Calvinism provides an excuse for those in hell

[nobdysfool]

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

Mankind may have the ability, strictly defined, but they have no inclination to seek God.

Rom 3:10-18 KJV As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: (11) There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. (12) They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one. (13) Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips: (14) Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness: (15) Their feet are swift to shed blood: (16) Destruction and misery are in their ways: (17) And the way of peace have they not known: (18) There is no fear of God before their eyes.

​

What you are advocating is, at best, Semi-Pelagianism, and at worst, full-on Pelagianism.

God's commands do not imply ability, when the whole of Scripture is considered. If anything, they highlight man's need for God's Grace and Mercy, because man CANNOT obey God's commands. And God is well within His right to command, even if those who hear the commands cannot obey. He is Sovereign.

Augustine was right to pray, "Command what Thou wilt, and grant what Thou commandest."

 

[Don Maurer]

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.

Hello Water, nice to meet you. I must admit I was not watching your posts before this. I suspect that FG2 (but at this point cannot prove) may not have a very deep understanding of point 5 (perseverance). He might be equating it to Eternal Security and not know the differences. This is often the basis of many 4 pointers for thinking they are not Arminian.

I would be interested in your opinions on some of the subjects related to the threads. You may be expressed them already, if so, my apologies for not going back and reading them.
* From your Arminian perspective, would you not agree that men are in hell because of sin? While I cannot quote any Arminian authors (shame on me because I was educated theologically by Arminians), do not most Arminians believe in the federal view of Adams sin, and its consequences of being under the judgment of God (hell)?

Also, what is your view of the atonement? The early Arminians (Arminius, but especially Hugo Grotius) took a General Atonement view of the atonement in which Christ shed blood satisfied the justice of God, and and the basis of that satisfied justice offers salvation to all men on condition of faith. Not necessarily do all Arminians agree with such a view of the General Atonement today. What is your view. I hope you feel free to at least identify your view here. Whatever you say, I probably will not respond to your points because it would be outside the purpose of the thread. If you wish discussion on theories of atonement, we can do that in another thread. I am merely interested in what view you take.

Finally, what is your opinion of the OP and FG2s argument. I am guessing here that you might think there are other better arguments against Reformed soteriology, but would like to hear your opinion.

I jump in and out. I will try to remember to look for your reply.

 

[guuila]

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...

Wow that is interesting... FreeGrace2 did you know you're borrowing from Calvinism?

 

[FreeGrace2]

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)

I DON'T believe in "perseverance of the saints". I believe in preservation of the saints. A huge difference.

Not sure why he resists this so much. He and I are pretty much on the same page, both being non-Calvinists.

I proved from a monergist website, no less, that I am not a synergist. I don't know if Walter is or not. And I don't know how he views the act of believing in Christ, whether it "cooperates" with God in saving the believer. I say it does NOT.

However, it is strange that he likes to borrow from Calvinism on the last point...

See my comment. Wrong, Walter.

 

[Walter2013]

* From your Arminian perspective, would you not agree that men are in hell because of sin? While I cannot quote any Arminian authors (shame on me because I was educated theologically by Arminians), do not most Arminians believe in the federal view of Adams sin, and its consequences of being under the judgment of God (hell)?

Yes I believe we are born in Adam.

Also, what is your view of the atonement? The early Arminians (Arminius, but especially Hugo Grotius) took a General Atonement view of the atonement in which Christ shed blood satisfied the justice of God, and and the basis of that satisfied justice offers salvation to all men on condition of faith. Not necessarily do all Arminians agree with such a view of the General Atonement today. What is your view. I hope you feel free to at least identify your view here. Whatever you say, I probably will not respond to your points because it would be outside the purpose of the thread. If you wish discussion on theories of atonement, we can do that in another thread. I am merely interested in what view you take.

That sounds like what I believe. Christ died for all people but we have to believe to make it effective.

Finally, what is your opinion of the OP and FG2s argument. I am guessing here that you might think there are other better arguments against Reformed soteriology, but would like to hear your opinion.

I jump in and out. I will try to remember to look for your reply.

FG2's arguments seem inconsistent. I don't understand why he borrows from Calvinism on his OSAS thing. Also, I've had about enough of his childish, condescending attitude. Not a good way to represent our side.

 

[Walter2013]

I DON'T believe in "perseverance of the saints". I believe in preservation of the saints. A huge difference.
Not sure why he resists this so much. He and I are pretty much on the same page, both being non-Calvinists.
I proved from a monergist website, no less, that I am not a synergist. I don't know if Walter is or not. And I don't know how he views the act of believing in Christ, whether it "cooperates" with God in saving the believer. I say it does NOT.


See my comment. Wrong, Walter.

Ok so you are a four point Arminian, but you're not a "synergist".

 

[FreeGrace2]

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

Again, all you do is make the empty claim. I asked for a post # or a quote from me. Where is it? If you can't find any, you need to pipe down.

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

Prove it.

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

Prove it.

You are saying that God's choice in saving people is based on their choice of believing Him.

