Calvinism provides an excuse for those in hell

[FreeGrace2]

Sorry - but I don't consider anything that Paul wrote irrelevant.

My point about Romans 9 was that it doesn't support what you think it does.

It certainly doesn't say that Christ died for only the elect, or that God chooses who will believe. And it doesn't give any hell dweller an excuse for being there, as does Calvinism.

 

[nobdysfool]

To point out the obvious fallacy of the Calvinist claim that Christ didn't die for everyone. Instead of your question, can you refute my claim that Calvinism provides an excuse for the hell dwellers? Or are you just frustrated that you know you can't, so you ask a question to change the subject?

That's your problem, not mine. I ask again, of what use is an "excuse"? Will it make a difference? None in hell will be looking for an excuse, because they will know full well why they are there. So your "excuse" trope is nothing but a red herring that you continually drag around, because you think it means something.

Truth always trumps false claims. Can you refute my claim that Calvinism provides an excuse for hell dwellers? Or not?

It's a red herring, that means nothing.

I can think whatever you wish to think.

???

And I certainly CAN'T abide a Calvinist thinking that cannot be proven from Scripture.

I didn't get the memo that you were appointed the Calvinist-corrector here. Care to provide me a copy?

I have got it right. Calvinism cannot prove its claims, plain and simple.

Only in your dreams.

Are you uncomfortable with the fact that your theology that provides an excuse for the hell dwellers? Or not?

The only thing I'm uncomfortable with is the smell from that dead red herring you keep dragging around. It stinks!

The excuse for hell dwellers demonstrates the absurdity of your position that Christ didn't die for all, but only some.

You mean the red herring false "excuse" you invented, just to have something to oppose Calvinists with. All it demonstrates is absurdity on the part of the one inventing it.

Biblical theology says that no one has any excuse.

Which is what Calvinism and Calvinists say. To say that we don't is to bear false witness, which is a sin. Stop it.

 

[AndOne]

It certainly doesn't say that Christ died for only the elect,

wrong - see vs 10-11

or that God chooses who will believe.

wrong - see vs 18

And it doesn't give any hell dweller an excuse for being there, as does Calvinism.

You have an incorrect assessment on what Calvinism teaches regarding hell.

 

[FreeGrace2]

That's your problem, not mine.

I don't have a problem My theology doesn't provide an excuse for anyone. Yours does.

I ask again, of what use is an "excuse"? Will it make a difference?

So, by your repeated question, you really can't deny that Calvinism does provide an excuse for all the hell dwellers, huh.

None in hell will be looking for an excuse, because they will know full well why they are there.

The reason, as I have been pointing out, is for the ones in heaven, Christ died ONLY for them. And for the hell dwellers, Christ didn't die for them. And you can't deny that. That is the reason.

Sin is no reason at all, since the elect are just as much sinners as the hell dwellers. No different at all. Except chosen.

[QUTOE] So your "excuse" trope is nothing but a red herring that you continually drag around, because you think it means something. [/QUOTE]
Loose translation: I cannot refute your charge, so I will create a smokescreen by calling the charge a "red herring". LOL

It's a red herring, that means nothing.

Yet, you cannot disprove the charge, can you?

I didn't get the memo that you were appointed the Calvinist-corrector here. Care to provide me a copy?

LOL Aren't you aware that this thread is in the "debate a Calvinist" folder?

The only thing I'm uncomfortable with is the smell from that dead red herring you keep dragging around. It stinks!

Ah, yes, the ever-ready smokescreen, to deflect the issue away from your problem. LOL

You mean the red herring false "excuse" you invented, just to have something to oppose Calvinists with. All it demonstrates is absurdity on the part of the one inventing it.

Can you refute my charge? Can you prove me wrong?

Which is what Calvinism and Calvinists say. To say that we don't is to bear false witness, which is a sin. Stop it.

Well, none of you have proven my charge wrong. All you have done is disagree with it and whine about it.

What you CLAIM and what your theology concludes are not the same. Bummer.

 

[FreeGrace2]

wrong - see vs 10-11

wrong - see vs 18

OK, thanks for NOT noting book and chapter. I went back through the thread, and you cited Acts 17:11 in one and Rom 9:19-23 in another.

