Calvinism provides an excuse for those in hell

[crimsonleaf]

Well, that was fun.

Well said Walter.

 

[guuila]

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.

In FreeGrace2ism, sinners that end up in hell have an excuse. If Bob ends up in hell, he can say to God "You didn't make me as wise and in tune with spiritual things as you did FreeGrace2. If you would've made me as wise and humble as him, the Gospel would've been good news to me instead of foolishness. If I would've been born with FreeGrace2's brain and circumstances, I would've submitted myself to Jesus. Therefore it's not fair I'm in hell!"

 

[nobdysfool]

Originally Posted by griff

So Christ died for the sin of unbelief, yet unbelievers will be in hell?
​

Since your comment here was in relation to my comment here:

Wrong. Where were you when I explained all this? Christ purchased eternal life for everyone by His death, but only those who receive the free gift of eternal life are saved. Do you understand this? If I'm wrong, can you refute it?
​

It's obvious that you do not understand this. Instead of refuting anything, you just asked another question.

Yeah, we do really have a hard time with logically inconsistent statements...if the sin of unbelief was paid for for everyone, how is it that people are sent to hell for not believing (which is another way of saying that they didn't receive the gift of eternal life, because they didn't believe it)? Your view is logically inconsistent. You have people being sent to hell for a sin they've already been forgiven of, because there can be no eternal life without the forgiveness of sins.

If the sin has been paid for, it can no longer be charged to the sinner's account. By claiming that all the sins of everyone have been paid for, there no longer remains a sin that can be charged to anyone's account. Yet, if people don't accept the gift of eternal life, which involves believing on Christ, and receiving Him into their hearts, they will be sent to hell, and the reason is because they didn't believe, which is a sin that has already been paid for. so how can the unbeliever be charged again for a sin that has already been paid for? sounds like double jeopardy to me, and God doesn't play that game.

You got some 'splainin' to do.....

 

[guuila]

Yeah, we do really have a hard time with logically inconsistent statements...if the sin of unbelief was paid for for everyone, how is it that people are sent to hell for not believing (which is another way of saying that they didn't receive the gift of eternal life, because they didn't believe it)? Your view is logically inconsistent. You have people being sent to hell for a sin they've already been forgiven of, because there can be no eternal life without the forgiveness of sins.

It's kind of like telling my son, "If you touch my computer, I'm going to spank you. Well, I'll tell you what. If you touch it, I'm going to spank your sister instead. Her spanking will count as yours." only to have him touch my computer, and then I spank his sister and then him afterwards. It's like WTH?? I thought the sister already absorbed the penalty? That means out of one side of my mouth I'm saying his sister's spanking is sufficient to satisfy me for his disobedience, and then out of the other side of my mouth I'm saying her spanking wasn't sufficient, that I'm going to need to spank him after all. Total doublespeak.

If the sin has been paid for, it can no longer be charged to the sinner's account. By claiming that all the sins of everyone have been paid for, there no longer remains a sin that can be charged to anyone's account. Yet, if people don't accept the gift of eternal life, which involves believing on Christ, and receiving Him into their hearts, they will be sent to hell, and the reason is because they didn't believe, which is a sin that has already been paid for. so how can the unbeliever be charged again for a sin that has already been paid for? sounds like double jeopardy to me, and God doesn't play that game.

You got some 'splainin' to do.....

Yeah, he says they go to hell because they don't possess eternal life, not because of their sin of unbelief. However, the only way a person wouldn't possess eternal life is if they are guilty of sin. You can't have "I'm innocent of sin AND I don't have eternal life." The wages of sin is death. He seems to forget that. I've never seen such inconsistency.

 

[Don Maurer]

Quickens the human spirit, so that the believer can worship God. Jn 4:24

Astonishing! Did anyone else pay attention to this? He just makes stuff up. So tell me, in your opinion, what is the difference between being born again, or begotten of God, and regeneration?

