Calvinism provides an excuse for those in hell

[guuila]

Why are you backtracking now?

Are you going to answer my question?

 

[Ask Seek Knock]

AskSeekKnock:

Christ's death on the cross was a literal atonement of our (believer's) sins. You say people before the cross were saved, you are correct, but you are wrong in how you think they were saved.

Why would I be wrong. Perhaps you would like to provide verses in the Old Testament to prove your point. I will give you a few to show how the OT people were saved.

Deuteronomy 30:6 And the Lord thy God will circumcise thine heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, that thou mayest live.

It was the circumcision of the heart and man loving God with all his heart by which he may live, not a cross.

Ezekiel 18:21 But if the wicked will turn from all his sins that he hath committed, and keep all my statutes, and do that which is lawful and right, he shall surely live, he shall not die.

Nothing of a cross is even hinted at. It is what man does and turns from all his sin by which he lives.

Proverbs 4:4 He taught me also, and said unto me, let thine heart retain my words: keep my commandments, and live.

It is man, who retains His words and keep them, who lives, not by a cross.

You will be hard-pressed to find anyone being saved in the OT by a cross.

The cross not only covers all of God's people's future sins, but also all of their past sins. The cross is retroactive. People who lived before the cross are saved the same way as people who live after the cross. Everyone who is saved, is saved by Christ's atoning sacrifice on the cross. It doesn't matter when you live in regards to the crucifixion. You are still saved by life, death, and resurrection.

I just showed you how people were saved before the cross. And I agree, it's the same way, but it wasn't by a cross.

God does not desire sacrifices, except the sacrifice of a broken spirit and a contrite heart.

Psalms 51

15 O Lord, open thou my lips; and my mouth shall shew forth thy praise.
16 For thou desirest not sacrifice; else would I give it: thou delightest not in burnt offering.
17 The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit: a broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise.


Proverbs 21:3 To do justice and judgment is more acceptable to the Lord than sacrifice.

God would rather you obey Him than offer a sacrifice.

Isaiah 1:11 To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto me? saith the Lord: I am full of the burnt offerings of rams, and the fat of fed beasts; and I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of he goats.

Here is God's sacrifice -

Ezekiel 39:17 And, thou son of man, thus saith the Lord God; Speak unto every feathered fowl, and to every beast of the field, Assemble yourselves, and come; gather yourselves on every side to my sacrifice that I do sacrifice for you, even a great sacrifice upon the mountains of Israel, that ye may eat flesh, and drink blood.

Hosea 6:6 For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings.


This was repeated by Jesus.

Matthew 9:13 But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.

However, Jesus added to go and learn what that means. Has anyone learned what 'I will have mercy, and not sacrifice' means?

 

[Ask Seek Knock]

Are you going to answer my question?

No sir, not until you start answering mine.

 

[Ask Seek Knock]

If you address as Father the One who impartially judges according to each one's work, conduct yourselves in fear during the time of your stay on earth; knowing that you were not redeemed with perishable things like silver or gold from your futile way of life inherited from your forefathers, but with precious blood, as of a lamb unblemished and spotless, the blood of Christ. (1 Peter 1:17-19 NASB)

Too bad Peter is unreliable.

Why don't you study and see if Peter meant the literal blood of Jesus. Or perhaps it is referring to something else.

Surely a lamb is not taken as a literal lamb, or do you think Jesus was a literal lamb? A lamb refers to innocence, not a literal animal.

Here is what Jesus said about His blood -

John 6:53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.

If you want to take Jesus' blood as literal, then you are going to have to literally drink it. If you don't literally drink it, you have no life in you.

 

[Hammster]

So, if the cross symbolizes where a debt is paid, do you suppose Jesus meant for you to take up YOUR cross and pay your own debt? The only time Jesus mentioned a cross was in reference to us taking up our own cross, never did He speak of His cross. Never!

As you like to believe the cross is the most important theme in salvation, Jesus never mentioned it the way you describe. How could the Savior neglect such an important issue?

She will bear a Son; and you shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins." (Matthew 1:21 NASB)

for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins. (Matthew 26:28 NASB)

 

[guuila]

No sir, not until you start answering mine.

So I never called you a heretic. Great!

 

[Ask Seek Knock]

Amazing that there are "Christians" on this forum who hate this.

While Skala hopelessly searches for people being saved in the OT by the cross, perhaps you would like to join in that search.

 

[Hammster]

Why don't you study and see if Peter meant the literal blood of Jesus. Or perhaps it is referring to something else.

Surely a lamb is not taken as a literal lamb, or do you think Jesus was a literal lamb? A lamb refers to innocence, not a literal animal.

