How to become a Calvinist in 5 easy steps

[Lost Witness]

No, in Calvin’s theology you have no say in your salvation, it’s not up to you. If Calvinism was true when the jailer asked Paul “what must I do to be saved” Paul should’ve replied “nothing it’s not up to you”.

"Many are called but few are chosen" which in my experience is true, so far.

 

[JAL]

I want to add my two cents to some of these soteriology discussions.

Can predestination/election/monergism allow everyone a chance to be saved? No, right? Actually, Yes, as I explained in post 33 on another thread.

 

[John Mullally]

No, in Calvin’s theology you have no say in your salvation, it’s not up to you. If Calvinism was true when the jailer asked Paul “what must I do to be saved” Paul should’ve replied “nothing it’s not up to you”.

Yes, it would help if Calvinsits would become familiar with the simplicity of God's Word intead of complicating it with their long winded, out of left-field, Theoligical framework termed TULIP. And worse, Calvinists magnify thier error by interpretting all scripture based upon the TULIP framework - its circular reasoning. Leaving Calvinism: Jesus poses salvation as being offered to all, as in all who believe and are baptized will be saved in Mark 16:16. And we see Peter, full of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, in Acts 2 promising remission of sins and receipt of the Holy Spirit (i.e. salvation) to those who repent and are baptized. The emphasis by Jesus and Peter was on man's choice as no indication is given that God is not willing.

John said God as Love, and per 1 Corinthians 13, love hopes all things (i.e. God is always willing) - but in my first paragraph per Jesus and Peter, sinful man still has his part to respond positively to God's love (i.e. termed faith) to receive salvation. Per Paul's interaction with King Agripa in Acts 26:28, some refuse which agrees with Stephen in Acts 7:51 who says that many resist the Holy Spirit - so men can reject God. This is all to say that man plays a roll - and why should that not be the case because God judges man. Taking off Theolgical glasses: If God choreographed everything man does (per Calvinist theology) how coud man righteously be judged? Sinful man is not judged for sin, but for rejecting God (John 15:23).

Paul conflicts with Calvin in that Paul clearly states that God desires for all men to be saved (1 Timothy 2:4), but Calvin says that God decrees (i.e. predestines) eternal torment to those He assigns prior to birth as "doomed from the womb" (look it up on the Google) - both Paul and Calvin cannot be correct on this - time to choose.

 

[zoidar]

I’m sure that when God’sGrace101 said that Calvinism was never accepted by the church he was most likely referring to the apostolic church, not the reformed church.

I believe "she" and "her".

 

[Mark Quayle]

No, in Calvin’s theology you have no say in your salvation, it’s not up to you. If Calvinism was true when the jailer asked Paul “what must I do to be saved” Paul should’ve replied “nothing it’s not up to you”.

Strictly speaking, Paul was speaking to the jailer, who was in fear for his life. From what I understand, the sure punishment for losing custody of the prisoners was death. It seems THAT is what he wanted saved from. Others have also said that the calamitous ruin of the jail had made him fear death. Whatever, proper hermeneutics shows that Paul was not talking to us.

Nevertheless, I'm not going to say the church has been wrong all these years in their use of Paul's answer. There are plenty more scriptures saying the same thing in several different ways. But Calvinism does say the same, in spite of protests to the contrary. It says that salvation is by grace through faith —what is belief, if not faith? The difference is, saving faith is not something man can produce. It is produced by the Spirit of God. It is, then, a gift, just as Ephesians 2:8,9 says. Calvinism (as I understand it) does not say that one's will is not involved —it most certainly is involved! But the will of man has no effect in CAUSING the salvation. The belief of John 3:16 is the work of God! You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. Spirit is spirit, and flesh is flesh. The flesh cannot do spiritual things. The mind of flesh is enmity with God. It will not submit to God's law, indeed it CANNOT, and it cannot please God. (Romans 8)

One tremendously important fact that I have not specifically mentioned here, I say for @J Mick and whoever else might be reading this —I know you, BNR32FAN, have been told this many times— is that regeneration, becoming born again, occurs when the Holy Spirit takes up residence in the human person. It by being born again that saving faith is produced, and salvation as a result. All of this the gift of God, not the work of man. In terms of causal sequence, God caused my faith, and so, my salvation, and did not ask my permission. I readily, willingly (because I had been born of the Spirit (John 3), 'gave my permission', but that permission is not how I was regenerated. My salvation is by grace alone.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Yes, it would help if Calvinsits would become familiar with the simplicity of God's Word intead of complicating it with their long winded, out of left-field, Theoligical framework termed TULIP. And worse, Calvinists magnify thier error by interpretting all scripture based upon the TULIP framework - its circular reasoning. Leaving Calvinism: Jesus poses salvation as being offered to all, as in all who believe and are baptized will be saved in Mark 16:16. And we see Peter, full of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, in Acts 2 promising remission of sins and receipt of the Holy Spirit (i.e. salvation) to those who repent and are baptized. The emphasis by Jesus and Peter was on man's choice as no indication is given that God is not willing.

John said God as Love, and per 1 Corinthians 13, love hopes all things (i.e. God is always willing) - but in my first paragraph per Jesus and Peter, sinful man still has his part to respond positively to God's love (i.e. termed faith) to receive salvation. Per Paul's interaction with King Agripa in Acts 26:28, some refuse which agrees with Stephen in Acts 7:51 who says that many resist the Holy Spirit - so men can reject God. This is all to say that man plays a roll - and why should that not be the case because God judges man. Taking off Theolgical glasses: If God choreographed everything man does (per Calvinist theology) how coud man righteously be judged? Sinful man is not judged for sin, but for rejecting God (John 15:23).

