Calvinism provides an excuse for those in hell

[FreeGrace2]

I agree with your definition. I'm not arguing for open theism. I was just correcting your error. I thought you'd appreciate it.

Once again, what so-called "error" are you speaking about? You didn't correct anything.

 

[FreeGrace2]

But according to your theology, He must not be a very good one. Heck, I would be a better parent than Him if your theology were correct.

You're going to have to explain yourself here. HOW is God not such a good "parent" in my theology?

It seems to me that Calvinists have a very limited understanding of spiritual growth of the believer.

And what does Heb 12 mean if God doesn't use discipline on His children?

And, no, you would definitely NOT be a better parent than God in "my theology".

You would most likely be a very good puppeteer, for sure.

 

[Hammster]

Please show me an "error" that I didn't correct.

Almost all of your views. The OP is the most immediate.

 

[FreeGrace2]

I said this:

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?

And hammster repeats himself with this:

I'm sure that this was overlooked, even though it's relevant to the OP.

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)

Sorry, but none of these verses say anything about God choosing for salvation unconditionally, or that Christ died ONLY for the elect.

You can cut and paste all you want, but you can't come up with any verse that SAYS what you CLAIM.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Go back and read. I'm not going to waste my time doing your homework.

Your loss.

Oh do you have a thread I'm not aware of?

It's quite clear that there are a very lot of things that you seem unaware of.

Fine. How about a person who says, "Yes I believe in God, and I hate him." I know a guy like that. He used to profess to be a Christian. So God is going to force him into heaven now?

Tell you what: that's God's problem, not mine. I don't speak for Him. I just believe what I read in Scripture.

You're so smart.

So what?

 

[Hammster]

Thanks for the opporunity to correct a Calvinist. Which I love doing.

I gave you an answer. But you simply refuse to face it, apparently. Which is your free right.


While I won't argue that regeneration isn't a gift, I've never seen it described that way in Scripture. Eternal life IS described as a free gift.

Please explain how a gift that isn't received is "effective". First define what "be effective" means in this context. Second, explain how a gift not received does anything for the one who didn't receive it.

I think you're losing it. None of this makes any sense.

If I went to make a house payment, and the bank wouldn't take my money because someone had paid off my mortgage, would that be a gift that I partake of that I couldn't even refuse?

How about this. Are spiritual gifts "gifts"? You cannot refuse a spiritual gift. You may not use it, or use it incorrectly. But you cannot refuse it.

There's two examples. You need to stop looking at a gift as a present. They aren't always the same.

 

[FreeGrace2]

I said this:

Christ's death did secure salvation (eternal life) for everyone, but no one gets it apart from faith.

So, griff comes up with this bit of stuff:

Right. It potentially secured it. Now it's up to us to do our part! LOL fail.

Fail is right! He fails totally to grasp anything I post, apparently.

When Christ purchased eternal life, He actually has and holds it. It ain't potential. It's real. And there isn't anything about "our part" as griff insinuates. Apparently he denies what God's will is, but Jn 6:40 is clear enough for the rest of us, hopefully.

“For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day.”

I find it very interesting that Calvinists only pay lip service to faith. While they acknowledge that no one is saved apart from faith, they deny that it is a condition, even though Paul made that crystal clear in Acts 16:31.

 

[Hammster]

Once again, what so-called "error" are you speaking about? You didn't correct anything.

Your view of what open theists believe was in error. It's okay, though. It's a common one.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Considering the fact that I have personally seen several people call you out for being snarky and condescending, you might really want to think about what you just said.

Contrary to your own opinion, I always think about what I say.

It will be fulfilled then, but it begins at the moment of regeneration.

I never said otherwise. Of course it begins at the new birth.

 

[Hammster]

I said this:

And hammster repeats himself with this:

Sorry, but none of these verses say anything about God choosing for salvation unconditionally, or that Christ died ONLY for the elect.

You can cut and paste all you want, but you can't come up with any verse that SAYS what you CLAIM.

But it does say that God chooses whom to show mercy. It does say that He is just in doing so. It does say that those He doesn't chose have no excuse.

And Romans 8:28-30 does say that He only calls those He foreknows.

These are what Calvinism teaches. This refutes your OP. The only way to get around that is to disagree with scripture.

 

[Hammster]

I said this:

So, griff comes up with this bit of stuff:

Fail is right! He fails totally to grasp anything I post, apparently.

When Christ purchased eternal life, He actually has and holds it. It ain't potential. It's real. And there isn't anything about "our part" as griff insinuates. Apparently he denies what God's will is, but Jn 6:40 is clear enough for the rest of us, hopefully.

“For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day.”

I find it very interesting that Calvinists only pay lip service to faith. While they acknowledge that no one is saved apart from faith, they deny that it is a condition, even though Paul made that crystal clear in Acts 16:31.

If there's no "our part", how do we acquire this eternal life?

 

[crimsonleaf]

I believe that because Rev 20:15 tells us WHY people are thrown into hell; for not having eternal life.

