Calvinism provides an excuse for those in hell

[FreeGrace2]

MacArthur's book was excellent. Have you read it?

Yes, and I disagree with it, because though he denies, just like you guys do, that he teaches works salvation.

But if you really want to read about his works salvation, ya gotta read Hard to Believe by him. It's full of statements about the works you gotta do to be saved, enter the kingdom, etc.

For a guy who claims to believe "saved by grace alone", his work was really hard to believe! A real shocker.

I have the book and can name page number for any quote you would like to see which proves my point. But you're probably not interested in anything that proves my point, huh.

 

[Metal Minister]

Well, thank you very much for your waffling and dodging answer, which I expected, but hoped for an honest response.

So, I'll tell you my score. I agreed fully with 1 point, and only half way on another point, and totally disagreed with the other 3 points.

That makes me a full 1.5 point Arminian. And hopefully, put to rest the inane label making from the troops.

But thanks for the questions which provided me an opportunity to prove that I'm no Arminian.

Sorry, no. You gave several amorphous answers (which is what I assumed you would do) and then others you gave answers that directly contradict other things you've posted.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Deliberately goading and flaming again?

you've got to be kidding. Apparently you have no understanding of the words you carelessly throw around.

I'll cease educating you in this thread.

You never began.

I've answered your questions and you've ignored my points about your blatant contradictions.

Really? I asked you 2 questions in post 780 on page 78.
#1 Do you agree or disagree that the Bible promises that anyone who believes is saved eternally?

#2 Do you accept that Rom 8:38 says that nothing in the future will separate us from the love of Christ?

In post 781 you dodged both questions. So I asked again in post 785. In 791, you said you'd answer but didn't. Instead, you waffled around and hid behind the so-called "present tense" clause that you made up and maks you sound more like an Arminian than a Calvinist. LOL

In 808, I pointed out your phony "present tense" clause by showing from Luke 8:12 Jesus used the word "believe" in the aorist tense, and in the next verse He used the present tense for "believe for a while", which totally shoots down your whole "present tense" argument.

You answers, such as they were, fell quite short.

If you're going to remain blind to your own shirtcimings then there's no point in dealing with you.

You are quite free to do whatever you choose to do. It would leave me more time to deal with the others.

And my shirt doesn't have any "cimings" on it.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Sorry, no. You gave several amorphous answers (which is what I assumed you would do) and then others you gave answers that directly contradict other things you've posted.

I directly DARE you to show me ANY contradiction in any of my posts.

And as to calling my answers "amorphous", I'm very sure that you can't back up your opinion with any facts. So, I DARE you to back up your claim.

I know you won't because you can't.

 

[Metal Minister]

I directly DARE you to show me ANY contradiction in any of my posts.

And as to calling my answers "amorphous", I'm very sure that you can't back up your opinion with any facts. So, I DARE you to back up your claim.

I know you won't because you can't.

You "dare me"? What is this grade school? Sorry, I'm not intimidated. FG2, You've been shown time and again by others on this thread that you've contradicted yourself. When your theology is taken to its final, logical conclusion, you deny it, yet then turn around and reaffirm it later. I don't need to point out any specific time, because its in nearly all of your posts.

 

[crimsonleaf]

you've got to be kidding. Apparently you have no understanding of the words you carelessly throw around.


You never began.


Really? I asked you 2 questions in post 780 on page 78.
#1 Do you agree or disagree that the Bible promises that anyone who believes is saved eternally?

#2 Do you accept that Rom 8:38 says that nothing in the future will separate us from the love of Christ?

In post 781 you dodged both questions. So I asked again in post 785. In 791, you said you'd answer but didn't. Instead, you waffled around and hid behind the so-called "present tense" clause that you made up and maks you sound more like an Arminian than a Calvinist. LOL

In 808, I pointed out your phony "present tense" clause by showing from Luke 8:12 Jesus used the word "believe" in the aorist tense, and in the next verse He used the present tense for "believe for a while", which totally shoots down your whole "present tense" argument.