No, I've never said that. I don't believe that one "chooses" to believes. It isn't random, as you insinuate. One believes when they are convinced of something. So it's not really a choice. One believes what makes the greatest sense to them.

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.​

First, this verse isn't about "saving faith". Second, a reward is what is earned for good behavior, and Paul ruled that out in Rom 4:4,5 and Eph 2:8,9. So you're wrong.

​

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

Can you explain to me how being pleased to save those who believe isn't a choice by God? Burden of proof is on you to prove that you do grasp it. Well, do you?

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.

If you really can, why haven't you? Why the stalling? 1 Cor 1:21 says exactly what it means; God is well pleased to save those who believe. And that is clearly a choice that God made. God does the saving, not man. It's God's choice to save believers.

But, go ahead, and tell me what the verse "really" says.

 

[Skala]

I DON'T believe in "perseverance of the saints". I believe in preservation of the saints. A huge difference.

Can you explain the difference?

I have a feeling you think perseverance of the saints is something it's not.

 

[FreeGrace2]

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

So you can't reconcile WHY God said what He said to Pharoah given your theology? Well, at least you admit it.

I told you why He said what He did. He wasn't causing Pharoah to resist Him. He was allowing Pharoah to live longer so that God could show His power to him and the rest of the world.

If God was causing Pharoah to be hardened actively, then Ex 9:17 makes no sense whatsoever.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Your demand that God be an "equal opportunity God" is proof of it.

Where have I "demanded" anything from anyone? You and another poster keep claiming that I have demanded things. But where? Do you actually have proof, or would that be just a bit too inconvenient for you?

You need to prove your silly charges. They are empty without proof. And you don't have any proof. Just those empty charges.

 

[nobdysfool]

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.

There is no basis for Salvation without the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Faith in His death, burial, and resurrection is what allows the benefits of those acts to be applied to the believer, thereby moving him beyond the penalty of death for sins, and into the Kingdom of God.

Without the work of Christ, there is no Salvation.

FG2, you need to go back and learn the first things, because you're way off base here. Shockingly off base.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Mankind may have the ability, strictly defined, but they have no inclination to seek God.

Well, at least one of you admits that man has the ability. Apparently you don't accept the usual definition of total depravity of your fellow campers.

Rom 3:10-18 KJV As it is written[/QUOTE]
OK, need to stop here. What does "as it is written" mean to you? Anything? It means that Paul is going to quote from the OT. In fact, he quoted from 6 different passages to demonstrate HOW the Jews and Gentiles alike are ALL under sin (all are sinners-3:23). v.10-12 quotes from Psa 14:1-3 and Psa 53:1-3. Have you ever read those passages. The subject is fools, or atheists, and they don't seek Him. v.11 refers to the fools/atheists, not everyone in the world.

​

God's commands do not imply ability, when the whole of Scripture is considered.[/QUOTE]
All I see here is another claim. Do you have any proof? The Law was given to prove that no one is sinless, sure. Because no one can perfectly keep the Law. That's a given. But if you apply that to believing the gospel, you are off track.

If anything, they highlight man's need for God's Grace and Mercy, because man CANNOT obey God's commands.

Not all of them. The Law? No. The gospel? Yes. Or, prove me wrong.

And God is well within His right to command, even if those who hear the commands cannot obey. He is Sovereign.

He always has a purpose. You seem to be unaware of that.

 

[guuila]

Where have I "demanded" anything from anyone? You and another poster keep claiming that I have demanded things. But where? Do you actually have proof, or would that be just a bit too inconvenient for you?

You need to prove your silly charges. They are empty without proof. And you don't have any proof. Just those empty charges.

If your premise is basically that God not supplying a savior to someone to give them a chance means they have some kind of excuse before God, that inherently implies that in order for God to be just, he must treat everyone equally with respect to Jesus' atoning work. Therefore, you cannot stand the thought of God sovereignly saving who he chooses. Yay logic.

 

[FreeGrace2]

FG2's arguments seem inconsistent.

Can you point to any inconsistency?

I don't understand why he borrows from Calvinism on his OSAS thing.

Here's why. The Bible is as clear on OSAS as it is on the scope of the atonement.

I would like to know where I'm inconsistent in my view; not someone's faulty view of my view.

Also, I've had about enough of his childish, condescending attitude. Not a good way to represent our side.

First, I'm not on your 'side'. I thought I made that clear. I do accept some of your views, just as I accept a number from Calvinists. We all agree that salvation is by faith in Christ. That's Biblical.

I find no verses on loss of salvation. I understand that you think the warning passages are those. They aren't. They are about loss of fellowship, not relationship, and or loss of rewards, both temporally and/or eternally.

Second, I apologize that you are offended. Can you show me anything that has been directed to you that you take as condescending? Thanks.

 

[nobdysfool]

Again, all you do is make the empty claim. I asked for a post # or a quote from me. Where is it? If you can't find any, you need to pipe down.


Prove it.


Prove it.

There's the proof right there. Those are demands. anyone with any comprehension of the English language would call "prove it" a demand.

