The worst thing about Calvinism

[RisenInJesus]

1) Everyone since Adam stands condemned already.
2) This gives the impression that there are people who, on their own, desire to be reconciled to God. I've never known a man like that.

Yes, everyone since Adam already stands condemned. Non-Calvinists do not believe nor do I think usually give the impression that there are people who on their own desire to be reconciled to God...only that God desires all to be reconciled and offers all the opportunity.

This paints a picture of a mean and unfair God. What is forgets is that God cannot allow the preface of sin into Heaven. He is a consuming fire, and all sinners in His presence are judged so. In one sense, God wants no sinful man in Heaven. His justice does not allow for a guilty man to remain un-judged.

I do believe Calvinism does paint a mean and unfair picture of God ( I actually think a false god rather than the biblical God), not because God cannot or does not allow sin into heaven which a Holy God cannot, but because Calvinism's god does have enough love for all or offer each sinner the opportunity to be made new in Christ.

He does. He causes the rain to fall on the just and the unjust.

Yes, that is love for the present, but what love is that for an eternal God to give when this world is temporal and the beings He created will live for eternity? Either in heaven or eternal torment and according to Calvinism there are many who are predestined for eternal torment with never an offer or hope of salvation.

This is an unprovable presupposition, and it's why you can't see my side of things. This assumption alone is where the problem lies.

There are no texts which state that the Father sent the Son to redeem every single person without exception, and there are many texts which state otherwise. This is the fork in the road where a false assumption leads to all sorts of errant theology. This is why reading with precision is so vital. All three Arminian proof texts are all sloppily exegeted. If one would forget his presuppositions, which I know is very difficult, and he just understood those three texts correctly, there would be no debate on this subject. Three little texts. That's what Arminianism is built upon.

I have no idea where you get this idea of "three Arminian proof texts" because there are hundreds, in fact the entire Bible supports the truth that God's forgiveness and saving grace is offered to all. Also, here is a misrepresentation contantly used by Calvinists: labeling everone who disagrees with them as an Arminian. I am a Bible believer, not an Arminian. I have never said, nor do I think non-Calvinists believe the Father sent His Son to redeem every single person without exception. The exceptions are those who refuse to believe the gospel which is clearly presented through the scriptures stating that God so loved the world that He sent His only Son that whoever believes in Him will not perish, but have everlasting life and that Christ died for the sins of the world.

First, when John says, "our sins", is he talking about believers or unbelievers? Is he talking to Jews or gentiles?

He is talking to believers probably mostly believing Jews and maybe some Gentile believers, who prior to believing the gospel were unbelievers no different than the rest of the unbelievers of the world whose sins Christ paid the penalty for on the cross.

I'll try to get back to the idea of an arranged marriage, that was an interesting point. While all these are important and interesting points I still don't feel like you have explained at all how the OP misrepresents Calvinism.[/QUOTE]

 

[RisenInJesus]

Universalism was the logical result of your view. Propitiation means God's wrath was satisfied. If satisfied for the whole world, then you are a left with a view approaching universalism.

Since you are the one who brought up universalism and made the charge that it is the logical result of my view I simply was responding to say... no it is not. So I did not move the goalpost. Yes God's wrath is satisfied in the atonement of Christ and I believe it is satisfied for the sins of the whole world, yet the Bible also is clear that each person must place their faith in Christ's payment for their sins on the cross and believe in Him as their Savior so they will stand before God's judgment in His righteousness. This is not universalism or even approaching universalism. It is biblical truth.

 

[Hammster]

Since you are the one who brought up universalism and made the charge that it is the logical result of my view I simply was responding to say... no it is not. So I did not move the goalpost. Yes God's wrath is satisfied in the atonement of Christ and I believe it is satisfied for the sins of the whole world, yet the Bible also is clear that each person must place their faith in Christ's payment for their sins on the cross and believe in Him as their Savior so they will stand before God's judgment in His righteousness. This is not universalism or even approaching universalism. It is biblical truth.

You've added faith. You are moving the goalposts, or adding something to the verse. Whatever you call it, you are reading into the verse something that's not there.

And once again, if God's wrath is satisfied for the whole world then you are flirting with universalism.

 

[the old scribe]

May a suggestion be made about this debate? Debating the issues and the particular interpretations of verses will never resolve the argument. This is because Calvinism and Arminianism each start with different presuppositions. Defining the presuppositions each side holds will reveal how all the other arguments unfold.

