At the same time the verse teaches that wicked men are one hundred percent responsible for their wicked deeds.

If we examine these two truths separately, we will conclude that from Genesis to Revelation the Bible teaches that the God of the Bible is one hundred percent sovereign—sovereign in creation, sovereign in redemption, and sovereign in providence—and that from Genesis to Revelation the Bible teaches that man is one hundred percent responsible for his sin. Therefore, we have no alternative but to believe both are true, even though with our finite minds we cannot reconcile them or harmonize them.

When Charles Haddon Spurgeon was asked to reconcile these truths—God’s sovereignty and man’s responsibility— he said, “I never try to reconcile friends—they are both in the Bible

Ernest Reisinger, God's Will, Man's Will, Free Will, Part 4, Free Will and Antinomy

I fail to see how its works and not grace when we have human responsibility to accept it or reject it.

Here again, if God uses His divine foreknowledge to see who would or would not accept and believe, He would be basing His election on the foreseen acceptance, or rejection and thus, it would be based on the works we did or did not do.

God Bless

Till all are one.
 
Upvote 0

His_disciple3

Newbie
Nov 22, 2010
1,680
33
as close to Jesus as I can be
✟24,575.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
,





World means world. But again, "kosmos" has around 10 definitions. Why do you insist, with no evidence and no argument, that only 1 definition is a possibility here? Seems the burden of proof is on you, not anyone else. You insist and presuppose and assert that "kosmos" only and always means "every single individual since Adam", then accuse people who believe that John is employing one of the other 9 definitions that they are "changing the word". No change is being done brother. No change is necessary. What they disagree with is your assertion that only one definition exists and that John only used that one definition. And again, you assert this with no evidence and no exegesis and no argument. Yet you have the nerve to accuse others of being unreasonable and imposing beliefs onto the text. Do you see the hypocrisy?





Whosoever will call upon the name of the Lord means exactly that. Whosoever will call upon the name of the Lord. Not a single person more, or a single person less. Only those that call upon the name of the Lord.

The phrase "whosoever will call up on the name of the Lord" does not say anything about who will do this or why they do it. It is simply an indicative statement. Everyone who does call, will be saved.

so are you saying that not all have sinned, since the fall of man into the sin nature through Adam's sin? are you saying that the elect aren't borned with a sin nature, for the Bible says in several places that all men have sinned and because through one man( Adam ) sin enter into the world, but through the righteous of one Man (Jesus Christ) that many may be redeemed,

look at this verse :
2 Thessalonians 2:10
10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
KJV
why did they perish? because they were not elected? no because they received not the love of truth, did God not give it to them? But wait yes Jesus said in mark to preach to the world, so you have to insert that this was only the world of elect, to get this to line up with calvinist:

Mark 16:15
15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
KJV
so ask a calvinist why we should preach the Gospel. if the elect are already in, their response will be that we don't know who the elect or the nonelect is, so we still must preach, so even the non elect will Hear the gospel, but will not receive the gospel thus they will perish and not be saved but those that will receive the truth shall be saved, so now let's cover your theory here God hath shut up the ears and blinded those that will perish because they are not the elect. so this is the same God that says He is Holy, that He is righteous and that He is just and He even instructs His children to deal with just scales when dealing with people, but this is the same God that allowed sin to pass on all through the sin of one man, but won't let all have a choice or even an option to be redeemed from that sin! yeah yeah God will have mercy on whom He will have mercy, so if God said before time begin I will have mercy on all that chooses Life over death, who are you or anybody else, to say that He can't do it that way?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

His_disciple3

Newbie
Nov 22, 2010
1,680
33
as close to Jesus as I can be
✟24,575.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Yes this is true but there seems to be way more false stereotypes against Calvinist than Free will.
just because you have allowed yourself to see and believe that, just as in sports we always think that the refs made more bad calls against our team than the other team!
 
Upvote 0

twin1954

Baptist by the Bible
Jun 12, 2011
4,527
1,474
✟101,554.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
I was trying to protect you by leaving it anonymous, but you have taken care of that.
Yes because I am not ashamed of what I say. I don't need your protection.

