Calvinism provides an excuse for those in hell

[Hammster]

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.


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.


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

I don't make an example of those thing equating eternal life. I'm not even sure how you came to that conclusion. The point was to show how a gift doesn't have to be something that you can accept or reject. Is that understood now?

 

[Hammster]

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?

I explained that in the very first post regarding this subject.

 

[FreeGrace2]

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

So you do believe that there is an "our part" to receiving eternal life?

 

[Hammster]

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.


That doesn't prove your claims.


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.

And again, while this may be true, you've yet to show why it's an excuse. So you've yet to prove your claim. So there really nothing to refute.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Their names not being written in the book of life is a consequence of their rejection of God.

They rejected the free gift.

As such, their sins lead them to damnation. The wages of Sin is death.

No, they don't have eternal life, and cannot live with Him eternally. That simple.

I thought you insisted that man was created to seek God?

Sure. What does that have to do with being born an unbeliever? I see no relevance here at all? Are you just asking questions as fillers, or to waste time, or what, exactly?

[/QUOTE]So what? This is believed by most Christians. What's your point?[/QUOTE]
Faith in Christ is the basis for eternal life.

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.

I'd really love to see any post of mine where I "berated Calvinists for not being readers of God's mind". That's what's rich. I invite you to. We'll see if you are up to the challenge.

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

Sure. He didn't believe God's promise.

 

[FreeGrace2]

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

Well, then that just makes us even, huh.

 

[Hammster]

So you do believe that there is an "our part" to receiving eternal life?

I don't. I believe God regenerate His chosen people and then they believe resulting in justification.

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)

But I was asking you a question. Would you care to answer it?

 

[Hammster]

Well, then that just makes us even, huh.

Well, except that you have been refuted. Other than that, we are both sinners in need of a savior. On that, we are even.

 

[FreeGrace2]

about what the text means, but don't tell us that we don't base our beliefs on Scripture.

Sure I will. Where is the verse that teaches limited atonement? Where is the verse that says that God chooses who will believe (your view of election)?

When you can show me those, I'll back off. Fair enough?

It is one thing to argue that what we are saying the text means is not actually what it means.

Yes, it is. And none of the texts you provide SAY what you claim they MEAN.

Which is what makes all this so much fun.

That does not lead to us denying what the Scriptures and not looking to them for the basis of our beliefs.

Then find some verses that actually SAY what you believe, then, and I'll back off, ok?

Your argumentation falls under genetic fallacy.

Oh, that's a good one. What exactly is "genetic fallacy". Sounds like something that is inherited. LOL

 

[FreeGrace2]

“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.

I'm real sorry for you in not being able to connect the dots between John 3:16 and 6:40 with Rev 20:15. I guess there's just nothing I can do to help you.

 

[FreeGrace2]

I don't make an example of those thing equating eternal life. I'm not even sure how you came to that conclusion. The point was to show how a gift doesn't have to be something that you can accept or reject. Is that understood now?

But if it doesn't relate to the gift of eternal life, you have just wasted your time.

 

[FreeGrace2]

I said this:

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.

And hammster says this:

And again, while this may be true, you've yet to show why it's an excuse. So you've yet to prove your claim. So there really nothing to refute.

Since you are unable to see what is so obvious, I guess there's nothing I can do about what you can't or won't see.

The "only difference" part is the excuse.

 

[FreeGrace2]

I don't. I believe God regenerate His chosen people and then they believe resulting in justification.

How come you can't find any verses that SAY that?
hose whom he justified he also glorified. (Romans 8:28-30 ESV)

But I was asking you a question. Would you care to answer it?

Given the speed of posts here, go ahead and re-ask.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Well, except that you have been refuted.

I said that we're "even". So seems we have refuted each other. LOL

Other than that, we are both sinners in need of a savior. On that, we are even.

True. Just sad that you don't see the errors of your ways. And you don't have any verses that SAY what you CLAIM. Sad indeed.

And I've given you verses that actually SAY what I believe.

So, no, we're not even.

 

[Charis kai Dunamis]

Sure I will. Where is the verse that teaches limited atonement? Where is the verse that says that God chooses who will believe (your view of election)? When you can show me those, I'll back off. Fair enough?

I just quoted them and you didn't respond. And here you are, not backing off.

Yes, it is. And none of the texts you provide SAY what you claim they MEAN.

Which is what makes all this so much fun.

Okay well your claim is just as credible as mine in and of itself, which is why we have forums like this, so we can debate. I am still waiting for comments over in soteriology on John 10, which I feel I have defended pretty well so far. You are welcome to continue debating over there.

Then find some verses that actually SAY what you believe, then, and I'll back off, ok?

This kind of talk is self defeating and disingenuous. No matter what verses I post, you will disagree with my interpretation and claim they don't say what I think they say. There is absolutely no single verse that I could post by itself that you would so clearly accept, and that is because you, like I, have presuppositions we bring to the table.

Oh, that's a good one. What exactly is "genetic fallacy". Sounds like something that is inherited. LOL

Simply stunning.

Genetic fallacy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[guuila]

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

In other words, you have no answer. Fair enough. Not sure why you can't just be honest about that. Then again, Christian behavior is optional in your theology.

 

[guuila]

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

So a person who hates Jesus at some point in their life is more sanctified than when they supposedly believed in Jesus prior to that? Huh.

 

[Hammster]

I'm real sorry for you in not being able to connect the dots between John 3:16 and 6:40 with Rev 20:15. I guess there's just nothing I can do to help you.

I'm sorry that you don't understand that those whose names are written in the book of life will be saved. It's not being saved that gets their name in the book.

 

[Hammster]

But if it doesn't relate to the gift of eternal life, you have just wasted your time.

Not if the word for gift is the same. And unless you can show that one gift can be rejected, while another cannot, then your claim that the gift of eternal life rings hollow. But go ahead and try. We'll wait.

 

[Hammster]

I said this:

And hammster says this:

Since you are unable to see what is so obvious, I guess there's nothing I can do about what you can't or won't see.

The "only difference" part is the excuse.

Your claim remains unproven, just as I said. If it's so obvious, you would have no problem explaining it.

So go ahead. We'll wait.