If each side would define their meaning of divine sovereignty, then the starting point of the differences between Calvinism and Arminianism will be exposed. It is the logical extensions of each sides presuppositions which becomes the unsolvable difference. Until each side agrees upon what divine sovereignty means and how divine sovereignty works in the temporal world there is not any possibility of compromise or reconciliation.

Just answer the question: What does divine sovereignty mean? Calvinism and Arminianism ought to argue over this. If there is not an agreement on the meaning of divine sovereignty there can never be an agreement on all the other issues. It is futile to argue points where presuppositions make the opponent's position an impossibility.

What does divine sovereignty mean?

 

[RisenInJesus]

You've added faith. You are moving the goalposts, or adding something to the verse. Whatever you call it, you are reading into the verse something that's not there.

And once again, if God's wrath is satisfied for the whole world then you are flirting with universalism.

And I think you are cherry-picking by attempting to use biblical words in isolation and pull verses out of context from the entirety of the biblical gospel message. This is one big reason it is so difficult and frustrating to have a discussion with a Calvinist. And I find the same is true of Mormons, JW's, etc. or anyone who is is only concerned about upholding their particular doctrines rather than the complete message of the scriptures.
The Bible presents faith and belief in Jesus in conjunction with being saved from God's wrath.
Notice this in the passages below:

And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life. For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved. John 3:14-17

But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, even the righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, to all and on all who believe. For there is no difference; for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed, to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. Romans 3:21-26

 

[RisenInJesus]

May a suggestion be made about this debate? Debating the issues and the particular interpretations of verses will never resolve the argument. This is because Calvinism and Arminianism each start with different presuppositions. Defining the presuppositions each side holds will reveal how all the other arguments unfold.

If each side would define their meaning of divine sovereignty, then the starting point of the differences between Calvinism and Arminianism will be exposed. It is the logical extensions of each sides presuppositions which becomes the unsolvable difference. Until each side agrees upon what divine sovereignty means and how divine sovereignty works in the temporal world there is not any possibility of compromise or reconciliation.

Just answer the question: What does divine sovereignty mean? Calvinism and Arminianism ought to argue over this. If there is not an agreement on the meaning of divine sovereignty there can never be an agreement on all the other issues. It is futile to argue points where presuppositions make the opponent's position an impossibility.

What does divine sovereignty mean?

You may have a good point, but the reality is that there are not only two sides; Calvinism vs. Arminianism. Non- Calvinists are not only Arminians as Calvinists so readily assert and falsely label. The third option is what the Bible says about God's sovereignty in union with His other attributes, as opposed to way Calvinism takes His sovereignty to a distorted extreme in isolation from His whole Being to fit their twisted theology.

Below are some related links:

"Is sovereignty and power the cure-all? Many Christians superficially think so. Yet there is much for which sovereignty and power are irrelevant. God acts not only sovereignly, but in love, grace, mercy, kindness, justice and truth. His sovereignty is exercised only in perfect harmony with all of His other attributes."
What a Sovereign God Cannot Do



"Calvinism rests upon a mistaken view of what it means for God to be sovereign. Edwin H. Palmer tells us that God predestines untold multitudes to everlasting torment “for the glory of His sovereign power over His creatures....” Obviously, God could show His sovereign power over His creatures in many ways other than by decreeing their eternal damnation, a fate surely not required by sovereignty.

The Bible teaches that God sovereignly—without diminishing His sovereignty—gave man the power to rebel against Him. Thus, sin is man’s responsibility alone, by his free choice, not by God’s decree. Calvinism’s basic error is a failure to see that God could sovereignly give to man the power of genuine choice and still remain in control of the universe. To acknowledge both sovereignty and free will would destroy the very foundations of the entire Calvinist system."
Irreconcilable Differences?

 

[Hammster]

And I think you are cherry-picking by attempting to use biblical words in isolation and pull verses out of context from the entirety of the biblical gospel message. This is one big reason it is so difficult and frustrating to have a discussion with a Calvinist. And I find the same is true of Mormons, JW's, etc.
The Bible presents faith and belief in Jesus in conjunction with being saved from God's wrath.
Notice this in the passages below:

And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life. For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved. John 3:14-17

But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, even the righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, to all and on all who believe. For there is no difference; for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed, to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. Romans 3:21-26

Separate issues. Those verses are talking about justification. Moving goal posts. Does 1 John 2:2 mention justification? Belief? No.

You can't talk context of all if scripture while ignoring the context of a verse.