You answers, such as they were, fell quite short.


You are quite free to do whatever you choose to do. It would leave me more time to deal with the others.

And my shirt doesn't have any "cimings" on it.

I'm sorry that you were concentrating too hard on a single typo to note that I answered yes to both your questions. Perhaps you wanted it gold plated.

 

[crimsonleaf]

I directly DARE you to show me ANY contradiction in any of my posts.

And as to calling my answers "amorphous", I'm very sure that you can't back up your opinion with any facts. So, I DARE you to back up your claim.

I know you won't because you can't.

What pathetic trolling behaviour. And to think your mum lets you play on the computer...

 

[guuila]

Yes, and I disagree with it, because though he denies, just like you guys do, that he teaches works salvation.

But if you really want to read about his works salvation, ya gotta read Hard to Believe by him. It's full of statements about the works you gotta do to be saved, enter the kingdom, etc.

For a guy who claims to believe "saved by grace alone", his work was really hard to believe! A real shocker.

I have the book and can name page number for any quote you would like to see which proves my point. But you're probably not interested in anything that proves my point, huh.

Please, provide a quote.

 

[FreeGrace2]

You "dare me"?

Yeah, that's exactly what I posted. Didn't you understand?

What is this grade school?

You tell me, what with all this playing dodgeball games.

Sorry, I'm not intimidated. FG2, You've been shown time and again by others on this thread that you've contradicted yourself.

Well, to be clear, a lot of claims of that, but NOT ONE shred of evidence. When I ask for proof, what do I get? Just a lot of waffling, ad hominems, etc. And a whole lot of dodgeball.

When your theology is taken to its final, logical conclusion, you deny it

I'll tell you why I deny what y'all claim is my theology's "final logical conclusion": you don't understand my theology at all, and what you set up as my theology I deny it as well.

yet then turn around and reaffirm it later.

Again, I DARE you to show me what I've denied and then "turned around" and reaffirmed later.

I don't need to point out any specific time, because its in nearly all of your posts.

Just another cheap shot from the Calvinists. You have no proof at all for any of your silly claims, so you hide behind hyperbole.

I DARE you to show me ANY contradiction. Should be quite easy if what you just said is even close to the truth.

So, just pick a post and prove me wrong and you right. I dare you.

 

[FreeGrace2]

I'm sorry that you were concentrating too hard on a single typo to note that I answered yes to both your questions. Perhaps you wanted it gold plated.

By answering "yes" to both questions, you should have no problem with my view then. So what is your problem?

 

[FreeGrace2]

What pathetic trolling behaviour. And to think your mum lets you play on the computer...

Do you really think snarky comment doesn't violate forum rules?

 

[FreeGrace2]

Please, provide a quote.

Gee, thanks griff. I'm always willing to demonstrate what I believe and claim.

I hope you have his book, so you can verify what I present here.

On page 93, he said, "Salvasrtion for sinners cosgt GBod is own Son it cost God's Son His life, and it'll cost you the same thing. Saslvation isn't the result of an intellectual exercise. It (salvation) comes from a life lived in obedience and service to Christ as revealed in the Scripture; it's (salvation) the fruit of actions, not intentions."

If that's not enough, how about this:

On page 135-136 he said: "Whoever (context is a believer) protects his physical safety by denying Christ under pressure will lose his eternal soul." He sounds like an Arminian here.

Then he continues, on page 136. "But if you're willing to lose your life for Christ's sake, you'll find eternal life in the end[/U]." Italics were his.

Or, this, on page 149: "Entrance into the kingdom requires earnest endeavor, untiring energy, and utmost exertion, because Satan is mighty, his demons are powerful, and sin holds us fast."

If these statements don't scream out "you gotta work for salvation", then I don't know what does.

Oh, sorry, you only asked for 1 quote.

 

[Metal Minister]

Deliberately goading and flaming again?

I'll cease educating you in this thread. I've answered your questions and you've ignored my points about your blatant contradictions. If you're going to remain blind to your own shirtcimings then there's no point in dealing with you.