As far as the comments, did you make the belligerent comments, or not?
In their context they were not belligeraent. I was discussing with another Calvinist in a thread on the subject. They are my views and I did say them and would say them publically here if it were permissable by the powers that be.
If you did, then I have not been dishonest. Such a suggestion is ridiculous. Please show me which part was dishonest, cite ore retract. But we both know you won't do that, don't we?
Your dishonesty is in not giving the context of the statements and putting them out there as though they were spoken against you. Your dishonesty is in presenting them in a perjorative manner in order to bring dishonor to the speaker. Your dishonesty was in setting them forth with the intent to damage the character of another. Is that enough for you?


Your style is the spitting image of another hyper-calvinist that used to be on here. hmmm....
You don't even know what a hyper-calvinist is. I am not one but if wish to think so it is no skin off of my nose. Just remember that I will not allow you to disparage me in a public forum by posting my comments without their context. Did you really think I would just let it slip?


More popcorn anyone?
No thank you. The hulls get under my gums and become a pain much like some here.
 
Upvote 0

DeaconDean

γέγονα χαλκὸς, κύμβαλον ἀλαλάζον
Jul 19, 2005
22,188
2,677
63
Gastonia N.C. (Piedmont of N.C.)
✟115,334.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Yes because I am not ashamed of what I say. I don't need your protection. [/font][/size]

In their context they were not belligeraent. I was discussing with another Calvinist in a thread on the subject. They are my views and I did say them and would say them publically here if it were permissable by the powers that be. Your dishonesty is in not giving the context of the statements and putting them out there as though they were spoken against you. Your dishonesty is in presenting them in a perjorative manner in order to bring dishonor to the speaker. Your dishonesty was in setting them forth with the intent to damage the character of another. Is that enough for you?

You don't even know what a hyper-calvinist is. I am not one but if wish to think so it is no skin off of my nose. Just remember that I will not allow you to disparage me in a public forum by posting my comments without their context. Did you really think I would just let it slip?


No thank you. The hulls get under my gums and become a pain much like some here.


I must come to my dear brothers defense.

Although we do disagree sometimes, there is no single person here whose opinion I value more or trust.

I have to side with him here.

To post the comments out of context is wrong.

God Bless

Till all are one.
 
Upvote 0

twin1954

Baptist by the Bible
Jun 12, 2011
4,527
1,474
✟101,554.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
I must come to my dear brothers defense.

Although we do disagree sometimes, there is no single person here whose opinion I value more or trust.

I have to side with him here.

To post the comments out of context is wrong.

God Bless

Till all are one.
Be careful Dean. If you even seem to align yourself with this hyper-calvinist heretic you will suffer. ;) Luv ya!
 
  • Like
Reactions: DeaconDean
Upvote 0

DeaconDean

γέγονα χαλκὸς, κύμβαλον ἀλαλάζον
Jul 19, 2005
22,188
2,677
63
Gastonia N.C. (Piedmont of N.C.)
✟115,334.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Be careful Dean. If you even seem to align yourself with this hyper-calvinist heretic you will suffer. ;) Luv ya!

Won't be the first time will it?

How many times have I been called a "false teacher" spreading "false doctrines" or just been called a "heretic"?

Love ya brother.

Hope you and your family weathered the tornado safely.

God Bless

Till all are one.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Hupomone10

Veteran
Mar 21, 2010
3,952
142
Here
✟27,471.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Yes, before a person is willing to come to Christ there must first be a spiritual change in him. However, it seems to me that this can be resisted by man.
and the answer:
You say you agree with John 3, but do you really?

It clearly says that you must be born again (regenerate) before you can even see/perceive the kingdom, let alone enter it.

Arminianism says that you see and enter the kingdom and are then born again as a result. I'm pretty sure most Christians who are Arminians (and don't realize it) believe that. I believed it too, when I used to be an Arminian. I was always taught that you have faith in Jesus and then are born again.

