Calvinism provides an excuse for those in hell

[RisingSpirit]

dup

 

[FreeGrace2]

OK, here's your refutation:

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

correct.

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.

Wrong. God offers an actual free gift, which is called eternal life. Those who receive it by faith are actually saved. And man's will has nothing to do with receiving a gift.

It is conditional upon man's voluntary acceptance. It is conditional election for that reason. Man puts the condition upon it.

You are showing your glaring error here in your last statement: man puts the condition upon it. The condition came from God, not man. That's your problem; you misread Scripture.

The condition of faith is clear from Paul's answer to the jailer in Acts 16:31.

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,

How does anything in Rom 9 refute or contradict my point?

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

correct.

Yet you persist in believing that man has the capability of repenting prior to regeneration.

There are no verses to the contrary. So why you believe that is "interesting", to say the least.

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.

Again, you reveal your misunderstanding of Scripture.

First, Rom 3:10 is a quote from Psa 14:1-3, the subject being fools/atheists. The ones who don't seek God are the fools, not everyone in humanity. You just misread Scripture, is all.

Second, Adam changed nothing about WHY God created mankind. In fact, you have misunderstood (misread?) Acts 17:26-27, which tells us that God created from one man (that would be Adam) all nations of men (that would be the entire human race) to seek Him. That's what it says, and you don't understand that.

Paul never said that God created Adam to seek Him. That would be insane, to say the least. Adam didn't have to seek God. What a weird view.

God created mankind to seek Him.

The clear reason for any kind of these debates is because one side severely misreads and misunderstands Scripture.

 

[crimsonleaf]

answered above.

 

[nobdysfool]

Pro 28:25 KJV He that is of a proud heart stirreth up strife: but he that putteth his trust in the LORD shall be made fat.

Pro 29:20 KJV Seest thou a man that is hasty in his words? there is more hope of a fool than of him.

1Th 5:14-15 KJV Now we exhort you, brethren, warn them that are unruly, comfort the feebleminded, support the weak, be patient toward all men. (15) See that none render evil for evil unto any man; but ever follow that which is good, both among yourselves, and to all men.

2Ti 2:24-25 KJV And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient, (25) In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth;

 

[FreeGrace2]

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.

False, totally. Please show me any evidence of demanding anything from anyone. Please. But, yes, I would like you to show me the reason God chooses anyone for salvation. What is the reason? Do you know?

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.

But choosing for salvation isn't a secret, though seems you think so. He chooses based on faith in Christ. 1 Cor 1:21

The point is, He has not revealed why He has chosen who He has chosen.

Maybe not to the Calvinists, but to everyone else, He did. 1 Cor 1:21 is the reason. It pleases Him to save those who believe.

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.

First, you don't have any verses to back up your claim. Second, Paul refutes you in Rom 4:4,5 and Ephg 2:8,9.

We don't know, and neither do you.

I'm glad you admit it, but God did reveal the WHY as to the reason for choosing anyone for salvation. It is based on faith in Christ.

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.

He did reveal them. 1 Cor 1:21, which seems too difficult for you to grasp.

 

[FreeGrace2]

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?

Really??? OK, focus on Ex 9:17 and what God said to Pharoah. Given your view of Pharoah's hardening, WHY would God tell Pharoah what He did?

 

[FreeGrace2]

I don't remember what your quesiton was.

This is getting real tiring. My question was in the quote you cited.

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?

So, here it is again: What is the reason why the judge pardoned a criminal in your example?

Fanished? What is that?

I meant vanished. But you are just stalling, obviously.

Are you going to define "underserving", or was that a typo?

 

[Hammster]

Really??? OK, focus on Ex 9:17 and what God said to Pharoah. Given your view of Pharoah's hardening, WHY would God tell Pharoah what He did?

I don't have a view of Pharaoh's hardening, except what scripture says.

So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills. (Romans 9:18 ESV)

And the Lord said to Moses, “When you go back to Egypt, see that you do before Pharaoh all the miracles that I have put in your power. But I will harden his heart, so that he will not let the people go. (Exodus 4:21 ESV)

 

[guuila]

This is getting real tiring.

