Calvinism provides an excuse for those in hell

[Hammster]

FreeGrace is right.

In fact, Calvinism cannot provide verses that SAY what they believe, such as:
#1 Christ died ONLY for the elect
#2 God chooses who will believe

Calvinists also cannot provide verses that SAY that God is 3 in 1.

 

[Hammster]

Say what??!! Of course they will. Since you think I don't believe that, where did you get such a ridiculous idea? Is there a post of mine that you misunderstood? I've NEVER claimed such "stuff".


Oh, I see. It is you who misreads Scripture. But I'm always very happy to correct the errors of the Calvinists.

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

How do you come to your conclusions? How are the "non-saved" getting their names into the book of life? Please elaborate.

Well, that was fun.

I never said the unsaved are in the book. I said those who are in the book will be saved.

and all who dwell on earth will worship it, everyone whose name has not been written before the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who was slain. (Revelation 13:8 ESV)

When were the names written?

 

[FreeGrace2]

They rejected the free gift.

Why does the rejection of any gift result in punishment? you haven't explained.

Yes I have. Your eyes and mind are tightly closed. Not my problem.

Well, they do have eternal life, just not the sort they'd want.

Whatever you want to call it.

If man is born in unbelief then how does he seek God?

Such a simple question. I expected that you would know that. But I guess not, since your theology resembles more puppetry than Bible.

Your question insinuates that man must be born a believer in order to seek God. How ridiculous are your questions. But go ahead and keep asking them, and show the forum just how little you know. LOL

God created man to seek Him. If that has no meaning for you, that's your problem, not mine. The Bible says it. Being born that way, they have no excuse for not doing so. Those who seek will find. Very simple.

If you accept the doctrine of original sin as most Christians do, then you'll know that Man's disbelief is the result of Adam's sin.

Then "most Christians" haven't been taught properly, if you are correct. Original sin separated man from God. That is called spiritual death. I'm sure most believers understand that, though you seem unaware of that. Man is not born with the knowledge of the gospel. It must be preached to every creature (Mark 16:15).

When I pointed that out to you elsewhere I was derided by you. Double standard, contradiction and confusion is the hallmark of your so called theology.

All you've pointed out is how well you ask ridiculous questions. You haven't shown any double standard or contradition in my theology at all. You have shown your misunderstanding of it quite a bit, though.

Not forgetting the heresy of God taking unbelievers to his bosom and granting them eternal life.

While you don't seem to be able to discern between unbelievers, who have never believed, and believers who have not continued in the faith, that is not my problem. I've shown the verses. I suggest you read them and educate yourself.

You repeatedly asked us to explain why God chooses the elect.

Yep. Looking for an answer. And I got one. "we don't know why", and "for God's glory". Really? Choosing any of you or me brings Him glory? Really? You gotta be kidding!!

[QUTOE] We told you that we cannot know God's mind or reasons for his decision.

That would be a fine answer IF He hadn't revealed His plan in His Word. So you have no excuse to hide behind that bogus answer.

You repeatedly pressed the point like a broken record.

Just to try to get someone to answer. Which one of you finally did, but gave a bogus answer.

Now, when we ask you to do the same thing, all of a sudden you "can't know God's mind". Hypocrite.

It's just real tough that your so-called charge is bogus. What I was asked hasn't been revealed in Scripture, or I would have cited the verse.

But the answer to my question to Calvinists IS in Scripture, but you admit that you "can't know the mind of God". Yeah, right. Sure.

 

[Hammster]

Look, if you want to argue that God's gift of eternal life can be returned, knock yourself out and preach that to whoever will listen.

It can't. It can only be given. And not rejected.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Quite a pompous thing to say... no human you know of has the answer. I'm sure there are other FreeGrace2ists out there who can provide a better answer.

Then go ask one.

Um yeah. You believe Christians can hate Jesus.

I do? Where did you learn that?

That means progressive sanctification on this side of heaven is optional. Yay logic wins again.

Got news for you. The whole issue of spiritual growth is optional, in the sense of NOT being guaranteed. That's all I mean by "optional". I don't care what you think it means.

But in your land of puppetry, God pulls all the strings, and takes care of all that for you all. Right?

So, show me Scripture that teaches perseverance of the saints.

 

[Metal Minister]

It was demonstrated that he is in fact a 4 pointer. He won't admit it because he hates labels and being associated with history, but he is.

Oh, I know (but thank you for the update! ) I've been lurking quite a bit and was just wondering if he'd finally admitted it, so we MIGHT have a point of reference to understand what he's trying to say.