But that's seeing and entering the kingdom and then being born again. Where John 3 says you cannot do that until you are born again.
Rob, this is also a great error, IMHO, and i also ask you to consider what I say. I know there has been an article linked with the suggestion that in John 3 Jesus teaches that regeneration precedes faith by misunderstanding the context of John 3 and trying to suggest that being born again to enter the kingdom of God means being born again in order to look to Christ for salvation. It's almost like those who taught this are confusing what Jesus is saying in John 3 with what Paul is teaching in 1 Cor. 2 when he says the natural man cannot understand the things of the Spirit. This is a faulty interpretation of John 3, as is easily seen if one looks to the context.

John 3:3
Jesus answered and said to him, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God."
What did Jesus mean by “see the kingdom?” We don’t need to speculate, because Jesus defined what He meant two sentences later. One of the wonderful things about scripture is that many times it provides the interpretation itself; and whenever possible we should allow scripture to interpret scripture. This is a basic rule of Biblical interpretation.

John 3:5
Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
Jesus clarified what He meant so there would be no doubt: “seeing the kingdom” means to “enter the kingdom.” To see the kingdom one must be born again. To enter the kingdom one must be born again. Born again to see the kingdom = born again to enter the kingdom. See the kingdom = enter the kingdom.

It is true that one must be regenerated in order to see spiritual truth (1 Cor 2:14), but the context tells us that this is not what Jesus is talking about here in John 3. The context bears that out.

Kingdom
Next, we need to know what Jesus meant by “the Kingdom of God.” According to scripture, the Kingdom of God is spiritual, literal, presently in heaven, and in the future will be on earth. If we don’t see this, the faulty view could be assumed that seeing or entering the kingdom is merely becoming saved. Looking at it in context lets one realize that Jesus is merely teaching that to enter the Kingdom of Heaven, the reality of which will begin at His second coming, one must be born again. Nothing more. It is NOT a proof-text of being regenerated preceding faith or preceding spiritual enlightenment (the erroneous view of “seeing” the kingdom).

What you said doesn't make any sense if you think about. Isn't part of the spiritual change that you are no longer resistent? lol..
Rob, you can answer this one yourself, both by your own life and the lives of all Christians you have known. When they are unbelieving and disobedient regarding any particular hangup they have a the time, and no Christian is free of all sinful habits, are they resisting God's grace and work when they are disobedient and unbelieving of His Word regarding that? If not, what would we call it?


More verses to support the concept of the kingdom future and literal, not just spiritual enlightenment:

John 18:36
Jesus answered, " My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, then My servants would be fighting so that I would not be handed over to the Jews; but as it is, My kingdom is not of this realm."

Matt 6:10
Your kingdom come Your will be done, On earth as it is in heaven.
(presently in heaven; in the future on earth)

Matt 8:11
"I say to you that many will come from east and west, and recline at the table with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven;
(Kingdom future)

Luke 13:28-29
" In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth when you see Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God, but yourselves being thrown out. And they will come from east and west and from north and south, and will recline at the table in the kingdom of God.
(Kingdom future)

Matt 12:28
But if I cast out demons by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God has come upon you.
(Personified in Christ)

Matt 13:41
The Son of Man will send forth His angels, and they will gather out of His kingdom all stumbling blocks, and those who commit lawlessness,
(Kingdom future)

Matt 13:43
Then THE RIGHTEOUS WILL SHINE FORTH AS THE SUN in the kingdom of their Father He who has ears, let him hear.
(Kingdom future)

Matt 18:3
and said, "Truly I say to you, unless you are converted and become like children, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven.
(Kingdom future)

Mark 10:15
"Truly I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child will not enter it at all."
(Kingdom future)

Matt 25:34
Then the King will say to those on His right, 'Come, you who are blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.
(Kingdom future)

Matt 26:29
But I say to you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father's kingdom."
(Kingdom future)

Luke 12:32
Do not be afraid, little flock, for your Father has chosen gladly to give you the kingdom.

(Kingdom future)

 
Upvote 0

Hupomone10

Veteran
Mar 21, 2010
3,952
142
Here
✟27,471.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
I must come to my dear brothers defense.

Although we do disagree sometimes, there is no single person here whose opinion I value more or trust.

I have to side with him here.

To post the comments out of context is wrong.