Thanks for providing the proof of my claim even as you were trying to say you hadn't done so. One thing I can say about you is that you are consistently inconsistent.

No, I've never said that. I don't believe that one "chooses" to believes. It isn't random, as you insinuate. One believes when they are convinced of something. So it's not really a choice. One believes what makes the greatest sense to them.

Oh,. so now believing isn't a choice? It just "happens"??? Talk about moving the goal posts....

First, this verse isn't about "saving faith". Second, a reward is what is earned for good behavior, and Paul ruled that out in Rom 4:4,5 and Eph 2:8,9. So you're wrong.

Rom 9:15-16 KJV For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. (16) So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.

​

It is applicable to salvation, but you don't want it to be, because it undercuts your view. The connection with salvation is in the whole story of Israel coming out of Egypt, which is a type or picture of salvation of the believer. Sorry that's apparently beyond your understanding....

Can you explain to me how being pleased to save those who believe isn't a choice by God? Burden of proof is on you to prove that you do grasp it. Well, do you?

I understand it better than you evidently, and no, I don't have to prove anything. What are you going to do, demand that I prove it?

If you really can, why haven't you? Why the stalling? 1 Cor 1:21 says exactly what it means; God is well pleased to save those who believe. And that is clearly a choice that God made. God does the saving, not man. It's God's choice to save believers.

But, go ahead, and tell me what the verse "really" says.

There you go again, making demands. And yet you bristle at that being pointed out and demand proof. Consistently inconsistent.
I don't have to prove on demand from you. Pearls, etc....

 

[FreeGrace2]

Can you explain the difference?

I have a feeling you think perseverance of the saints is something it's not.

Preservation of the saints refers to OSAS.

Perseverance of the saints refers to a true believer never leaving the faith.

 

[FreeGrace2]

There is no basis for Salvation without the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Foundationally, yes. But in order to be saved, one must believe. Christ's death did not save anyone. I know that will shock the troops.

Faith in His death, burial, and resurrection is what allows the benefits of those acts to be applied to the believer, thereby moving him beyond the penalty of death for sins, and into the Kingdom of God. With the work of Christ, there is no Salvation.

I've never argued otherwise.

FG2, you need to go back and learn the first things, because you're way off base here. Shockingly off base.

Show me anything that you claim is off base. Please.

 

[Hammster]

So you can't reconcile WHY God said what He said to Pharoah given your theology? Well, at least you admit it.

I told you why He said what He did. He wasn't causing Pharoah to resist Him. He was allowing Pharoah to live longer so that God could show His power to him and the rest of the world.

If God was causing Pharoah to be hardened actively, then Ex 9:17 makes no sense whatsoever.

Okay. So you don't believe that God hardened Pharaoh's heart?

 

[Walter2013]

Can you point to any inconsistency?

It's inconsistent to deny the Calvinist's idea of God sovereignly choosing who will be saved and thus on the one hand you affirm some kind of libertarian free will, yet on the other hand deny it when it comes to staying saved. If a person used their free will to believe, they can use their free will to stop believing, and God doesn't save people who hate Jesus.

Here's why. The Bible is as clear on OSAS as it is on the scope of the atonement.

Where?

First, I'm not on your 'side'. I thought I made that clear. I do accept some of your views, just as I accept a number from Calvinists. We all agree that salvation is by faith in Christ. That's Biblical.

You and I are on the same side... we both deny Calvanism.

I find no verses on loss of salvation. I understand that you think the warning passages are those. They aren't. They are about loss of fellowship, not relationship, and or loss of rewards, both temporally and/or eternally.

So you think God is going to save people who hate Jesus?

Second, I apologize that you are offended. Can you show me anything that has been directed to you that you take as condescending? Thanks.

Nothing directed at me... just everyone else.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Here is what I posted:

Where have I "demanded" anything from anyone? You and another poster keep claiming that I have demanded things. But where? Do you actually have proof, or would that be just a bit too inconvenient for you?

You need to prove your silly charges. They are empty without proof. And you don't have any proof. Just those empty charges.

And here is how griff dodged:

If your premise is basically that God not supplying a savior to someone to give them a chance means they have some kind of excuse before God, that inherently implies that in order for God to be just, he must treat everyone equally with respect to Jesus' atoning work. Therefore, you cannot stand the thought of God sovereignly saving who he chooses. Yay logic.

How do you know what I cannot stand? Are you omniscient? Of course you aren't. So quit making silly statements that are obviously in error.

And, where is the proof of your earlier charge that I am demanding anything? From this post, it appears that you have no proof at all. Just more empty charges.

The Bible SAYS that Jesus tasted death for all (everyone, as most Koine Greek language experts understood Heb 2:9), and I believe it. So yes, God WAS fair to everyone by providing a Savior for everyone (the world-Jn 1:29, 4:42, 1 Tim 4:10, 1 Jn 2:2).

Why do you have a problem with God being fair? Can't sovereign God be fair to His creatures? Is that so hard to believe?