The verse in question says He's the propitiation for the whole world. God's wrath satisfied. Not potentially satisfied based on faith. Actual satisfaction. So if it's for the whole world, Hell will be empty. No more punishment for sin, for why would God punish that with which He's no longer angry? It doesn't mean that all would be justified by the propitious work. So not everyone would be in glory. But there would be no eternal punishment, either.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

We do not decide to 'be good'. We decide that we hopeless doomed sinners accept His gift. Any goodness is from Him.

Actually we do decide to be good by accepting Jesus as our Savior and asking Him for His forgiveness and by allowing Him to do His good work though our lives. You are saying that we can be sinners on some level and yet allow Christ to be good separately from our life on some level. For you are saying that you can sin a little and still be saved (as long as you generally live holy). But it appears like you are fighting for the position of sin because you said David was an adulterer and Noah got drunk (implying as if they were always that way or that it was okay with God that they sinned).

God judges us in this life.

God judges us both in this life and the next one. God can execute judgment upon us now here upon this Earth and He will also execute judgment upon us at the Final Judgment.

David got punished.

Yes, as I said before, believers can sin on occasion, and even backslide, but most believers will generally live a holy life here upon this Earth. There are a few exceptions like Samson and Solomon (Who I believe were saved at the end of their lives; But these are examples of God's grace and mercy and they are not examples of how we are to live as believers).

He let's us go through things for our good.

God does not let us go through sin for our good. God does not ever want anyone to sin for any reason. Now, can God turn a sinful situation into a good one? Yes. But that does not mean He wanted people to sin so as to carry out His good.

Jonas refused...but eventually learned his refusal was wrong.

The story of Jonah proves Biblical Conditional Salvation and not Eternal Security. For God only turned away from His wrath and judgment ONLY WHEN the Ninevites forsaked their evil ways. This means that a believer has to forsake their evil ways as a part of repentance or Judgment or Wrath is coming for them. Jesus said in Matthew 12:41 that the Ninevites will rise up against this generation because they repented at the preaching of Jonah.

Paul talked of some people that blew it so bad, they had to die, but we're still saved.

Not at all. Paul never said that the Corinthians were saved in 1 Corinthians 3. Paul did not say that they were babes in Christ. He said he had to speak to them as if they were babes in Christ. There is a difference. He said he had to speak to them as if they were yet carnal.

1 Corinthians 2:14 says,
"But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned."

Also, the 1 Corinthians 3 is not a case that a believer can be saved without works or without holiness. First, nobody in this story had a lack of works. Stubble was the lesser form of works and not a lack of works. So you need works here. Also, stubble or hay is not the work of sin. Nobody builds sin upon the foundation of Jesus Christ. That is not a work one does in the Lord.

Like gold tried in a fire, He burns off the crud in our lives.

Nowhere in the Bible are their any kind of sinful or crud works like this. That is your own imagination working overtime based on preachers who made you believe something that is not in the Bible. Quote me the verse that says what you just said to me now.

It is a life long process. We do not become purest gold the moment we get saved.

In 1 Corinthians 3 it is talking about works of gold. This is the type of work you do based on what is in your heart. Hence, it makes up who you are (a part of God's building). But do not confuse sin as being stubble or hay. Those are not works that will be burned. They are good works you do for the Lord that turn out to not be true pure works that God desires as a part of His building. But you cannot have gold and sin in your building. For 1 Corinthians 3:17 says if any man defile the temple (which is obviously by sin), then God will destroy them. This means they are not saved because they will be destroyed and not saved through the fire.

The decision puts us on that long road to being made perfect.

You told me that the believer can sin and still be saved. That is not a minset of even close to perfect. One has to say that will stop sinning and then do so by God's power. If they slip up on occasion (not intending to sin or ever thinking that it was fate) that is one thing. But they will not admit that it is normal to abide in sin on occasion with the thinking they are saved. One has to feel sorry for their sin and turn away from it.

That decision was of our free choice.

The Scriptures say, Choose this day in whom ye will serve.
This is not just one day out of your life but every day.



...

 

[jimmyjimmy]

He is not a liar. Just because it takes time to make us perfect and sin free does not mean He is at our mercy. It means He is true and faithful.

I have no idea how that is a response to my post.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

Okay. Good. You are implying that babies are saved. So what of all the talk before about how you think of the unregenerate man as the perpetrator? Are all babies unregenerate creatures who are perpetrators? What about John the Baptist? He had the Holy Ghost since birth?

