Calvinism provides an excuse for those in hell

[FreeGrace2]

I bet FreeGrace2's typing accuracy has improved big time over the past month...

You obviously have nothing else to do.

My typing accuracy has been excellent since 8th grade when I took typing.

 

[Hammster]

Well, once again we are shooting over each other's heads.

I had said this:

But the context was that of believers who HAVE BEEN GIVEN ETERNAL LIFE.

But now, you move the goal post and make it look like I have contradicted myself. I'll bet you stay up nights trying to be so clever.

Once eternal life is received, it cannot be rejected. That's the the Arminians out there (Hi Walter). But those who NEVER believed, NEVER received it.

Very slick maneuver in trying to twist my words. But context always is the issue, even when you guys don't care and are only interested in trying to twist my words.

Your bad.

So not believing isn't the same as rejecting?

 

[FreeGrace2]

Much as I know you want everything to be about you, I think you'll find that griff was talking about synergists in general so unfortunately the spotlight isn't on you or your narcissistic behavior. That's not an insult by the way, merely an observation.

Actually, it's real obvious that you are quite an insulting person. But that's what I've come to expect from those whose theology has been challenged and found wanting.

I bugs you guys so much that you just can't help yourself in attacking the messenger.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Where does it speak of His omniscience?

Forknowledge would be a big clue.

 

[FreeGrace2]

So not believing isn't the same as rejecting?

Of course not. I thought believers knew that.

 

[guuila]

Slick dodge. You need to explain what "deny us" actually means.

As in, deny us.....what? Do you know? You first.

Salvation.

 

[Hammster]

Oh, yes I have. But is appears that you just aren't paying any attention.

If you're going to ask questions, it would be helpful if you would pay attention.


And I told you. They weren't picked for heaven, like the elite chosen were. that IS an excuse.

I'm not giving you what I "think" is, I'm giving you what IS.

If you are going to respond to questions, you should try answering them. I guess you are unable to back up your assertion. You just keep repeating the same thing over and over like it's an actual answer.

 

[guuila]

You obviously have nothing else to do.

My typing accuracy has been excellent since 8th grade when I took typing.

I bet it's even better now.

 

[Hammster]

So you really aren't familiar with any verses that tell us that men can refuse the gift?

Acts 14:22
strengthening the disciples and encouraging them to remain true to the faith. “We must go through many hardships to enter the kingdom of God,” they said.

Acts 19:9
But some of them became obstinate; they refused to believe and publicly maligned the Way. So Paul left them. He took the disciples with him and had discussions daily in the lecture hall of Tyrannus.

Acts 7:51
You stiffnecked people, with uncircumcised hearts and ears! You are just like your fathers: You always resist the Holy Spirit!

Cool verses. Nothing about refusing the gift, though. Try again.

 

[Hammster]

I did. And you admitted that Calvinism cannot find any Scripture that says that God chose who will believe or that Christ died only for the elect. And then you added that you also can't find Scripture for the Oneness of God.

Yeah, disingenuous, all right. All over you.

I'm not sure why you are lying about what I actually said. I guess that's all you have left.

 

[Hammster]

Forknowledge would be a big clue.

I'm sure it would be. Where does it speak of His foreknowledge?

 

[Hammster]

Of course not. I thought believers knew that.

So if eternal life can't be rejected, why doesn't everyone have eternal life?

 

[nobdysfool]

I have already said that no one is in hell for sin, so what's your problem?

They are there for not having eternal life. They never received the gift.

You're dodging the rest of my post.

Why did they not receive eternal life? Because they did not believe, which means that they remained in unbelief. There is no middle ground. If they were in unbelief, then that was the reason they were sent to hell. Not receiving the gift is secondary.

The primary cause of their condemnation was their failure to believe. If they had believed, they would have automatically received the gift according to your doctrine.

So the real reason they go to hell is unbelief, which means that your doctrine is wrong. Both logically and Scripturally.