I'm sorry... maybe you should 'free will' yourself some more energy.

What is the reason why the judge pardoned a criminal in your example?

To show mercy.

I meant vanished. But you are just stalling, obviously.

Are you going to define "underserving", or was that a typo?

It was a typo. Just like your typo.

 

[crimsonleaf]

I'll just deal with one aspect for now.

Wrong. God offers an actual free gift, which is called eternal life. Those who receive it by faith are actually saved. And man's will has nothing to do with receiving a gift.

Man's will has no affect on the offering of a gift, but has everything to do with receiving it.

It could be all, some or none. Those who receive it by faith (according to you) do not receive it by will. Therefore, if faith comes to man either against or despite his will, it would seem that you're falling more into our belief that faith itself is a gift from God. And if faith is a gift from God and not all receive it, then God elects who does.

 

[Don Maurer]

Well, DM, let's analyze your example. First, we have to know WHY 2 were released. Without that bit of info, we can't make ANY conclusions about reasons or excuses. So you need to add that to make it relevant.

Nope, the illustration of the 10 men on death row is relevant. Your out there on your request for more information. When a governor releases someone, he has the authority to do that. He does not have to give a reason.

Of course the illustration applies to Jesus Christ. God releases some, or justifies some, based upon Christs substitution. Of course faith is the human requirement, but that too is supplied to men because of the atonement and regeneration.

Calvinism believes that all the elect go to heaven, and all the non-elect go to hell.

They do? Shocking. Calvinists really believe that. : )
Why do you point that out? You do not believe that?

It also believes that Christ died ONLY for the elect. So why are the elect in heaven? You can call it grace, mercy, etc, but the bottom line is that in Calvinism the chosen ones got a ticket to heaven, while the rest didn't. That is the only difference between the 2 groups. And why y'all WON'T see that FACT is quite amazing.

I readily admit that I am amazed daily by the fact that he came to save a sinner like me. I am not only amazed, I marvel at it.

I take it you are neither amazed nor do you marvel at the salvation provided in Christ. In your theology, its kind of expected that God offer everyone the chance to be saved, and then the few, the proud, the good, because they believed, can pat themselves on the back and boast in their faith.

First, your sinful judgment of what I will admit is out of line.
Second, where did I ever claim or demand that God is "morally required to release or at least provide a means of release" to anyone? Please don't confuse your inadequate example with the very serious issue of who goes to heaven and who goes to hell.

LOL, your statement is nothing more than a cheap debating trick to move the issue from the theological issue to making moral accusations against me. What is disappointing is the extent to which you are going to make such accusations. You said "First, your sinful judgment" because I said your presupposition is that God is "morally required to release or at least provide a means of release." Of course I did not say you made an outright statement like that, I said it is your underling presuppositional basis.

Such cheap debating tricks (such as throwing out moral accusations) have no place in any honest discussions. It is commonly called ad-hominim reasoning. It works only with simple minded people. But maybe that is why you are here, to pick the low hanging fruit.

Oh, and by the way, you do not have to verbally admit or even recognize your own presuppositions to have a presupposition.

Well, the ONLY difference between the 2 groups is who Christ died for. How is that a "ridiculous leap of logic"? It is the FACT of the matter. I'm really amazed that when given clear FACTS, y'all still don't/won/t get it.

And just for the record, can you explain how asking simple questions equals trolling?

Absolutely your trolling. The questions have been repeatedly answered by other reformed people, as well as myself. Then others have gone on to demonstrate that the positive answer to those questions do not demonstrate that there is an acceptable excuse for people who are already in hell. When they demonstrate your faulty thinking, you simply present the same already refuted logic and assume that your questions validly prove that there is an acceptable excuse.

Most than this, your trolling because when someone asks you a question, you ignore it and refuse to answer questions. Several people in the thread asked where you disagree with Arminian theology. I myself asked you to demonstrate where you disagree with the Remonstrants. What do you do? You go on stating that you are not Arminian or Calvinist, but then turn right around and make more Arminian statements. That is also trolling.

