Calvinism provides an excuse for those in hell

[crimsonleaf]

deleted

 

[RisingSpirit]

....That is the problem with non-Calvinistic thinking....

Is FG an Open Theist?

 

[crimsonleaf]

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.

You seem to be forgetting that their faith was the reason they got eternal life in the first place.

The promise he made was to believers, remember? Not people who don't believe. Perseverance of the Saints is about continued belief; I can see why you clarified the difference in your belief.

Man: "Hey God, I believe in you."
God: "Well done my son, have eternal life"

The next day:

Man: "Hey God, I've changed my mind - you suck and I hate you".
God: "Darn it, fooled again... OK, keep the eternal life. Live a life of debauchery and I'll see you later for an eternity of jollies"

And cobbling together half a dozen unrelated verses from various books won't make the above biblical.

 

[Hammster]

You seem to be forgetting that their faith was the reason they got eternal life in the first place.

Man: "Hey God, I believe in you."
God: "Well done my son, have eternal life"

The next day:

Man: "Hey God, I've changed my mind - you suck and I hate you".
God: "Darn it, fooled again... OK, keep the eternal life. Live a life of debauchery and I'll see you later for an eternity of jollies"

If that's the case, I think I'll remain a believer, but live a debauched lifestyle. Why not? Praise God for hedonism.

 

[guuila]

I wish I were dealing with reasonable people.

I wish we were all as good as you are.

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.

So God forces people to be saved who don't want to be saved. Gotcha. Must suck being an atheist who grew up in a Christian family and believed at one time. Sorry dude, you're going to heaven anyway LOLZ!!!!!!! Question - was Judas saved?

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.

Doesn't matter. Faith can't be ultimately lost because faith is something God supplies. Not something the sinner produces. John 3:16 says whoever believes (active, present participle) has eternal life. It doesn't say "whoever believed" has eternal life. If you believe and then stop believing, there are two possibilities:

1. You had eternal life and lost it.
2. You had dead faith.

Your view is unbiblical and quite frankly, heretical.

Just meditate on 2 Tim 2:13.

Look at one verse prior:

if we deny him, he also will deny us; (2 Timothy 2:12 ESV)

Another goodie:

And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment, so Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him. (Hebrews 9:27-28 ESV)

But you're teaching us that Jesus is going to come save people who hate him? Yeah, no.

 

[guuila]

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

Right. Then there's that guy named Jesus. Remember?

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?

Not receiving eternal life would only come about because of sin. Which you say Jesus paid for. Talking in circles. Again. Show us where the Bible teaches a person without sin goes to hell.

 

[nobdysfool]

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,

And why don't they have eternal life? Because they didn't believe.

Unbelief is a sin. You say it was paid for. Logically then, their unbelief is paid for so they can't be punished for it.

What's to prevent them from entering heaven? Can't be unbelief, because that sin has already been paid for according to you.

Can one receive eternal life, yet not believe?

Can one believe, yet not receive eternal life?

If they believe, they receive eternal life.

If they don't believe, they don't receive eternal life, and are thrown into hell.

What are they thrown into hell for? You say for not receiving eternal life.

And why is that? Because they didn't believe, i.e. they are guilty of unbelief.

Therefore, they are thrown into hell for the sin of unbelief, which prevented them from receiving eternal life. Yet you claim that sin was paid for. But, people are thrown into hell for a paid-for sin under your theology. That is the logical end result when we examine your doctrine closely. It's inescapable.

Therefore, your doctrine is wrong, because you ignore the fact that the reason people are thrown into hell in your doctrine is, in fact because of sin, despite your repeated, vehement denials.

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.

Oh, there's an agenda alright, but it's not being carried by any Calvinist here. It's blatantly obvious. We have dealt with your view, picked it apart, and found it wanting in logic and consistency. It's based on faulty understanding of the Scriptures you have cited as "proof". and you refuse to be corrected. Why should we listen to you? You don't know what you're talking about.

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

It may be more "tolerable" for some, but it's still not a place I want to be....

 

[RisingSpirit]

[SIZE=+1] There are [/SIZE][SIZE=+1]requirements in the [/SIZE][SIZE=+1]"pentecostal church"
for retaining salvation. Very easy compared
to what God in His Word requires !

"Love the Lord your God with all your heart
and with all your soul and with all your mind.
Love your neighbor as yourself."
(Matthew 22:37-40 NIV 1984 Edition)

And there is no 'try to' or 'do your best' here. Perfect God expects
perfect obedience ! You got to be 100% sinless 100% of the time.



Egyptian paganism and, later, Jewish Pharisees taught that we're
weighed on a balancing scale. If our good deeds outweigh are sins,
we're saved. If our sins outweigh our good deeds, we go to Hell.