God Bless

Till all are one.
Dean, you and I have both agreed and disagreed in the past. If you choose to take this stand to defend your com-padre, I guess I understand. But it is not wrong to post examples of rhetoric that shows these attacks, on Calvinists and on Arminian, are on both sides. AND, I do not believe it is wrong to try to leave them anonymous by removing their name.

The posts were accurate, and i can easily place the link to the posts. The person, if they so desire and their ego demands it, can make it clear that they are the one who said it. It is incidental who said it. It is the rhetoric that was the point, not who said it. He wants everyone to know. Fine, he's done so.

But to try to make me out to somehow be in sin, for this is what it means that this post was "wrong" is a great mistake. In so doing, you are saying that all posts that quote someone else and do so to support their point are bad. Context doesn't matter for the wording I was pointing out. The wording presenting fellow brothers in the Arminian camp as heretics doesn't suddenly become better because of some supposed context. It is what it is, and I showed that. If this is wrong, how is it wrong? What Scriptures do you cite to support this? And are you willing to apply it to all who quote others?

And since you have identified it as being wrong, please show these scriptures, or retract since you wish to jump in bed with this post-er of beligerant rhetoric.

Blessings,
H.

 
Upvote 0

DeaconDean

γέγονα χαλκὸς, κύμβαλον ἀλαλάζον
Jul 19, 2005
22,188
2,677
63
Gastonia N.C. (Piedmont of N.C.)
✟115,334.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Dean, you and I have both agreed and disagreed in the past. If you choose to take this stand to defend your com-padre, I guess I understand. But it is not wrong to post examples of rhetoric that shows these attacks, on Calvinists and on Arminian, are on both sides. AND, I do not believe it is wrong to try to leave them anonymous by removing their name.

The posts were accurate, and i can easily place the link to the posts. The person, if they so desire and their ego demands it, can make it clear that they are the one who said it. It is incidental who said it. It is the rhetoric that was the point, not who said it. He wants everyone to know. Fine, he's done so.

But to try to make me out to somehow be in sin, for this is what it means that this post was "wrong" is a great mistake. In so doing, you are saying that all posts that quote someone else and do so to support their point are bad. Context doesn't matter for the wording I was pointing out. The wording presenting fellow brothers in the Arminian camp as heretics doesn't suddenly become better because of some supposed context. It is what it is, and I showed that. If this is wrong, how is it wrong? What Scriptures do you cite to support this? And are you willing to apply it to all who quote others?

And since you have identified it as being wrong, please show these scriptures, or retract since you wish to jump in bed with this post-er of beligerant rhetoric.

Blessings,
H.

Nope, no retractions from me. I said it was wrong, I did not say you were sinning.

I have fought beside my brother one more than one occasion here in the Baptist area from many Arminians who come here to start debates based on faulty arguments.

And when we do, whatever we say is generally in defense, never in attack.

I can say with the upmost confidence that neither my brother or myself have ever started any threads to attack the Arminian position.

Have I spoken harshly in the past here on the forums?

I sure have.

And when I am accused of changing the meaning of words in the scriptures just because I'm a Calvinist, I'll probably say more.

And I still in defense of my brother.

God Bless

Till all are one.
 
Upvote 0

cimbk

Newbie
Jan 14, 2012
305
10
✟556.00
Faith
Marital Status
Married
They would do anything to get out of Hell sure, but would they do anything to be with God? I doubt it.
You have no idea what hell is like, you would not even make that statement if you did. hind sight is 20/20 everyone will wish they did things differently, everyones knee will bow in the sight of Jesus, everyone will be calling Him "Lord Lord" to say people will prefer to be in hell rather than worship the Lord is and will be one of the most unbiblical statements I've heard this new year. You can't even imagine what its like to have worms crawling through your body, and to say they would trade that, for the mere option of not worshiping God............no idea no idea whatsoever!
 