"debunked"? Really? Can you show me any post where that occurred? I'll tell you what y'all have done. Whine. Claim I'm wrong. Claim people are in hell because of their sin. Which ignores the FACT that those in heaven are just as much sinners as those in hell, which DEBUNKS your claim that they are in hell because of sin. (the words "your claim... sin" have been bolded and underlined by Don Maurer)

Well, this is at least a start. Above you deny that people are in hell because of their sin. I must admit I did not think you would be that off the mark. God's judgment on sin is throughout the scriptures. The subject of God's judgment on sin was stated even before Adam and Eve sinned. When God said, "your shall surely die" in the pre-fall times, he was not speaking merely of physical death. He was speaking of an eternal death. At the other end of the scriptures in the book of Revelation, it speaks of the 2nd death.
Revelation 2013 And the sea gave up the dead that were in it; and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.14 And death and Hades were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death, even the lake of fire.
When men are judged, and cast into the lake of fire for eternal judgment, it is on the basis of "every man according to their works."

Of course, their works are evil. That is sin.

The understanding of men as sinners is foundational to Christianity. It is also foundational to understand that sinners are under the judgment and condemnation of God for their sins.

In saying men do not go to hell because of their sins, is not only wrong, it is potentially dangerously wrong because it is foundational to the gospel.

Oh, no. I fully understand WHY y'all point to sin. You can't stand the idea that your system does give an excuse to the hell dwellers.

Calvinism does say that Christ did not die for some. Far worse is your theology in which died for some who were already in hell, and it did nothing. When he died for them, it did not provide for them anything, no chance, nothing. They were already in hell. How sad.

If he chooses to die for some, that in now way provides an excuse to anyone else.

Yes, it does, but you just don't like that FACT.

How childish of an answer.

Actually, it's you with all the wrong presuppositions here. I've made NO statement at all about anyone under any obligation. You bring up false issues, as a way to attempt to deflect your inability to defend against the charge that Calvinism provides an excuse for the hell dwellers.

Of course I have presuppositions, everyone does. You fail to state what my presupposition is. If you can identify the presupposition I have and then present a case against that presupposition, we might have a discussion.

You seem not to even understand what the term "presupposition" means. Many on the thread correctly identified your theology as Arminian (which might have been generous) and you denied it. Obviously you did not even know what Arminianism happens to be.

To other writers and readers: FG2 seems like a 16 year old kid that never read his first book on Calvinism by a Calvinist author. He needs to raise the bar quite a bit. He does not seem to understand much theological terminology, and does not seem to grasp some fairly basic Biblical and Christian concepts. I really do not think he is up to a conversation in a debate forum. Its going to be a really shallow conversation full of accusations and shallow statements.

 

[Walter2013]

Many on the thread correctly identified your theology as Arminian (which might have been generous) and you denied it. Obviously you did not even know what Arminianism happens to be.

Yes. I walked him through the points of Arminianism and showed that he is a four pointer. He believes in:

1) The need for enabling grace to believe.
2) Conditional election
3) Universal atonement
4) Resistible grace
5) Perseverance of the Saints (he borrows from Calvinism here)

Not sure why he resists this so much. He and I are pretty much on the same page, both being non-Calvinists. However, it is strange that he likes to borrow from Calvinism on the last point...

 

[FreeGrace2]

I don't have a view of Pharaoh's hardening, except what scripture says.

So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills. (Romans 9:18 ESV)

And the Lord said to Moses, “When you go back to Egypt, see that you do before Pharaoh all the miracles that I have put in your power. But I will harden his heart, so that he will not let the people go. (Exodus 4:21 ESV)

OK, so you can't or won't answer my question regarding why God told Pharoah what He did, given your view of things.

 

[FreeGrace2]

I'm sorry... maybe you should 'free will' yourself some more energy.[/QUOOTE]
A clear indication that you have no idea what free will is.

To show mercy.

Sure, to show mercy ONLY to 1. And what would give the others an excuse. "The judge didn't show me any mercy, and his crime was worse than mine."

So you haven't helped your self yet.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Man's will has no affect on the offering of a gift, but has everything to do with receiving it.