Their names not being written in the book of life is a consequence of their rejection of God. As such, their sins lead them to damnation. The wages of Sin is death.

Because men are born unbelievers, and faith is only way to receive eternal life.

I thought you insisted that man was created to seek God? How does an unbeliever seek something he doesn't believe in? Not very joined up thinking is it?

John 3:18,36
18“He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
36“He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.”

Do you believe these verses? If you do, you shouldn't have any problem with my view.

So what? This is believed by most Christians. What's your point?

You're asking a question that I can't answer. It's all God's plan. You're going to have to ask Him. Why don't you? Maybe He'll enlighten you some.

That's rich. You quietly slip away from answering questions about God's thinking having spent most of the thread berating Calvinists for not being readers of God's mind. Hypocrite.

That's what the Bible indicates. You gots to have eternal life to live with God eternally, unless you want to argue against that. Which wouldn't be very intelligent, if you ask me.

Not entirely. Why didn't man accept the gift? Answer that and you have the answer to why he's in hell.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Sorta.

Nothing "sorta" about it.

And if anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire. (Revelation 20:15 ESV)

It does say that those whose names aren't written in the book if life were thrown into the lake of fire. But it never says that their names are in there because they accepted a gift.

Why do you demand specific wording here? We know HOW one receives eternal life from John 3:16, 6:40, and others.

That's the part you have somehow interjected into this scenario.

You have quite an imagination.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Almost all of your views. The OP is the most immediate.

Claims are not even close to refutation. I thought most people knew that.

 

[Hammster]

Claims are not even close to refutation. I thought most people knew that.

And claiming that you haven't been refuted is just that. A claim.

 

[FreeGrace2]

If I went to make a house payment, and the bank wouldn't take my money because someone had paid off my mortgage, would that be a gift that I partake of that I couldn't even refuse?

Nice example, but do you really want to equate a mortgage to Christ's payment on the cross? Really? You need a better example if you are serious about discussing the benefit and results of Christ's atonement. And "mortgage" doesn't cut it.

How about this. Are spiritual gifts "gifts"? You cannot refuse a spiritual gift. You may not use it, or use it incorrectly. But you cannot refuse it.

Again, doesn't equate with Christ's purchase of a gift. That is the model. And THAT gift must be received, unlike all your examples, which don't equate to the gift of eternal life.

There's two examples. You need to stop looking at a gift as a present. They aren't always the same.

In fact, you need to stop making "examples" of what doesn't even come close to equating Christ's work on the cross.

 

[Charis kai Dunamis]

There is nothing in Scripture that says what Calvinism claims, such as:
#1 God chooses for salvation without unconditionally

Eph. 1:3-5 [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will,

#2 Christ died ONLY for the elect

John 10:14-15 - I am the good shepherd. I know my own and my own know me, just as the Father knows me and I know the Father; and I lay down my life for the sheep.

You can argue with us about what the text means, but don't tell us that we don't base our beliefs on Scripture. It is one thing to argue that what we are saying the text means is not actually what it means. That does not lead to us denying what the Scriptures and not looking to them for the basis of our beliefs. Your argumentation falls under genetic fallacy.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Your view of what open theists believe was in error. It's okay, though. It's a common one.

Sweet. Take a shot, but don't back it up with anything. But I guess you have nothing else to do today.

What was in error of my view of open theism?

 

[Hammster]

Nothing "sorta" about it.


Why do you demand specific wording here? We know HOW one receives eternal life from John 3:16, 6:40, and others.


You have quite an imagination.

“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. (John 3:16 ESV)

Those who are believing receive eternal life. Okay. Nothing about why some people's names aren't in the book of life. And nothing about believing being the reason that names are in the book of life.

For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.” (John 6:40 ESV)

Same here. You are very non-specific in your views. That's probably why you have trouble finding whole passages to support your erroneous claims. You need to through together a mishmash of ideas that are linked by your presuppositions.

 

[FreeGrace2]

But it does say that God chooses whom to show mercy. It does say that He is just in doing so. It does say that those He doesn't chose have no excuse.

Yes, of course. But your pet passage does NOT tell us upon what criterion He chooses to show mercy. But Isa 55:7 DOES do that.
Let the wicked forsake his way
And the unrighteous man his thoughts;
And let him return to the LORD,
And He will have compassion on him,
And to our God,
For He will abundantly pardon.

And Romans 8:28-30 does say that He only calls those He foreknows.

That doesn't prove your claims.

These are what Calvinism teaches. This refutes your OP. The only way to get around that is to disagree with scripture.

Hardly. I've already shown that those in hell are there because they weren't chosen to be in heaven, as your theology teaches that ONLY the elect go to heaven. So don't tell me what refutes my OP. You still haven't, because you can't.

First, you tried by saying hell dwellers are there for sin. Ha! Even the elect are sinners, and some way wrose than many in hell. So that's no reason at all.

The only diference is who God chose to live with Him. Period. You cannot refute my OP.