Regarding "vs 10-11", seems you think those verses actually SAY that Christ died only for the elect.

Regarding "vs18", seems you think it says that God chooses who will believe.

OK, show me the full citation so I can see for myself. I still don't know where those 2 passages are located.

You have an incorrect assessment on what Calvinism teaches regarding hell.

Really? If Calvinism doesn't provide an excuse for the hell dwellers, why is it that ONLY the elect, for whom Christ died in your view, go to heaven, while ONLY the non-elect, for whom Christ didn't die in your view, go to hell?

No one of the Calvinists has come up with a refutation of my charge.

My asessment is correct. Unless you can refute my charge.

 

[crimsonleaf]

OK FreeGrace2, let's cut to the chase, although judging by your refusal to acknowledge anything outside your own view it's ging to have to be in baby steps.

Do you believe that sinners are forced to sin, yes or no?

I'll give you the Calvinist answer and then we can see whether you agree or disagree with us. We say that sinners aren't forced to sin. Your view is..?

And don't give us War and Peace again. Just a monosyllabic reply will do.

 

[Don Maurer]

I always defer to the apostle Paul's response to this question (or variations of it) whenever it gets asked. See Romans 9:19-23. Your issue is not with Calvinists but with the New Testament writers. Something to think about....

I knew Behe's response was going to be in this thread somewhere. When I read the OP, I expected a response like Behe's to be the first reply. Tbhe reason I expected Behe's response is because it is a completely relevant, appropriate, and biblical response to the hypothetical argument of FreeGrace2 concerning the complaint of the man in hell, "you did not die for me." FreeGrace2's OP is the same challenge to Paul as the Pharaoh is making. The Pharaoh can say... "Why doth he still find fault?" (Romans 9:19b). FreeGrace2 can say... "Calvinism provides an excuse for the hell dwellers?" It would be interesting to see FreeGrace2 provide an answer to the Pharaoh's argument in verse 19. I bet it would not sound like Paul's answer in verses 20-23. To FreeGrace2, it will look like Paul was dodging the question of verse 19.

It is most likely true, that the man in hell will complain that Christ did not die for him. The man in hell will scream and complain that "it is not fair." Of course the man in Hell did not deserve for Christ to die for him and it is fair.... But then neither did we deserve Christs blood to be shed for us, and it would also be fair for all of us to go to hell. It is what we all have earned and deserved.

Therein lies the dangerous presupposition of FreeGrace2. His presupposition is that the man in Hell deserves a chance. It is a very very dangerous presupposition, for it really does take away glory and sovereignty from God and gives it to man. None of us ever deserved a chance. His presupposition assumes that there is validity to the complain of the man in hell that Christ did not die for him because the man in hell deserves a chance. Of course there is no validity to such a complaint just as the Pharaoh's complaint has not validity as Paul demonstrates. Well done Behe.

 

[nobdysfool]

2Ti 2:23-24 KJV But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do gender strifes. (24) And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient,

Sad to say, we haven't seen much of that here. Just a constant berating of Calvinists for not answering the folly of someone who think he has a "trump card" against Calvinism. He doesn't, because it makes no difference. The so-called "excuse" that he thinks he sees will make no difference to God, to the sinner, or to anyone else. It is not a "get out of jail free" card. It does not ameliorate the sinners guilt. It makes no difference. Something that makes no difference, is no difference. It's a non-issue.

In the real world, excuses don't cut it. Explanations do. An explanation owns the problem, and admits its own guilt. Excuses try to deflect the guilt by saying "it wasn't my fault, I was forced - couldn't help myself- my friends made me do it - I was framed! etc. ".

The bottom line is, all this bleating and bloviating about "excuses" is just so much hot air, a tempest in a teapot. It doesn't make any difference. The one making all this fuss can go right on believing he is right, and we're not going to stop him. He refuses to be stopped, no matter what is said. But, that doesn't mean he is right, his claims notwithstanding. People claim all sorts of foolish things, and believe them, but that doesn't make them right.