Did God just randomly choose the soul who would be John the Baptist to have God in his life for no real good reason? Or do think maybe God knew how John the Baptist would turn out to be as an adult because God has future foreknowledge?

My guess is that you believe John was one of the lucky ones and his future potential if God regenerated him had nothing to do with choosing John.

If this is the case, then it sounds like you believe God is some kind of puppet master. Is that true?

Why doesn't God force save all men out of the goodness of His heart if that is how He does it for some?

Should a coast guard person be praised for being good for saving two people by pulling them onto his boat and yet he refused to do so for one other person?

Keep in mind the coast guard person does not know any of these people.

However on the other hand, what if the coast guard person knew these three people are criminals, would it not be unfair or unjust to save only two when you could have saved all three?


...

You've made assumptions, and not answered my question.

 

[RisenInJesus]

Separate issues. Those verses are talking about justification. Moving goal posts. Does 1 John 2:2 mention justification? Belief? No.

You can't talk context of all if scripture while ignoring the context of a verse.

The verse in question says He's the propitiation for the whole world. God's wrath satisfied. Not potentially satisfied based on faith. Actual satisfaction. So if it's for the whole world, Hell will be empty. No more punishment for sin, for why would God punish that with which He's no longer angry? It doesn't mean that all would be justified by the propitious work. So not everyone would be in glory. But there would be no eternal punishment, either.

They are not separate issues. 1 John does not talk about faith or justification because it was initially written to believers who had already placed their faith in Christ and were already saved, they did not need to hear they must believe when they already believed. This does not negate the fact that they understood this and the reality that to be saved from God's wrath faith in Christ was required and that those outside of Christ do not have His propitious work personally applied to their life, so they are not forgiven, cleansed or made righteous in Him and perish to eternal damnation. People reject Jesus Christ...that is why there are those who will not be in glory.

 

[Hammster]

They are not separate issues. 1 John does not talk about faith or justification because it was initially written to believers who had already placed their faith in Christ and were already saved, they did not need to hear they must believe when they already believed. This does not negate the fact that they understood this and the reality that to be saved from God's wrath faith in Christ was required and that those outside of Christ do not have His propitious work personally applied to their life, so they are not forgiven, cleansed or made righteous in Him and perish to eternal damnation. People reject Jesus Christ...that is why there are those who will not be in glory.

You may want to double check on this. Believe is mentioned in 1 John. It's mentioned to believers. But it's not mentioned in 2:2. What is mentioned is propitiation, and not in conjunction with belief.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

You've made assumptions, and not answered my question.

I asked you a question and you answered back with a question.
Answer my question first, then I will answer your question.
Are all babies who die saved?
It's a simple "yes" or "no" answer.


...

 

[Bible Highlighter]

So far, I have agreed with most of your views, but I must disagree on this subject because according to the scriptures a person who is born again and saved becomes a new creation in Christ and old things have passed away. One who is a new creation in Christ cannot then become unborn and go back to their unregenerate state. This does mean that a saved person is forced to obey or remove the responsibility of the saved person to exercise their will in choosing daily to trust and follow Christ or mean that a saved person does not at times sin and need to confess and repent.

Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new. 2 Corinthians 5:17


"The “falling away” doctrine is another vestige from Rome, where, as you know, no one can tell you when enough Masses have been said, enough rosaries recited, enough indulgences earned to assure heaven—and salvation can always be lost.

"My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father’s hand."

—John:10:29"
Apples of Gold - August 25

I disagree. If you can sin and or have free will choice to walk away from God after you are saved, then you can fall away. For God does not remove our free will after we come to Christ. Yes, we have a new heart with new desires, but sin and or free will choice to choose the Lord or not is still a part of our life. Otherwise it would make no sense for the Scriptures to say, "Choose this day in whom ye will serve." For all babies who die are saved, right? So what separates them from God when they grow up and fall into sin whereby they need to repent and receive Jesus? It is sin that separates them from God. This truth does not change the moment they accept Christ and become saved again. For all people were once saved as a baby, then when they fell into sin, they became unsaved. Then when they received Jesus as their Savior, they became saved again.


...

 

[redleghunter]

This appears to be a dodge of the "Moral issue" here again.
Explain to me how it is good and loving of God to "Force Save" some people and "Damn" others against their free will choice? How exactly is that moral and good? Can you make a real world exampe out of that one?

It is not a dodge as I consider your presentation as a constructed false dilemma.