OK, granted. But the plan is all from God, so man's will on how to be saved isn't from man's will. It's from accepting God's plan.

And man doesn't will himself to be saved. Far from it.

And there's no work at all in receiving a free gift. And no one who is sane would even think to brag about their "ability" to receive a gift.

In reality, when an extremely priceless gift is received, all attention is on the Giver and the priceless gift. Not ever on the receiver, other than to note they got it.

It could be all, some or none. Those who receive it by faith (according to you) do not receive it by will. Therefore, if faith comes to man either against or despite his will, it would seem that you're falling more into our belief that faith itself is a gift from God. And if faith is a gift from God and not all receive it, then God elects who does.

But faith doesn't "come to man either against or despite his will", so the rest of what you post is irrelevant. Faulty set up.

Again, define how you use "faith"; noun or verb. Because as a noun, it would refer to the "body of knowledge" that God has given to us, including the gospel. And we are to believe that body of knowledge.

So, as a gift, faith must be a noun, and it is God who gives us this "body of knowledge" that we are to believe.

But if you use 'faith' as a verb, there are no verses that teach that our believing action is a gift from God.

God created mankind to seek Him. That clearly indicates the ability to do so. Whether you agree or not.

 

[nobdysfool]

False, totally. Please show me any evidence of demanding anything from anyone. Please. But, yes, I would like you to show me the reason God chooses anyone for salvation. What is the reason? Do you know?

I already told you. As for demanding things from people, nearly every one of your posts contains some sort of demand.

But choosing for salvation isn't a secret, though seems you think so. He chooses based on faith in Christ. 1 Cor 1:21

No He doesn't. Faith in Christ is the evidence of His choosing, not the cause of it.

Maybe not to the Calvinists, but to everyone else, He did. 1 Cor 1:21 is the reason. It pleases Him to save those who believe.

He brings them to salvation and quickens their hearts to receive it. His choosing happens prior to their believing.

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.

First, you don't have any verses to back up your claim. Second, Paul refutes you in Rom 4:4,5 and Ephg 2:8,9.

Rom 4:4-5 KJV Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. (5) But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.

Eph 2:8-9 KJV For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: (9) Not of works, lest any man should boast.

​

Funny, those verses do not refute what I said at all, in fact they SUPPORT what I said.

I'm glad you admit it, but God did reveal the WHY as to the reason for choosing anyone for salvation. It is based on faith in Christ.

You are saying that God's choice in saving people is based on their choice of believing Him. That reduces to "reward for good behavior". Scripture specifically rules that out.

Rom 9:16 KJV So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.

​

He did reveal them. 1 Cor 1:21, which seems too difficult for you to grasp.

Typical ad hominem attack. Call into question the intelligence of your opponent. How immature, and how telling.

I can grasp the verse just fine. It doesn't say what you want it to say. If anyone is struggling with comprehension problems here, it is not me.

 

[Hammster]

OK, so you can't or won't answer my question regarding why God told Pharoah what He did, given your view of things.

I guess I can't. God didn't say why He said it. Do you have a revelation?

 

[guuila]

Sure, to show mercy ONLY to 1. And what would give the others an excuse. "The judge didn't show me any mercy, and his crime was worse than mine."

Yep. Kind of like my four year old has excuses. Doesn't make any difference though. They are guilty, so your "excuse" objection is invalid. No guilty criminal can stand before a righteous judge and demand pardon. They are guilty and are at the complete mercy of the judge. You keep asserting they have an excuse, but have failed to explain *how* the fact that the judge shows mercy to one criminal necessarily reverts the crimes of the other criminals. Who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory— (Romans 9:20-23 ESV)

Hey! It sounds like Paul was talking to you! Yikes! Does that concern you at all?

I really don't think you even understand the gospel. Your demand that God be an "equal opportunity God" is proof of it.

 

[Hammster]

I'm sorry... maybe you should 'free will' yourself some more energy.[/QUOOTE]
A clear indication that you have no idea what free will is.