And FG2, I made a reference to JOB 38, not Proverbs 38 (which doesn't exist). JOB 38.

Please try to keep up...

 

[andreha]

People are in hell for sin, not because their sin wasn't atoned for.

Pretty succinct.

Hey Bro

Do you think people are correct when they say God destines certain souls to hell, as an answer to election of others? I'd say it's plain wrong. Would you agree that it makes more sense that God predetermined the salvation of some through election, to provide vessels of truth so others hava a fair chance at salvation?

 

[nobdysfool]

No one is "owed a chance" for Salvation. We all deserve hell for our sins. And unless the Lord changes the heart, even if all of our sins were blotted out, we would continue on sinning because that is our nature.

People really need to eliminate this idea of man being "owed a chance". It's not biblical.

 

[andreha]

Indeed, God owes us nothing. But, He is love, and He is not willing that any should perish.

 

[nobdysfool]

He is also Holy, Just, Merciful, Wrathful, Omniscient, Omnipresent, Omnipotent, Soverign, and Alpha and Omega. No one of His attributes is any more important, or less important than any other. He is not willing that any of His Elect should perish. (You must read that verse in context, it's not saying what you obviously think it does). Jesus Christ obtained actual salvation for those He died for, not potential salvation, or a chance at salvation.

 

[crimsonleaf]

Indeed, God owes us nothing. But, He is love, and He is not willing that any should perish.

Then if you're right He saves us all and Hell is a story Jesus made up to amuse Himself?

Or maybe We're not all saved, but we hold the trump card as FG2 suggests - That God only offers salvation and it's up to us whether we want to be saved or not?

I'll wait for FG2's response to my previous post before saying more.

 

[andreha]

Ok, granted, I'll have to go look at the context.

Would you say that God created some, and destined them for damnation? That if one of those dammned souls would plead before the Lord, even with tears of blood, that they would still be damned?

I just struggle to wrap my head around that one.

 

[andreha]

Then if you're right He saves us all and Hell is a story Jesus made up to amuse Himself?

Or maybe We're not all saved, but we hold the trump card as FG2 suggests - That God only offers salvation and it's up to us whether we want to be saved or not?

I'll wait for FG2's response to my previous post before saying more.

I'm not suggesting Hell is a story at all. It's a reality for whosoever rejects Jesus.

Indeed, He offers salvation, and those who reject it are in for a nasty surprise.

I'm quite sure there will be no soul in Heaven who rejects the Lord. Not one.

 

[crimsonleaf]

I'm not suggesting Hell is a story at all. It's a reality for whosoever rejects Jesus.

Indeed, He offers salvation, and those who reject it are in for a nasty surprise.

I'm quite sure there will be no soul in Heaven who rejects the Lord. Not one.

Well, thanks for popping in then...

 

[Hammster]

Hey Bro

Do you think people are correct when they say God destines certain souls to hell, as an answer to election of others? I'd say it's plain wrong. Would you agree that it makes more sense that God predetermined the salvation of some through election, to provide vessels of truth so others hava a fair chance at salvation?

If God hadn't decided to intervene, all of us would be destined to Hell. That's what our sin deserves. That's biblical. God chose to save some. That's His prerogative. Just because He chose to save some does not make Him obligated to save all.

Biblicism 101.

 

[FreeGrace2]

OK FreeGrace2, let's cut to the chase, although judging by your refusal to acknowledge anything outside your own view it's ging to have to be in baby steps.

A snide comment, huh.

Do you believe that sinners are forced to sin, yes or no?

Neither the elect sinners nor the non-elect sinners are forced to sin. Irrelevant, though.

I'll give you the Calvinist answer and then we can see whether you agree or disagree with us. We say that sinners aren't forced to sin. Your view is..?

Correct, and irrelevant.

And don't give us War and Peace again. Just a monosyllabic reply will do.

I've never given a long post. I have answered long posts from Calvinists who post long ones. There's a difference. I hope that you will notice.

btw, can you answer these questions?