What you refuse to see and are trying to deflect from, is that your doctrine collapses when subjected to logical analysis.

I'm going to tell you what I just told griff. Can you refute the OP or not? All your posts and questions are nothing more than poor distractions and smokescreen.

But yours aren't? You're the master of it. You put out fog like a fog machine.

When people can't refute the OP, they have to resort to other tactics, to take the focus off their inability to refute the OP.

Your OP has been refuted. it is illogical, and your bleating about an "excuse" is ineffectual, because and excuse would not change the fate of those in hell. They can have all the excuses they want or can invent! It doesn't make any difference. It does not diminish God's character one iota.

Why you think that this is some big important, Calvinism-stopping "revelation" is beyond me, and the rest of us. Not because we can't understand it, but because we cannot understand why you think it's some big deal.

You haven't been able to give us even one convincing answer for why it makes any difference, or why it should matter.

If you want to believe it, fine, go ahead. But stop trying to pass it off as something that destroys Calvinism.

It doesn't.

At all.

 

[Metal Minister]

What's wrong with being indignate with people who aren't paying attention?

Ooh, bad form old chap! Blaming those who are trying to understand your rather amorphous position, rather than realizing your position makes no sense, or explaining your meaning. Now, can you tell me which of these you believe are in error?

1)Human Free Will - This states that though man is fallen, he is not incapacitated by the sinful nature and can freely choose God. His will is not restricted and enslaved by his sinful nature.

2)Conditional Election - God chose people for salvation based on his foreknowledge where God looks into the future to see who would respond to the gospel message.

3)Universal Atonement - The position that Jesus bore the sin of everyone who ever lived.

4)Resistable Grace - The teaching that the grace of God can be resisted and finally beaten so as to reject salvation in Christ.

5)Fall from Grace - The Teaching that a person can fall from grace and lose his salvation.

 

[guuila]

Ooh, bad form old chap! Blaming those who are trying to understand your rather amorphous position, rather than realizing your position makes no sense, or explaining your meaning. Now, can you tell me which of these you believe are in error?

1)Human Free Will - This states that though man is fallen, he is not incapacitated by the sinful nature and can freely choose God. His will is not restricted and enslaved by his sinful nature.

2)Conditional Election - God chose people for salvation based on his foreknowledge where God looks into the future to see who would respond to the gospel message.

3)Universal Atonement - The position that Jesus bore the sin of everyone who ever lived.

4)Resistable Grace - The teaching that the grace of God can be resisted and finally beaten so as to reject salvation in Christ.

5)Fall from Grace - The Teaching that a person can fall from grace and lose his salvation.

Exercise in futility bro... he will find any way he can to weasel his way out of any label, even though he is a four point Arminian. He won't admit it because he refuses to admit he believes in conditional election, even though he rejects unconditional election. A walking contradiction, he is.

 

[Hammster]

Going back, this was posts by FG.

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.

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.

Of course, I never argued that it could be returned. What I'm trying to get at is if it can be rejected. And if it can be accepted, why does he bristle when we say that it's man doing his part? Obvious, rejecting it would be man doing his part. But accepting it isn't?

Strange theology, this strain of synergism.

 

[Hammster]

Exercise in futility bro... he will find any way he can to weasel his way out of any label, even though he is a four point Arminian. He won't admit it because he refuses to admit he believes in conditional election, even though he rejects unconditional election. A walking contradiction, he is.

Not conditional election. God just chooses those who believe.

 

[guuila]

Strange theology, this strain of synergism.

Indeed. I've never encountered this particular flavor. It's a different animal, that's for sure.

 

[guuila]

Not conditional election. God just chooses those who believe.

Right. God saves believers (but doesn't determine who will believe). But don't call it conditional election (even though that's what conditional election teaches... don't call it that!)

 

[Don Maurer]

I bet FreeGrace2's typing accuracy has improved big time over the past month...

I already know his reply....

"You Calvinists are so disingenuous."


: )