Sure, to show mercy ONLY to 1. And what would give the others an excuse. "The judge didn't show me any mercy, and his crime was worse than mine."

So you haven't helped your self yet.

How does that give the others an excuse?

 

[FreeGrace2]

Nope, the illustration of the 10 men on death row is relevant. Your out there on your request for more information. When a governor releases someone, he has the authority to do that. He does not have to give a reason.

Of course the illustration applies to Jesus Christ. God releases some, or justifies some, based upon Christs substitution. Of course faith is the human requirement, but that too is supplied to men because of the atonement and regeneration.

Men are saved or not based NOT on Christ's death, but upon faith in Him or not. You still do not understand that. You think salvation was secured and given by His death, yet you have no passage that teaches that.

They do? Shocking. Calvinists really believe that. : )
Why do you point that out? You do not believe that?

I made the point that final destination is based on election in Calvinism. That provides an excuse for the hell dwellers.

I readily admit that I am amazed daily by the fact that he came to save a sinner like me. I am not only amazed, I marvel at it.

We all should marvel. But your theology provides an excuse to all hell dwellers who weren't "chosen".

I take it you are neither amazed nor do you marvel at the salvation provided in Christ.

You clearly have "taken it" quite wrongly. As I have just proven.

In your theology, its kind of expected that God offer everyone the chance to be saved, and then the few, the proud, the good, because they believed, can pat themselves on the back and boast in their faith.

Why do you add all these ridiculous words that don't apply any more than you Calvinists who claim that their being chosen isn't anything special.

LOL, your statement is nothing more than a cheap debating trick to move the issue from the theological issue to making moral accusations against me. What is disappointing is the extent to which you are going to make such accusations. You said "First, your sinful judgment" because I said your presupposition is that God is "morally required to release or at least provide a means of release." Of course I did not say you made an outright statement like that, I said it is your underling presuppositional basis.

You have no authority, knowledge, or anything else by which to make your claim what my "underlying presuppositional basis is. None.

Such cheap debating tricks (such as throwing out moral accusations) have no place in any honest discussions.

You stop making these way off base judgments about my so-called presuppositions, or motivations, and I will stop calling you on them. Fair enough?

It works only with simple minded people. But maybe that is why you are here, to pick the low hanging fruit.

Another ad-hominem attack on me?

Oh, and by the way, you do not have to verbally admit or even recognize your own presuppositions to have a presupposition.

When my presuppositions DON'T match what you claim they are, I will call you on it every time. Got it?

Absolutely your trolling. The questions have been repeatedly answered by other reformed people, as well as myself.

The answers were incorrect, since "sin" isn't the reason anyone is in hell, because just as bad sinners are in heaven. That proves that sin isn't the reason.

Now, if you can prove that all who are in heaven AREN'T sinners, then I could and would believe your claim that people are in hell for their sin.

Then others have gone on to demonstrate that the positive answer to those questions do not demonstrate that there is an acceptable excuse for people who are already in hell. When they demonstrate your faulty thinking, you simply present the same already refuted logic and assume that your questions validly prove that there is an acceptable excuse.

No one has demonstrated any "faulty thinking" on my part. Made that charge; yes. Disagree, yes. But your claim here is in error.

Most than this, your trolling because when someone asks you a question, you ignore it and refuse to answer questions.

I've answered MORE questions from all of you than any of you have of my questions. So quit whining.

Several people in the thread asked where you disagree with Arminian theology. I myself asked you to demonstrate where you disagree with the Remonstrants. What do you do? You go on stating that you are not Arminian or Calvinist, but then turn right around and make more Arminian statements. That is also trolling.

Seems most of you just ignore my posts, because I've proven my position isn't Arminian, but all of you just keep ignoring and throwing the label, hoping it will stick.

I went to a monergist website, copied and pasted the definition of 'synergist' on a post, and explained why I rejected that definition. And guess what I was told? "Well, that's not out definition." Amazing. Just move the goal posts. I strongly reject the notion of conditional security, which to me is the mainstay of Arminianism. If they believe that their believing in any way "cooperates" with God in saving them (synergism), I strongly reject that as well. I've been clear all along, but you haven't been keeping up.

