Calvinism provides an excuse for those in hell

[FreeGrace2]

I guess if a judge decides to pardon a criminal on death row, every other criminal who wasn't pardoned has an excuse?

Irrelevant to what Scripture says.

The better question, in your example, would to know WHY the judge pardoned a criminal. That that's an answer you guys just cannot answer in your doctrine of election and limited atonement. Which is my point.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Good job, because a synergist believes that man meets God half way. Oh...

Good. Seems you are beginning to catch on here.

There is no half way in my theology. God always makes the first move and He moves all the way toward man with the free gift of eternal life. All man can do is either accept the free gift or not.

Now, can you refute (I didn't say disagree with) my view, or not?

 

[FreeGrace2]

The arguments some guys make
sound exactly like those I have
heard from Romanist apologists
defending their false doctrine of
synergistic salvation:

We're saved by a combination of
faith and our own works.

Thanks for the opportunity once again to give my actual view. Which is that no one is saved by any works, period.

Everyone who is saved was saved solely by God's power by grace through faith.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Of course. Arminianism is Roman Catholicism dressed in evening clothes. If faith is something the sinner produces, and is not a gift from God, synergism worked out consistently is a works-based salvation. Thanks be to God he is merciful enough to overlook such gross error, and to save folks despite their opposition to his sovereign, electing grace.

Clearly you have no understanding of Paul's point in either Eph 2:8,9 or Rom 4:4,5.

He proved that man is saved on the basis of faith, not of works or deeds.

I reject the notion that my believing can be called a work. Paul SAID otherwise. So if you have a problem with that, it's with Paul, not me.

 

[guuila]

Irrelevant to what Scripture says.

Good point. You've considered logical consistency to be irrelevant in every discussion you've had. But hey, good on ya. Good way to get out of answering a question. Just say it's irrelevant and you're good to go.

The better question, in your example, would to know WHY the judge pardoned a criminal. That that's an answer you guys just cannot answer in your doctrine of election and limited atonement. Which is my point.

The judge pardoned the criminal because he likes to show mercy to underserving, hell-deserving worms. Is that a problem?

 

[guuila]

Clearly you have no understanding of Paul's point in either Eph 2:8,9 or Rom 4:4,5.

He proved that man is saved on the basis of faith, not of works or deeds.

I reject the notion that my believing can be called a work. Paul SAID otherwise. So if you have a problem with that, it's with Paul, not me.

The reason Paul said faith isn't a work is because Paul believed faith is a gift from God. You don't. Your free willism demands you did the faith part.

 

[Hammster]

Why didn't you answer my question, instead of play dodgeball?

Here it is again, for you:

Can and will you answer this, please?

If you look closely at Ex 9:15,16 you will understand HOW God meant that He hardened Pharoah's heart.

15“For if by now I had put forth My hand and struck you and your people with pestilence, you would then have been cut off from the earth. 16“But, indeed, for this reason I have allowed you to remain, in order to show you My power and in order to proclaim My name through all the earth.

iow, by keeping his sorry carcass alive longer, He was allowing Pharoah to harden further. Very simple.

But, since you still think that God caused Pharoah's hardness directly, rather than indirectly by keeping him alive, as I believe, please proceed with an answer to my question. Thanks.

For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "F or this very purpose I raised you up, to demonstrate M y power in you, and that M y name might be proclaimed throughout the whole earth." (Romans 9:17 NASB)

What question is in verse 17?

 

[Hammster]

There was nothing to disagree with, since you didn't refute anything.

A disagreement with my view doesn't equal a refutation.

No, but refuting it does. Which is what we've been doing.

 

[nobdysfool]

There was nothing to disagree with, since you didn't refute anything.

A disagreement with my view doesn't equal a refutation.

Works both ways....

 

[Hammster]

Irrelevant to what Scripture says.

The better question, in your example, would to know WHY the judge pardoned a criminal. That that's an answer you guys just cannot answer in your doctrine of election and limited atonement. Which is my point.

"Generally, that means one has no answer to give."

 

[crimsonleaf]

Good. Seems you are beginning to catch on here.

There is no half way in my theology. God always makes the first move and He moves all the way toward man with the free gift of eternal life. All man can do is either accept the free gift or not.

Now, can you refute (I didn't say disagree with) my view, or not?

OK, here's your refutation:

Firstly, we both believe that the elect and the saved are one and the same.

In your theology God moves all the way to man with the offer of salvation. Whether that salvation remains potential of becomes actual is purely down to the will of man. It is conditional upon man's voluntary acceptance. It is conditional election for that reason. Man puts the condition upon it.

In your outline of your theology you state:

"God created man, Adam, who sinned and corrupted mankind. This means that man is not able to solve the sin problem by himself, nor save himself."