Of course, which I believe is his objective. Badger and run in circles with his responses until people get fed up and leave. If his position was so strong, it wouldn't be so continuously refuted.

 

[guuila]

Gee, thanks griff. I'm always willing to demonstrate what I believe and claim.

I hope you have his book, so you can verify what I present here.

On page 93, he said, "Salvasrtion for sinners cosgt GBod is own Son it cost God's Son His life, and it'll cost you the same thing. Saslvation isn't the result of an intellectual exercise. It (salvation) comes from a life lived in obedience and service to Christ as revealed in the Scripture; it's (salvation) the fruit of actions, not intentions."

If that's not enough, how about this:

On page 135-136 he said: "Whoever (context is a believer) protects his physical safety by denying Christ under pressure will lose his eternal soul." He sounds like an Arminian here.

Then he continues, on page 136. "But if you're willing to lose your life for Christ's sake, you'll find eternal life in the end." Italics were his.

Or, this, on page 149: "Entrance into the kingdom requires earnest endeavor, untiring energy, and utmost exertion, because Satan is mighty, his demons are powerful, and sin holds us fast."

If these statements don't scream out "you gotta work for salvation", then I don't know what does.

Oh, sorry, you only asked for 1 quote.

I don't see the problem.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Of course, which I believe is his objective. Badger and run in circles with his responses until people get fed up and leave.

OK, I ask that you back up your opinion with actual evidence. Where have I "run in circles"? Post #, please.

If his position was so strong, it wouldn't be so continuously refuted.

Please show me ANY post where my position was refuted. Please. I'd really like to see what y'all call "refuted".

What you seem to think is a refutation is most likely just a strong disagreement. LOL

 

[FreeGrace2]

I don't see the problem.

Not at all surprised. I expected that from you.

Here is what I quoted:
On page 93, he said, "Salvation for sinners cost GBod is own Son it cost God's Son His life, and it'll cost you the same thing. Saslvation isn't the result of an intellectual exercise. It (salvation) comes from a life lived in obedience and service to Christ as revealed in the Scripture; it's (salvation) the fruit of actions, not intentions."

FYI, salvation does NOT "cost you the same thing". That is insane and blasphemous. That is works salvation. And salvation does NOT "come from a life lived in obedience and service to Christ", but from faith in Christ. Maybe you just can't see any difference there. But it's huge.

If that's not enough, how about this:

On page 135-136 he said: "Whoever (context is a believer) protects his physical safety by denying Christ under pressure will lose his eternal soul." He sounds like an Arminian here.

Then he continues, on page 136. "But if you're willing to lose your life for Christ's sake, you'll find eternal life in the end." Italics were his.

As I noted in the first quote here, he sounds quite Arminian, and you "don't see any probem". Really?

And his comment about "finding eternal life in the end" is weird. Just weird.

Or, this, on page 149: "Entrance into the kingdom requires earnest endeavor, untiring energy, and utmost exertion, because Satan is mighty, his demons are powerful, and sin holds us fast."

If these statements don't scream out "you gotta work for salvation", then I don't know what does.

So, you seem to agree with getting into the kingdom (getting saved) "requires earnest endeavor, untiring energy, and UTMOST exertion", huh? Really? And you don't consider that to be a statement of working very hard to enter the kingdom?

 

[Skala]

Freegrace2ism provides those in hell with an excuse.

They can say "God didn't save me!!!"

Therefore, they have an excuse.

 

[Anoetos]

In the sense that salvation and a right relationship to God necessarily entail obedience, absolutely.


How a normally intelligent person can be so consistently unable to accurately discern cause and effect is difficult to understand.

 

[SpyderByte]

I got a question, since I was seein elect and non-elect, and saved and not. Is it possible that the elect is the ones that God chose specifically, and the non-elect can still be saved? You know, God still knows they'll be saved, but he didn't choose them specific?

 

[Anoetos]

Message Redacted