Well, this is at least a start. Above you deny that people are in hell because of their sin. I must admit I did not think you would be that off the mark.

Let's see who's off the mark. Show me Scripture that says that people are in hell for their sin. Please.

God's judgment on sin is throughout the scriptures.

Can you differentiate between temporal and eternal?

The subject of God's judgment on sin was stated even before Adam and Eve sinned. When God said, "your shall surely die" in the pre-fall times, he was not speaking merely of physical death. He was speaking of an eternal death.

Actually, you are wrong. He spoke of physical AND spiritual death, not "eternal" death. If it was eternal, none of us could be in heaven.

At the other end of the scriptures in the book of Revelation, it speaks of the 2nd death.
Revelation 2013 And the sea gave up the dead that were in it; and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.14 And death and Hades were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death, even the lake of fire.
When men are judged, and cast into the lake of fire for eternal judgment, it is on the basis of "every man according to their works."

Why did you not include v.15? That's the key, and you missed it, of course.

Of course, their works are evil. That is sin.

Where do you get that "works" or "deeds" refers to evil? It isn't in the text. You are commiting eisegesis when you do that.

But whether it refers to human good (which isn't good enough), or to sin, it doesn't matter. What matters is WHY they are cast into hell; their names are not written in the book of life.

How does one receive eternal life? Through faith in Christ. No on has any excuse for not receiving eternal life.

The understanding of men as sinners is foundational to Christianity. It is also foundational to understand that sinners are under the judgment and condemnation of God for their sins.

What else is foundational to Christianity is that Christ atoned for the sins of the whole world, not just believers. 1 Jn 2:2 SAYS that.

In saying men do not go to hell because of their sins, is not only wrong, it is potentially dangerously wrong because it is foundational to the gospel.

Re-read Rev 20:15 until it sinks into your head.

Calvinism does say that Christ did not die for some.

You mean Calvinism says that Christ died for all, rather than ONLY some?

Far worse is your theology in which died for some who were already in hell, and it did nothing. When he died for them, it did not provide for them anything, no chance, nothing. They were already in hell. How sad.

Wow, do you misunderstand. The promise of eternal life in the Messiah was given at the beginning of mankind. Did you know that or not?

So, prior to the cross work of Christ, people looked forward to the coming Messiah and what He would do, while those of us after the cross, look back to the cross work of Christ. But all people, throughout history, have to look to the Messiah for salvation. Acts 4:12.

Of course I have presuppositions, everyone does.

Of course we do. Calvinists demonstrate that quite well when they approach Heb 2:9 with the pre-conceived presupposition that Christ DIDN'T die for everyone and then you have to explain it in order to defend your presuppositions. Many of you have proven your presupposition by explaining that when you come to such a statement, you "naturally" ask, "everyone...of whom"? That IS your preconceived presupposition.

Why would anyone with any presuppositions about the scope of the atonement even ask such a question? Only one with such presuppositions would have to. Which is why you all do.

But I don't come to Heb 2:9 with any presupposition of who Christ died for. I accept that He died for everyone, as stated.

You fail to state what my presupposition is. If you can identify the presupposition I have and then present a case against that presupposition, we might have a discussion.

How many would you like?

#1 Christ did NOT die for everyone.
#2 People go to hell for sin.
#3 Only those people Christ died for go to heaven.

You seem not to even understand what the term "presupposition" means. Many on the thread correctly identified your theology as Arminian (which might have been generous) and you denied it. Obviously you did not even know what Arminianism happens to be.

I proved that I'm not one. Take it or leave it. I don't care.

To other writers and readers: FG2 seems like a 16 year old kid that never read his first book on Calvinism by a Calvinist author. He needs to raise the bar quite a bit. He does not seem to understand much theological terminology, and does not seem to grasp some fairly basic Biblical and Christian concepts. I really do not think he is up to a conversation in a debate forum. Its going to be a really shallow conversation full of accusations and shallow statements.

What a bunch of drivel. You can't prove or defend yourself, so you stoop to attacking me. This is clearly an ad hominem attack. Way to go.