Your entry argument is based on a human perspective of what is just and good and loving.
Remember our ways are not His ways.

Those who work iniquity or sin are not going to make it. For Jesus says that the reason why this believer did not make it was because they worked iniquity (See Matthew 7:23).

Those who work inquity and sin are clearly shown to know better and given over to their lusts and inquity. Romans 1 makes this evident.

Verse 4 is Jesus telling you to abide in Him. This would not make any sense for Jesus to say this if you are automatically forced saved and abiding in Him by His sovereign decreed will. Jesus telling you to abide in him brings up the point about how you cannot abide in him, too (See verse 6). Verse 9, Jesus tell us to continue in His love. We do this by keeping His commandments (verse 10).

Yes those who are clean already (verse 3) is important to note and for some reason this verse is habitually ignored in some interpretations.

That's not really the point I was trying to make. Just by looking at their bad behavior or fruit we are able to tell that they do not have a correct belief. It's a moral issue. They are not on the side of morality or the love or goodness of God. This is why I am asking you to explain to me the goodness and love of God in the concept or idea that God forces some to be saved and forces others to be unsaved.

Actions do tell us a lot about people. Based on the above I conclude you would include "good" moral atheists in the equation?

Not at all. It is merely looking at a set of verses stitched together to prove a belief that is not true. There are many beliefs that are not true that can appear to do the same thing. But if morality or God's goodness is not in favor of that interpretation of those texts, then it is a wrong look at those verses.

Can you explain to me your understanding of eisegsis vs. exegesis? I think you missed my point.

Pick one and then we can discuss it.
The problem I have with what he wrote is flawed because what he had written is in violation of God's goodness (much like the Westboro Baptist church has done with their hate rallies). Calvin is essentially saying God does not have to know a believer's future free will choice so as to "elect" them. While God does not regenerate in this way, it is even immoral for God to force His salvation upon some people while forcing damnation upon others with no free will choice on behalf of the individuals. We are back at the idea or concept of turning God into an angry kid who smashes clay figures in a sandbox again. Such a concept of God is not the God of the Bible. For God is love. God is good.

God is Good and Loving. He is also Judge and Lawgiver.
I thought I explained such in my last post.

No. God would not be longsuffering that nobody should perish if they are elected to damnation. That verse does not belong in your Bible. It makes no sense with your beliefs.

You stand in judgment of me based on an internet discussion? Is "judge not" in your Bible. I was just pointing out the inconsistency of your approach.

This does not work if God does something unrighteous like choosing to save people when He has the power to save them.

Now you stand in judgement of God. Do you have full knowledge of God's will and design? No, none of us do. Calvin admitted such as well.

Why judge anyone if it was God who made them to be damned and or to be saved? It does not compute.

Perhaps we are getting somewhere. Can you will yourself to be saved?

Jesus says he that rejects me and receives not his words, those very words that He had spoken will judge them on the last day. Jesus did not say, "those in whom I have caused to reject me and to not receive my words, are chosen for damnation." It says they will be judged by the very words he had spoken. This makes no sense in the Calvinistic universe because judging us according to our words would be pointless if it was God ultimately just choosing to damn people.

Jesus also said those that the Father gave Him none would He lose. Is this a contradiction for you or a Biblical paradox?

Jesus tells us to ENTER into the narrow gate. This does not make any sense for Jesus to tell us to do something that should be a part of some kind of forced regeneration.

No one advocated forced regeneration. "The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit.”

Do we "capture" this wind with our efforts, or is this an act of God choosing us?

It seems you equate choosing with forced. I reject that notion.

Free will choice. God is waiting until the last man repents.

The only Biblical foundation for free choice is mentioned by Paul when he tells us our will is either in bondage to sin and death or we are slaves to God. So much for "free will."

Yes. It was fair because in our tragedies within life we actually draw closer to God if we are truly faithful to Him. It is like a test. A test of faith.

Double standard. Job was living righteously according to God. Then He brought death sickness and destruction upon Job's family. How is this just? Please explain to me.

Your argument above actually supports a Calvinist position.

No. God was not being cruel with Job as you suggest. God loves us and does all things for our good. For all things work together for good to those who love God. Take for example the story of Joseph. The horrible things in Joseph's life were things that turned out for a greater plan for good. So bad things can lead to that which is good in God's plans.

What good comes from a man who is righteous suffering catastrophic loss, pain and suffering? Isn't that akin to the clay toys you keep speaking of.