The bible also says:

Rom 3:9-23 What then? Are we Jews any better off? No, not at all. For we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin, (10) as it is written: "None is righteous, no, not one; (11) no one understands; no one seeks for God. (12) All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one." (13) "Their throat is an open grave; they use their tongues to deceive." "The venom of asps is under their lips." (14) "Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness." (15) "Their feet are swift to shed blood; (16) in their paths are ruin and misery, (17) and the way of peace they have not known." (18) "There is no fear of God before their eyes." (19) Now we know that whatever the law says it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God. (20) For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin. (21) But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it— (22) the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: (23) for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,

It would appear that Scripture, you and I all agree that man is fully dependent upon God's grace for salvation.

Yet you persist in believing that man has the capability of repenting prior to regeneration. And you also contradict the bible in saying that man seeks for God.

Yes, God did create man to seek after Him. Adam changed that.

 

[Hammster]

It seems that some synergists don't really belief the fall. It's more like a stumble.

 

[nobdysfool]

OK, if there is an actual reason, can you please provide that reason? I've never seen anyone give a reason, other than the extremely vague "for His own glory", which doesn't answer the question at all. WHY did He pick you over someone else, since there are "no conditions" according to Calvinism.

So, if no condtions, then WHAT?

Can you show us anywhere in Scripture where God is required to reveal every one of His reasons for what He does with mankind? You want us to give a reason for His choice of some for salvation, in fact you're practically demanding that we do so.

There are things that God has withheld from us, and it's reasonable to assume that it is for our own good, that perhaps we couldn't handle knowing those things in our present state. And given that God is Good, in ways and to a depth that we cannot even fathom, we can trust Him even in the things that He has not revealed to us, knowing that His reasons are above reproach.

The point is, He has not revealed why He has chosen who He has chosen. We do know that it was not due to any action on their part, or any quality residing within them. He did not choose them because they believed, He chose them so that they would believe.

Sure. All you have to do is show me on what basis God chooses the chosen.

We don't know, and neither do you.

Did you notice that it is a suggestion? The word "maybe" would indicate that.

I didn't call anyone anything.

Playing word games is a favorite pastime of synergists.

Anyway, please show me WHY God chose you over any other sinner. That would suffice.

Because it pleased Him to do so, is all we can know for sure. There are many chosen that some of us would scratch our heads and ask, "Why him?" But God has His reasons, and what He has not revealed, we'll just have to trust Him.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Good point. You've considered logical consistency to be irrelevant in every discussion you've had. But hey, good on ya. Good way to get out of answering a question. Just say it's irrelevant and you're good to go.

Here is what I mean by "irrelevant to what Scripture says".

guess if a judge decides to pardon a criminal on death row, every other criminal who wasn't pardoned has an excuse?

Because it was. And you failed to answer my question to about the reason why the judge pardoned a criminal in your example. Will you answer it?

The judge pardoned the criminal because he likes to show mercy to underserving, hell-deserving worms. Is that a problem?

Sure it. Because we ALL agree that hell is where we ALL deserve to be. And now you've inserted a phony "underserving", which I imagine is a typo for "undeserving". When you added that, your example fanished as one.

Or maybe you actually did mean "underserving", in which case you need to define what that means to you. It sounds bogus to me.

 

[FreeGrace2]

The reason Paul said faith isn't a work is because Paul believed faith is a gift from God. You don't. Your free willism demands you did the faith part.

No he didn't. The gift always has been eternal life. Rom 6:23

If by "faith" you mean the "body of what we believe" as a noun, then yes, the body of what we believe is God's gift.

But believing the gospel isn't a gift. And you have not, because you cannot, prove otherwise.

 

[FreeGrace2]

For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "F or this very purpose I raised you up, to demonstrate M y power in you, and that M y name might be proclaimed throughout the whole earth." (Romans 9:17 NASB)

What question is in verse 17?

My question was in regards to what God asked Pharoah in Ex 9:17, not Rom 9:17. I was clear enough in post # 181. Sorry you missed it.

My question still stands.

 

[FreeGrace2]

No, but refuting it does. Which is what we've been doing.

Not.

 

[Hammster]

My question was in regards to what God asked Pharoah in Ex 9:17, not Rom 9:17. I was clear enough in post # 181. Sorry you missed it.

My question still stands.

For if by now I had put forth My hand and struck you and your people with pestilence, you would then have been cut off from the earth. But, indeed, for this reason I have allowed you to remain, in order to show you My power and in order to proclaim My name through all the earth. Still you exalt yourself against My people by not letting them go. (Exodus 9:15-17 NASB)

What question is being asked?

 

[RisingSpirit]

Thanks for the opportunity once again to give my actual view. Which is that no one is saved by any works, period.

Everyone who is saved was saved solely by God's power by grace through faith.

You are welcome. I knew you like arguing when you have nothing to argue about. Wouldn't that be a troll?

 

[guuila]

Here is what I mean by "irrelevant to what Scripture says".

Because it was. And you failed to answer my question to about the reason why the judge pardoned a criminal in your example. Will you answer it?

I don't remember what your quesiton was.

Sure it. Because we ALL agree that hell is where we ALL deserve to be. And now you've inserted a phony "underserving", which I imagine is a typo for "undeserving". When you added that, your example fanished as one.

Or maybe you actually did mean "underserving", in which case you need to define what that means to you. It sounds bogus to me.

Fanished? What is that?