Here is what Jesus said about His blood -

John 6:53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.

If you want to take Jesus' blood as literal, then you are going to have to literally drink it. If you don't literally drink it, you have no life in you.

Please explain what Peter was referring to.

 

[guuila]

While Skala hopelessly searches for people being saved in the OT by the cross, perhaps you would like to join in that search.

Weird... So are you one of the ones who hate Christ's atoning work?

 

[Hammster]

While Skala hopelessly searches for people being saved in the OT by the cross, perhaps you would like to join in that search.

But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction; for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus; whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed; for the demonstration, I say, of His righteousness at the present time, so that He would be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. (Romans 3:21-26 NASB)

 

[FreeGrace2]

It is irrational to say in one breath that a man is saved even if he subsequently disbelieves, then in the next breath deny saying anything like it, and finally to revert back to plan A again a few posts later. All there in black and white, making you look less skilled than your ego tells you you are.

The truth is that I never SAID what you all claimed I said. The logical conclusion from Scripture IS that once saved, always saved. Where is the verse that teaches that salvation is linked to ongoing faith? I'm fully aware of the present participle, but there are many times "believe" is in the aorist tense.

And you're the one claiming WE don't understand grace lol. Tell me, does God's grace extend to all, some or none? If all, you're a universalist, if some, welcome to the club, if none, then back to Unorthodox Theology for you...

I'll let Scripture answer that question for you: Titus 2:1
For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all men

If you really do believe that, then you know the answer is "to all men", NOT, "to the elect ONLY".

btw, Extending God's grace to everyone doesn't lead to universalism. It was by the grace of God that Christ purchased eternal life for everyone, and we all know who God gives that gift to: believers. 1 Cor 1:21.

Throughout, your manner has been supercilious and unChristian. Pick any post, particularly the ones where you describe us as thin-skinned for taking offence at your flaming, goading behaviour. And congratulations on being the first adult I've ever come across to DARE anyone. Y'all.

Well, I've been asking politely frequently for evidence of the charges that y'all throw at me. And since none of y'all have shown any, I thought a change of pace might be better.

But, here's the point: IF any of y'all did have any evidence of all the "stuff" you have charged me with, why hasn't anyone actually come up with any evidence? I mean, how difficult is it to cite a post #?

You say they have an excuse under our theology, we say they have one under yours.

Since your theology holds that ONLY those chosen go to heaven, THAT is the EXCUSE and reason all the others are in hell.

Doesn't matter whether I use the word "reason" or "excuse", but I like "excuse" better, since it highlights the faults of Calvinism.

But what is the excuse for hell dwellers in my theology? I don't remember anyone clearly showing one. According to the Bible, there are no excuse for anyone, and that is Biblical, from Rom 1:19-20. I know that passage isn't about why anyone is in hell, but the fact is, there are no excuses for mankind. Which is WHY mankind IS accountable and responsible for his own choices. Unlike your theology, where man cannot even make his own choices.

So, my theology, which is the same as Scripture, is that the REASON (excuse) people are in hell is because they rejected the free gift. You can call that either a reason or excuse. But to use the word "excuse" seems rather strained.

I'll take your approach to debate - your theology has man in hell because he wasn't wise enough to accept the gift of eternal life. I'm right; you're wrong. Rinse and repeat for 900 posts.

Thanks again for the fun opportunity to correct the errors of Calvinists. Here you ascribe to me a theology that involves some being "wise enough" and some not being "wise enough". So, where did you get that from? Again, you are trying to put words into my mouth.

Salvation isn't about wisdom, so you can quit trying to force that nonsense into my theology, because it doesn't exist. This is just another straw man you've created and then attacked. Bully for you. But you are wrong.

Here's my theology; please note carefully:

Man is in hell for rejecting the free gift. There is nothing there about being wise or dumb. There are many individual reasons why people reject the gospel. So your "blanket" approach fails to be accurate.

[QUOE]We're only human. We get as wound up over arguments with atheists and others who will argue that God sends the forgiven to Hell.

And thanks again for another fun opportunity to correct the errors of Calvinists. I never said, nor do I believe that those in hell were forgiven of their sins. The sins were paid for, but how are sins forgiven? Not by Christ's death, but by faith in Him. Acts 10:43
“Of Him all the prophets bear witness that through His name everyone who believes in Him receives forgiveness of sins.”

We could have shut you up with two posts if we'd said the same.

Really? So, why did you keep distancing yourselves from the centerpiece of your theology, about all that limited atonement and election?