I think starting in Job 38 we start understanding why. The reason given was God is Creator and we are the creation. As long as we know our position in these matters as the creation, and Isaiah 55:8-9 comes to mind.

Jonah still could have refused to preach. But he didn't do that.
Anyways, the story of Jonah proves that Calvinism is false. God was going to bring Judgment or Wrath upon the Ninevites, but when they turned from wicked ways ---- THAT IS WHEN ----- God had decided to turn away from His Wrath and Jugment. If Calvinism was true, then the Ninevites would have never been in danger of any kind of Judgment because God would have predetermined them to salvation.

Jonah did refuse to preach and by pain and suffering was corrected.

Don't know what you are getting at. God several times in the OT warned of death and destruction and then withholds His Hand when a nation repents. However, the prophecy eventually comes to pass as it did with Nineveh and with Israel and Judah. This is the patience and mercy of God.

But if you do not believe in Forced Salvationism, then please do tell how your belief differs.

Begging the question. I firmly admit I have stopped beating my dog.

 

[RisenInJesus]

I disagree. If you can sin and or have free will choice to walk away from God after you are saved, then you can fall away. For God does not remove our free will after we come to Christ. Yes, we have a new heart with new desires, but sin and or free will choice to choose the Lord or not is still a part of our life. Otherwise it would make no sense for the Scriptures to say, "Choose this day in whom ye will serve." For all babies who die are saved, right? So what separates them from God when they grow up and fall into sin whereby they need to repent and receive Jesus? It is sin that separates them from God. This truth does not change the moment they accept Christ and become saved again. For all people were once saved as a baby, then when they fell into sin, they became unsaved. Then when they received Jesus as their Savior, they became saved again.


...

Well, I believe all babies/children are innocent before God until they reach a time of personally comprehending sin and become accountable to God and capable of repenting and trusting Jesus as their Savior. So I don't see that they are saved already, then fall away to be saved again, as you do. But that is besides the point.
I believe that once a person is saved an truly knows Christ they still have their fee will and at times will disobey God, but they would never fall away or want to leave Him because where would they go? As Peter said...Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. (John 6:67) According to the scriptures, once a person is born again they have already entered eternal life with God. You don't believe one earns salvation by their good works do you?

I think this is a very interesting and good topic, but really think you should start another thread because it is worth a thread in itself. Besides that, it seems to be veering off the point of this thread which is supposed to be mainly about how Calvinism slanders the character of God.

 

[redleghunter]

Until each side agrees upon what divine sovereignty means and how divine sovereignty works in the temporal world there is not any possibility of compromise or reconciliation.

There is much wisdom in this statement.

 

[RisenInJesus]

You may want to double check on this. Believe is mentioned in 1 John. It's mentioned to believers. But it's not mentioned in 2:2. What is mentioned is propitiation, and not in conjunction with belief.

I do not see "believe" mentioned in 1 John, but exactly what are you trying to say? Do you think the propitiation accomplished by Christ is applied to lives without belief in Christ? Do you feel it is legitimate to isolate verses as you do which chop up the gospel message which is throughout the NT?

 

[Hammster]

I do not see "believe" mentioned in 1 John, but exactly what are you trying to say? Do you think the propitiation accomplished by Christ is applied to lives without belief in Christ? Do you feel it is legitimate to isolate verses as you do which chop up the gospel message which is throughout the NT?

God's wrath was satisfied at the cross. That doesn't mean justification took place. That happens upon faith.

What you are doing is making propitiation something that's potential instead actual. In your theology, God's wrath isn't actually satisfied until one believes. That's not in the verse. If we take the verse as is, you are either left with "world" meaning people from throughout the world, and avoid any possibility of universalism; or God's wrath is no longer on anyone, and there's no point in hell.

 

[RisenInJesus]

God's wrath was satisfied at the cross. That doesn't mean justification took place. That happens upon faith.

I am not saying anything different.... but you have indicated you believe otherwise.

What you are doing is making propitiation something that's potential instead actual. In your theology, God's wrath isn't actually satisfied until one believes. That's not in the verse. If we take the verse as is, you are either left with "world" meaning people from throughout the world, and avoid any possibility of universalism; or God's wrath is no longer on anyone, and there's no point in hell.

In my view God's wrath against sin is completely satisfied by Jesus' work on the cross....the penalty for all sin has been paid and it is finished. Yet, those who reject Christ remain under God's wrath as the scriptures plainly say, because they did not believe in His Son.

He who believes in the Son has everlasting life; and he who does not believe the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him. John 3:36