Define "quickens the human spirit"

 

[FreeGrace2]

All people deserve hell whether or not God chose to save them.

Not since the promise by God that all sins would be paid for by His Son as a sacrifice.

For Freegrace2 to be consistent, he'd have to say that if God chose to save zero people (but let all humanity perish into hell for their sins), they would have an excuse: God didn't choose to save them. The fact that they deserve hell for their sins is completely missing from his argument.

This is totally disingenuous of you, but what is new. Everyone deserves hell for their sins, but Christ died for the sins of the whole world, which none of you will acknowledge.

But of course, that would require consistency. So it'll never happen.

It seem, rather, that what will never happen is you understanding my position.

 

[FreeGrace2]

I don't believe in OSAS. I believe in Perseverance of the Saints. So, until you can offer a logical argument as to *how* exactly heaven won't contain people who hate God, your position remains incoherent.

What's truly sad is that it appears that any non Calvinistic position is incoherent to you. Regardless of how many times I've repeated myself, seems you just aren't getting it.

And, as to your question here, you have again "moved the goal post". The original statement ascribed to me was that "heaven would be FILLED with those who hate God". Now it's just "contain", not FILLED. See the difference.

With such disingenuous arguments and goal post moving, it's impossible to have a meaningful discussion with you. But that's not your intent, I presume.

 

[guuila]

And, as to your question here, you have again "moved the goal post". The original statement ascribed to me was that "heaven would be FILLED with those who hate God". Now it's just "contain", not FILLED. See the difference.

Good grief man. I swear if I don't use the exact wording you'd prefer, you miss the point I'm making. Sorry I said FILLED. What I'm trying to say is, the position you're promoting allows for (until you prove otherwise) the fact that there could in theory be AT LEAST ONE person in heaven who hates God.

With such disingenuous arguments and goal post moving, it's impossible to have a meaningful discussion with you. But that's not your intent, I presume.

You're doing everything you can to avoid the point I'm making.

 

[FreeGrace2]

FreeGrace2's position:

The reprobate's sin is fully paid for. They just go to hell for their disbelief.

How many times to I have to correct all your errors. I've never said that. They go to hell for NOT having eternal life, but that doesn't fit your agenda, huh. It's much easier to attack some straw man than to actually deal with my view, which you know you can't defeat.

Once they go to hell, the degree of punishment they receive... is due to their sin.

You can take this up with the Lord Jesus, who Himself noted that "it will be more tolerable" for some than for others.

Matt 10:15, 11:22, 24 Luke 10:12,14

 

[FreeGrace2]

Getting back to the OP,

This is what Calvinism teaches. Excuse? I think not.

I never said that is what Calvinism teaches. I said it is what Calvinism provides the hell dwellers, an excuse.

Of course you don't teach it, though you provide an excuse. But you sure don't like the charge, which is true.

 

[FreeGrace2]

That is the problem with non-Calvinistic thinking.

You accuse Calvinists of believing in a "mean, uncaring God" but you cannot escape the same conclusion if you believe God foreknows all things.

Where did I accuse Calvinists of any such thing? Could you provide a post # please? These phony charges are a real cheap shot.

Calvinists rightly believe God saves some who are damned to hell for their sin while non-Calvinists believe God owes salvation to all and if He doesn't try (but prevented from accomplishing by human freewill) to save all He isn't God.

I don't believe that God owes anyone anything. So your assessment is wrong.

I believe that God, in grace, promises eternal life for those who believe. Do you disagree with this?

The God of Arminianism or non-Calvinistic theologies presents a weak, unbiblical god subservient to human freewill.

Which doesnt describe my theology even a little bit. But maybe you just don't comprehend it.

 

[FreeGrace2]

This whole premise is actually incorrect.

As we'll see in just a bit, your claim is wrong.

As Paul teaches in Romans 5, all humanity in Adam goes to hell for the sin of the one.

Actually, there is no mention of hell in Romans 5. There is mention of condemnation based on sin.