Upvote 0

cimbk

Newbie
Jan 14, 2012
305
10
✟556.00
Faith
Marital Status
Married
Calvinist's say nasty words against non-Calvinist's.
but that wouldn't be their doing, thats just God they don't have a choice in the matter what they do, what they say, what they think........talk about a religion that has absolutely no responsibility, actually from their viewpoint God just made me say this
 
Upvote 0

strelok0017

_______
Sep 23, 2011
4,760
225
✟21,140.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Private
As far as I know, and I don't know too much, people don't like Calvinism because they either don't know what does it say or they have bad experience with other Christians who are Calvinists. I'm relatively new to all this names stuff (Calvinism, Arminianism, etc...). I don't know too much and am yet to read the entire Bible but I can tell one thing. I love what Calvinism teaches because it explicitly puts God in the center of the whole existence. Everything is pre determined by Him, even "free will" which is a very ambiguous term because all it does it create more problems. It really all boils down to why did God allow Satan to sin in the first place. That had to be pre determined somehow but God is absolutely blameless in this. If He decided that it wasn't to be so, it wouldn't be so, but how did a perfect angel sin is a mystery. That's the bottom question of predestination.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

amanneredfool

in his silence, even a fool can be wise
Jan 15, 2012
87
2
✟22,728.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private


<a snip>

The following ones were directed at me in several posts from a well-known Calvinist on the Soteriology sub-forum, but not on the Baptist sub-forum. It was on a thread I started called “verses supporting predestination & election, verses supporting man's responsibility.” It got the attention of the resident attack dog…


"another person who has come here to combat a perceived theological bent out of some kind of paranoia."

"Patronizing."

"paranoia,… antagonization."

"we will see if true colors come out for all to see."

"no grand Illuminati strategy".

"hyper-Calvinist theologians are not hiding under your bed or in your closet."

"put away the tin-foil hat for a moment".

"the monsters are not out to get you.

"No, rather, I think this is more paranoia talking."

"Tell the little birds whispering in your ear to fly away."

"How about some substance now so what you really believe can come out in the open."

"If your conduct and few posts with substance are any indication, it is becoming quite clear what your true colors."


“This kind of self-righteousness is nauseating to me.”

I need to point out that these are two of the more belligerent 5-pointers out there, and not typical of those I’ve known generally on here.


[/SIZE]


If you are going to quote me then give me the credit. But I also expect you to make sure that the context of my statements are understood. I stand behinds my statements but they are not to be thrown out willy nilly without context. Which is exactly what you have done here. You put on a great show but when it actually comes down to it you are willing to use dishonest tactics such as this.


subscribing...............

God bless
 
Upvote 0

cimbk

Newbie
Jan 14, 2012
305
10
✟556.00
Faith
Marital Status
Married
And you believe these so-called visions and dreams? Is God's Word not enough that we need visions and dreams?
Friend are you not aware that we are in the last days, did not the apostle Peter make known that the fulfilment of the Prophet Joel was taking place at pentecost, "your sons and daughters shall prophecy, Your young men shall see visions, your old men shall dream dreams"..............now then do you think we are closer to the end today than when this was prophecy began to be fulfilled two thousand years ago, you should read it for yourself the outpouring of God's Holy Spirit only ends when he comes (see Joel 2:28-32).............Oh and lets not forget what Joel also said "Whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved"
 
Upvote 0

Skala

I'm a Saint. Not because of me, but because of Him
Mar 15, 2011
8,964
478
✟35,369.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
actually I was a big fan of Paul washer, untill I watched this video, I stopped when he made a comment that should God open the gates of hell and offer those inside freedom if they would just bow down and worship Him, and he says they would slam the door shut themselves because they hate God and wouldn't take the offer..............I've never heard such a unbiblical notion, We see from scripture the complete opposite, even the rich man was willing to drink water from the poor beggars dirty finger and the parable of the man who wanted to warn his brothers.........there are people who have had visions and dreams about hell and they unequivocally say people were screaming begging to get out, they would do anything to get out of hell! ANYTHING!......to say they would prefer to stay, is the most absurd thing I've ever heard

As Robs said, many people would want to escape hell for the sake of escaping hell, but they don't want to escape hell for the sake of worshiping God for all eternity and being made into Christ's image.

The Bible is clear that fallen man's attitude towards God is hostile and rebellious. He hates spiritual things and finds the gospel foolishness. This is what Paul Washer was drawing upon when he said what he said.

Only by grace when God takes off our blindfold do we see God's beauty. Before that, we are against God.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.