#1 Did Christ die ONLY for the elect?
#2 Did God choose for heaven ONLY the elect?
#3 Do ONLY the elect go to heaven?
#4 Did Christ NOT die for the non-elect?
#5 Did God NOT choose for heaven the non-elect?
#5 Do ONLY the non-elect go to hell?
#6 Are the elect and non-elect both sinners and both deserve hell?

These are relevant questions to ask. The answers are telling.

 

[FreeGrace2]

I knew Behe's response was going to be in this thread somewhere. When I read the OP, I expected a response like Behe's to be the first reply. Tbhe reason I expected Behe's response is because it is a completely relevant, appropriate, and biblical response to the hypothetical argument of FreeGrace2 concerning the complaint of the man in hell, "you did not die for me." FreeGrace2's OP is the same challenge to Paul as the Pharaoh is making. The Pharaoh can say... "Why doth he still find fault?" (Romans 9:19b). FreeGrace2 can say... "Calvinism provides an excuse for the hell dwellers?" It would be interesting to see FreeGrace2 provide an answer to the Pharaoh's argument in verse 19. I bet it would not sound like Paul's answer in verses 20-23. To FreeGrace2, it will look like Paul was dodging the question of verse 19.

I've dodged nothing. Hopefully, you won't dodge any questions, either.

Can you answer these 6 short questions?

#1 Did Christ die ONLY for the elect?
#2 Did God choose for heaven ONLY the elect?
#3 Do ONLY the elect go to heaven?
#4 Did Christ NOT die for the non-elect?
#5 Did God NOT choose for heaven the non-elect?
#5 Do ONLY the non-elect go to hell?
#6 Are the elect and non-elect both sinners and both deserve hell?

It is most likely true, that the man in hell will complain that Christ did not die for him.

Why? Because it is totally TRUE. And that forms the basis for his excuse for being a hell dweller. Thanks for supporting my charge.

The man in hell will scream and complain that "it is not fair." Of course the man in Hell did not deserve for Christ to die for him and it is fair.... But then neither did we deserve Christs blood to be shed for us, and it would also be fair for all of us to go to hell. It is what we all have earned and deserved.

All this missed the whole point. The ONLY reason for anyone to be in hell is because, according to Calvinism, Christ didn't die for them. That is the only reason. Sin has nothing to do with anything for eternity.

Therein lies the dangerous presupposition of FreeGrace2.

Yes, I would agree that false teaching IS dangerous.

His presupposition is that the man in Hell deserves a chance.

You've taken the idea of presupposition to outright assumption. I have no presuppositions. My charge is clear and simple. I hope that you do answer the 6 simple questions. Maybe that will reveal to the truth.

It is a very very dangerous presupposition, for it really does take away glory and sovereignty from God and gives it to man.

You are way off track here. In fact, Calvinism GIVES an excuse for the hell dwellers. Seems you just don't want to face that fact. Is that right?

None of us ever deserved a chance. His presupposition assumes that there is validity to the complain of the man in hell that Christ did not die for him because the man in hell deserves a chance.

Not at all. Can you refute my charge or not? This sidestepping smokescreen about "chances" is amusing, at best. Let's get back to my charge. If I'm wrong about Calvinism, it should be easy to refute my charge. So far, no one has. Lots of posts, with lots of sidestepping and smokescreens, but no refutation.

Of course there is no validity to such a complaint just as the Pharaoh's complaint has not validity as Paul demonstrates. Well done Behe.

This isn't about Pharaoh. In fact, Ex 9:15,16 gives us the clear reason why Pharaoh was even still alive. God had preserved him longer in order to show him His power and glory. Which He did before took him out.

Please answer the 6 questions.

 

[FreeGrace2]

And FG2, I made a reference to JOB 38, not Proverbs 38 (which doesn't exist). JOB 38.

Please try to keep up...

Sure. Sorry for the typo of the mind. Anway, will you answer these 6 questions?

#1 Did Christ die ONLY for the elect?
#2 Did God choose for heaven ONLY the elect?
#3 Do ONLY the elect go to heaven?
#4 Did Christ NOT die for the non-elect?
#5 Did God NOT choose for heaven the non-elect?
#5 Do ONLY the non-elect go to hell?
#6 Are the elect and non-elect both sinners and both deserve hell?