As for refutation, you've been refuted countless times. You refuse to address verses you disagree with

So, can you cite even one post # to back up your claim? And what verses have I "disagreed" with? Can you show me any that I have either disagreed with or have denied? Please show me. Instead of daring you, I will BEG you to show me. Was that better?

and seem to have been taught by your poor parents that saying "no" = reasoned argument.

Why do you think mounting an attack on my parents will do you any good? That's just another cheap shot, for which you seem quite good at.

You didn't come here to debate. You came here to preach. If you don't know the difference feel free to look it up.

I believe that you don't know what you are talking about. How did you get such insight and wisdom as to my motives? I know you aren't omniscient.

The whole of this thread has seen you insulting and levelling accusations at us as Calvinists and as individuals.

"insulting"? Who and how. On your post here you leveled an insulting accusation against my parents, and now you have the gall to say this???

You wrongly assume that our attitude to you is centred around our being unable to refute you.

You haven't refuted me, and yes, I do believe that. The vitriole can be felt.

You were refuted on the first page, you just can't admit it.

The responses on ALL the pages have only dodged the challenge, and you won't admit it. Until Anoetos finally acknowledged the OP, y'all just kept distancing yourselves from the centerpiece of your theology, which I found quite amusing.

We are strong and sure in what we believe, so don't think for a nanosecond that your appearance here has changed anything.

I didn't expect to change anything. I came here to debate, since this thread is in the "debate a Calvinist" subforum. That should have been quite obvious.

Our frustration is that you came here to preach anti-Calvinist rhetoric and you're not bright enough to see it's failed.

Wow. Though I didn't comment on your comment about my questioning your friend's "mental state", here you are actually telling me that I'm "not bright enough". Isn't that called HYPOCRISY? I believe it is.

Second, you admit, which I've pointed out, that y'all (our) have reacted emotionally, which is how one shows their frustration. So, thanks for affirming my claims about y'all.

So, where are the post #'s of all you accus me of? Shouldn't be too difficult to find, if you are correct.

 

[Ask Seek Knock]

She will bear a Son; and you shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins." (Matthew 1:21 NASB)

for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins. (Matthew 26:28 NASB)

Here again you are taking the blood as literal. In fact, Jesus wasn't referring to His blood when He said that, He was speaking of wine.

 

[Hammster]

Here again you are taking the blood as literal. In fact, Jesus wasn't referring to His blood when He said that, He was speaking of wine.

Okay.

 

[Ask Seek Knock]

Weird... So are you one of the ones who hate Christ's atoning work?

Why do you say that? Is one not atoned when he genuinely repents of his sins and receives remission for them?

Go look up 'remission' and see what it means.

 

[guuila]

Why do you say that? Is one not atoned when he genuinely repents of his sins and receives remission for them?

Go look up 'remission' and see what it means.

You're the only one who responded, so it must have struck a nerve.

 

[Ask Seek Knock]

Okay.

So we now see Jesus wasn't speaking of His literal blood.

I am curious as to how the literal blood helps one to overcome the accuser (Revelation 12:10, 11). I am not trying to criticize nor belittle you for believing the literal blood overcomes the accuser. I just want to see how others think literal blood does this.

When I believed in the literal blood, I kept wondering how this worked. Maybe you can shed some light on it for me.

 

[Ask Seek Knock]

You're the only one who responded, so it must have struck a nerve.

So griff, what is remission of sins?

 

[Jack Terrence]

So griff, what is remission of sins?

The word "remission" literally means "to send away." Thus the remission of sins would be the sending away of our sins."

The oc priest would lay his hand upon the scapegoat putting Israel's sins upon it. Then he would send the goat away carrying their sins.

21 And Aaron shall lay both his hands upon the head of the live goat, and confess over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions in all their sins, putting them upon the head of the goat, and shall send him away by the hand of a fit man into the wilderness:
22 And the goat shall bear upon him all their iniquities unto a land not inhabited: and he shall let go the goat in the wilderness.

 

[Ask Seek Knock]

The word "remission" literally means "to send away." Thus the remission of sins would be the sending away of our sins."

The oc priest would lay his hand upon the scapegoat putting Israel's sins upon it. Then he would send the goat away carrying their sins.

21 And Aaron shall lay both his hands upon the head of the live goat, and confess over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions in all their sins, putting them upon the head of the goat, and shall send him away by the hand of a fit man into the wilderness:
22 And the goat shall bear upon him all their iniquities unto a land not inhabited: and he shall let go the goat in the wilderness.

Thank you Boxer. So repentance for the remission of sins, would be to send our sins away, or remit them when we repent of them.

 

[Jack Terrence]

Jesus promoted a works salvation. I guess you think He didn't understand the gospel either.

"If righteousness come through the law Christ died in vain."