And, if Paul did teach that, why is anyone in heaven, then? Men are condemned based on unbelief. With belief, one receives eternal life. Apart from belief, one remains condemned.

If you would like to know more of the Reformed position on imputation, I suggest you read John Murray. William Shedd also has interesting views regarding Traducianism which may give you some insight.

I reject Traducianism as unbiblical. There is no Biblical reason to believe it.

 

[guuila]

How many times to I have to correct all your errors. I've never said that. They go to hell for NOT having eternal life, but that doesn't fit your agenda, huh. It's much easier to attack some straw man than to actually deal with my view, which you know you can't defeat.

The only way a person would not have eternal life is if they have sin on their record. You have failed to show us where the Bible teaches that a person can have a clean record with no sin AND end up in hell. Of course, it's because the Bible teaches no such thing, but feel free to give it a go.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Astonishing! Did anyone else pay attention to this? He just makes stuff up.

Hey, DM. How could I "make up" Jn 4:24? Please explain. Your comment is just another cheap shot.

So tell me, in your opinion, what is the difference between being born again, or begotten of God, and regeneration?

Nothing. They all mean the same thing. If you differ, please share.

Define "quickens the human spirit"

To make alive.

 

[JM]

FreeGrace, you are whining.

Take sometime to cool down and re-read your posts. According to you everyone misunderstands your mighty intellect and witty argumentation, it is clearly above us dumb, incoherent Calvinists.

You are getting beat up on because of the straw man argument you started this thread with. Take it like a man (or maybe women?) cause you asked for it.



jm

 

[FreeGrace2]

Good grief man. I swear if I don't use the exact wording you'd prefer, you miss the point I'm making. Sorry I said FILLED. What I'm trying to say is, the position you're promoting allows for (until you prove otherwise) the fact that there could in theory be AT LEAST ONE person in heaven who hates God.

I wish I were dealing with reasonable people. Look, whoever has believed at one point and then lost their faith, and then died, will be MORE than glad that God still saved them, in spite of their loss of faith.

What kind of promise would God be making if He took away His gift of eternal life just because someone lost faith in Him? Pretty lousy, huh.

Just meditate on 2 Tim 2:13.

You're doing everything you can to avoid the point I'm making.

No, I'm rejecting the point you're making.

 

[FreeGrace2]

The only way a person would not have eternal life is if they have sin on their record.

If you were correct, then no one would ever have it, since we all begin life with Adam's sin on our record.

You have failed to show us where the Bible teaches that a person can have a clean record with no sin AND end up in hell.

I never said anything close to that. Your conclusions are based on false premises and failure to understand my view.

Everyone has sin, including the sinful elect, yet they go to heaven, because they received the gift of eternal life.

Those who didn't receive the gift that is available to everyone have no excuse for not receiving the free gift and end up in hell.

How hard can this be?

 

[Hammster]

I never said that is what Calvinism teaches. I said it is what Calvinism provides the hell dwellers, an excuse.

Of course you don't teach it, though you provide an excuse. But you sure don't like the charge, which is true.

Then your issue is with the scripture, not Calvinism. I posed a whole passage, in context. Which you neglected to post. Or give counter exegesis.

 

[Hammster]

I wish I were dealing with reasonable people. Look, whoever has believed at one point and then lost their faith, and then died, will be MORE than glad that God still saved them, in spite of their loss of faith.

Why do you make that assumption? Do you have scripture to back that up?

 

[Hammster]

If you were correct, then no one would ever have it, since we all begin life with Adam's sin on our record.


I never said anything close to that. Your conclusions are based on false premises and failure to understand my view.

Everyone has sin, including the sinful elect, yet they go to heaven, because they received the gift of eternal life.

Those who didn't receive the gift that is available to everyone have no excuse for not receiving the free gift and end up in hell.

How hard can this be?

For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. (Romans 6:23 ESV)

Is this where you get the idea of accepting or rejecting the gift?