Sacred Scripture knows nothing of such relativism ! When the
Hebrews were given the Decalogue, they replied: "We will do
everything the Lord has said" (Exodus 19:8) ...the only acceptable
answer.

Not 'we will do most of what the Lord has said'. Or, 'a lot of it'. Or,
'give it a good try'.

No. It was "everything the Lord has said" !

And -if keeping our salvation depends upon what we do- we must be
perfect as God is perfect (Matthew 5:48). Though in reality:

"If we claim to be without sin, we deceive
ourselves and the truth is not in us"
(1 John 1:8 NIV 1984 Edition)

Though as Christians we attempt perfection (out of gratitude for our
redemption), happily our salvation does not depend upon it. Or we'd
all be in Hell.



Things like praying and membership in a True Church are SIGNS of
salvation rather than MEANS of salvation.

An old Reformation adage: "We aren't saved by our works, but neither
do we have a salvation which has no works".

Salvation requires perfect works. There has to be perfect works !
Christians rely upon the perfect works of Jesus Christ for redemption.
[/SIZE]

 

[FreeGrace2]

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.

There is nothing in Scripture that says what Calvinism claims, such as:
#1 God chooses for salvation without unconditionally
#2 Christ died ONLY for the elect

So, why do you believe them?

 

[FreeGrace2]

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

Do you really think anyone in heaven will resist? Aren't you aware of the fact that when our souls leave our fallen bodies, we no longer will have the sin nature? Where have you been?

Just check out the Scriptures that speak about that.

 

[FreeGrace2]

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?

Of course.

 

[Hammster]

There is nothing in Scripture that says what Calvinism claims, such as:
#1 God chooses for salvation without unconditionally
#2 Christ died ONLY for the elect

So, why do you believe them?

One more time.

What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God’s part? By no means! For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills. You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” But 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— even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles? (Romans 9:14-24 ESV)

^^^Calvinism

And for extra measure:

And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose. For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified. (Romans 8:28-30 ESV)

 

[FreeGrace2]

Is FG an Open Theist?

Of course not. God is omniscient. Open theism denies that fact.

 

[Hammster]

Do you really think anyone in heaven will resist? Aren't you aware of the fact that when our souls leave our fallen bodies, we no longer will have the sin nature? Where have you been?

Just check out the Scriptures that speak about that.

So no scripture? That's what I thought.

 

[Hammster]

Of course.

If you can reject the gift, as you've claimed (assuming by free will), why can't you reject the wage?

 

[FreeGrace2]

You seem to be forgetting that their faith was the reason they got eternal life in the first place.

So what? Why don't you think that God would keep His end of His promise? Are you Arminian?

The promise he made was to believers, remember?

Actually, the promise is for everyone. Those who believe receive the gift. I thought everyone knew that.

Not people who don't believe.

Wrong. See above.

Perseverance of the Saints is about continued belief; I can see why you clarified the difference in your belief.

You can't any verse to support your doctrine. Paul's entire thrust to believers was to "continue in the faith". I thought everyone knew that.

Man: "Hey God, I believe in you."
God: "Well done my son, have eternal life"

The next day:

Man: "Hey God, I've changed my mind - you suck and I hate you".
God: "Darn it, fooled again... OK, keep the eternal life. Live a life of debauchery and I'll see you later for an eternity of jollies"

Just another stupid "illustration" that lowers God to not being omniscient.

It's pretty clear that you guys have very little understanding of what GRACE really means.

And cobbling together half a dozen unrelated verses from various books won't make the above biblical.

You can call them anything you care to. I don't care.

 

[FreeGrace2]

If that's the case, I think I'll remain a believer, but live a debauched lifestyle. Why not? Praise God for hedonism.

That would be an extremely stupid decision to make. Why? You'll not only lose out on reward in eternity (there is no equality there) but the "skinning alive with a whip" verse in Heb 12 isn't something I'd take lightly.

But knock yourself out.

 

[Hammster]

Of course not. God is omniscient. Open theism denies that fact.

Well, technically it doesn't. It just says that God cannot know the future because the future hasn't happened yet. But it holds that God knows everything else.

Just wanted to clear up that misconception.

 

[Hammster]

That would be an extremely stupid decision to make. Why? You'll not only lose out on reward in eternity (there is no equality there) but the "skinning alive with a whip" verse in Heb 12 isn't something I'd take lightly.

But knock yourself out.

Why would God discipline me? Didn't He give me free will and eternal life?

 

[FreeGrace2]

I wish we were all as good as you are.

But you're teaching us that Jesus is going to come save people who hate him? Yeah, no.

How about you just focusing on the OP? You're way out in the weeds.

Can you refute the OP or not? If not, there's no reason to post. Your posts are nothing more than so much smokescreen that we're all probably going to get lung cancer.

So, focus on the OP. I'm not interested in your distractions. But since you can't refute the OP, you have nothing else to do.