 

[Hammster]

I've shown you what the only difference is between the heaven and hell dwellers. It is that God chose the ones in heaven and Christ died ONLY for them.

But, since that obvious bit of FACT doesn't mean anything to you, then so be it.

I've proven it, and you haven't refuted it.

You have shown, however, that facts means nothing to you.

You've shown a difference. You still have yet to show why that excuses them.

We will wait.

 

[FreeGrace2]

What is it talking about?

You go first. I'd love to see your explanation.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Now, when you say "too" (also/as well) is this an admission of arminianism? Sorry, but you switch so much I'm having a hard time following!

Sad that you aren't paying attention very well. That "too" was in reference to another Calvinist who seemed to be arguing the Arminian side regarding OSAS.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Lol I love how we debated about this back and forth and you denied me this translation, and here you are using it.

You are disingenuous to the core. I've never denied that "pantos" in 2:9 means "all". Where have you been? Oh, right. Doesn't matter. You're on a mission, right? Mission of disingenuousness. LOL

 

[Hammster]

We have no part. Is that clear to you? iow, there is nothing we can do to help/assist/partner with God in His saving us. Is that clear?

All we can to is receive the gift. Is that clear? If you want to claim that the simple taking of a gift is "our part", then go ahead, and knock yourself out with it. It does not matter to you. You and your play partners love to play word games. Again, knock yourself out.

So our part is receiving (if we don't receive, no eternal life). Thanks.

Now, can you show one verse that SAYS you can reject the gift?

 

[FreeGrace2]

FreeGrace is right.

In fact, Calvinism cannot provide verses that SAY what they believe, such as:
#1 Christ died ONLY for the elect
#2 God chooses who will believe

Thank you for your admission. But it has been very obvious from the beginning.

Calvinists also cannot provide verses that SAY that God is 3 in 1.

As if that means anything relevant. LOL

 

[Hammster]

Thank you for your admission. But it has been very obvious from the beginning.


As if that means anything relevant. LOL

It's very relevant. We can't meet your challenge any more than we can meet the challenge of a Oneness dude.

I guess that point was lost on you, though. I should have been clearer.

 

[FreeGrace2]

I never said the unsaved are in the book. I said those who are in the book will be saved.

I'll give you the benefit of doubt. Probably a typo, but I included exactly what you SAID and it wasn't correct.

When were the names written?

Before the foundation of the world. While that probably means that supports your notion that God chose who would believe, it really speaks of His omniscience in who will believe. As usual, Calvinism has it wrong.

 

[FreeGrace2]

It can't. It can only be given. And not rejected.

Well, very good. Of course eternal life can't be rejected. So why all the silly questions and such? What point were you trying to make?

 

[FreeGrace2]

You've shown a difference. You still have yet to show why that excuses them.

We will wait.

The ONLY difference between the 2 groups is why there is an excuse. But I see that you aren't willing to receive truth today.

 

[FreeGrace2]

So our part is receiving (if we don't receive, no eternal life). Thanks.

Now, can you show one verse that SAYS you can reject the gift?

I can show you people who refused to believe. That is the same thing. Maybe not to you, but that's the way it is.

 

[FreeGrace2]

It's very relevant. We can't meet your challenge any more than we can meet the challenge of a Oneness dude.

I guess that point was lost on you, though. I should have been clearer.

Nope. Not lost at all. Because it's just really sad that you think you can't meet the challenge to prove from Scripture the Trinity. Just show verses that speak of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. No problem at all.

Scripture is very clear: Jesus tasted death for all, NOT "all the elect" as you guys keep trying to spin it.

 

[guuila]

Um yeah. You believe Christians can hate Jesus.

I do? Where did you learn that?

The whole issue of spiritual growth is optional, in the sense of NOT being guaranteed. That's all I mean by "optional". I don't care what you think it means.

^^^^ There. You disagreed and then promoted it in the same post. Good job! LOL

But in your land of puppetry, God pulls all the strings, and takes care of all that for you all. Right?

Heck yes. God is managing my life guaranteeing I'll be a believer. So thankful for that. I don't demand autonomy like a spoiled brat.

So, show me Scripture that teaches perseverance of the saints.

Rom. 8:28-30.

 

[Hammster]

I'll give you the benefit of doubt. Probably a typo, but I included exactly what you SAID and it wasn't correct.


Before the foundation of the world. While that probably means that supports your notion that God chose who would believe, it really speaks of His omniscience in who will believe. As usual, Calvinism has it wrong.

Yeah, heaven forbid that it might speak of His sovereignty.