Paul conflicts with Calvin in that Paul clearly states that God desires for all men to be saved (1 Timothy 2:4), but Calvin says that God decrees (i.e. predestines) eternal torment to those He assigns prior to birth as "doomed from the womb" (look it up on the Google) - both Paul and Calvin cannot be correct on this - time to choose.

Amen, Calvin’s theology is destroyed so many times in the scriptures that it is completely unreasonable. The evidence stacked against it is absolutely overwhelming. Not even one of the 5 fundamental TULIP doctrines are supported by the scriptures.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Strictly speaking, Paul was speaking to the jailer, who was in fear for his life. From what I understand, the sure punishment for losing custody of the prisoners was death. It seems THAT is what he wanted saved from. Others have also said that the calamitous ruin of the jail had made him fear death. Whatever, proper hermeneutics shows that Paul was not talking to us.

The jailer didn’t ask them “what must I do to be saved” because he thought they had already left. How would that make any sense? Why would he ask them “what must I do to be saved” if he thought they weren’t there? Surely you don’t ask people questions who you think have already left do you? Paul told him they were still there and the jailer fell down before them before he asked what he must do to be saved.

So a jailer would fear being killed because an earthquake caused damage to the jail? He’s expected to protect the jail from earthquakes?

These are the kind of responses that result from twisting scripture from its intended context. No, what makes more sense is that the jailer knew why they were arrested in the first place which is typical of prison guards. They usually know why the prisoner is in jail. Next time you shouldn’t be so quick to accept evidence that supports your theology without thinking it thru and following it to its most logical conclusion. These are both obviously illogical explanations.

 

[Mark Quayle]

The jailer didn’t ask them “what must I do to be saved” because he thought they had already left. How would that make any sense? Why would he ask them “what must I do to be saved” if he thought they weren’t there? Surely you don’t ask people questions who you think have already left do you? Paul told him they were still there and the jailer fell down before them before he asked what he must do to be saved.

Seems strange to me that you would go there. The account says that all the doors were opened and that they were no longer bound. Furthermore, Paul told him, before his question was asked, that everyone was still there.

So a jailer would fear being killed because an earthquake caused damage to the jail? He’s expected to protect the jail from earthquakes?

Really? Do you honestly think that is what I was saying??? No. I'm saying that some say he was in fear from falling debris. It's not even my claim. But you must mock.

These are the kind of responses that result from twisting scripture from its intended context. No, what makes more sense is that the jailer knew why they were arrested in the first place which is typical of prison guards. They usually know why the prisoner is in jail. Next time you shouldn’t be so quick to accept evidence that supports your theology without thinking it thru and following it to its most logical conclusion. These are both obviously illogical explanations.

So you ignore the rest of my post to claim I interpreted it according to my theology. My theology does not oppose the usual interpretation, as I showed even in the post from which you extracted a quote out of context. Who is being too quick here?

 

[BNR32FAN]

Seems strange to me that you would go there. The account says that all the doors were opened and that they were no longer bound. Furthermore, Paul told him, before his question was asked, that everyone was still there.

Really? Do you honestly think that is what I was saying??? No. I'm saying that some say he was in fear from falling debris. It's not even my claim. But you must mock.

So you ignore the rest of my post to claim I interpreted it according to my theology. My theology does not oppose the usual interpretation, as I showed even in the post from which you extracted a quote out of context. Who is being too quick here?

I sincerely apologize brother it wasn’t my intention to misrepresent your post. I really thought that was what you were saying. I should’ve asked first before carrying on the way I did. I’m truly sorry, I only got like 5 hours of sleep last night and I replied first thing in the morning and I was super groggy so I wasn’t thinking clearly. Like I said I should’ve asked if that was what you actually meant instead of proceeding to refute your explanation. When you said that the jailer has lost custody of them I took that as they had escaped so I suspected that you probably read a commentary somewhere and didn’t compare it to the scriptures. This is a common mistake made here on CF and I’m confident that you’ve witnessed these kinds of mistakes as well. When you mentioned the jail being ruined I suspected that you were implying that the damage was a result of Paul and Silas and not from the earthquake. Like I said I’ve seen these kind of mistakes made before where people make claims that are contrary to what the scriptures say so it didn’t seem unfathomable to me. I just wanted to explain my actions here and convey my sincerest of apologies and I will strive to be more inquisitive in the future before making false claims against you brother. God bless.

 

[GodsGrace101]

Explained in post #1472.

Please exegete Ro 4:12-15, being true to its words and consistent with Paul's argument there.
Then we will have a basis for discussion

This means that we are held guilty of sin.

There was no sin between Adam and Moses, because there was no law to sin against.
But they all died because of their guilt of sin.
Of what sin were the guilty?

Of what sin were they guilty between Adam and Moses when there was no sin because there was no law to sin against?

Clare,
Here's post 1472:

My point is that, contrary to your assertion, sin is imputed to us, per Ro 5:12-15.

Good question. . .Paul is demonstrating that since,
where there is no law there is no sin, yet
all those born of Adam between Adam and Moses, when there was no law to sin against,
died anyway. . .it was because the sin of Adam was imputed to them (they were made sinners, Ro 5:19)
and which Ro 5:14 states is the pattern of Christ. . .
of Christ's righteousness likewise being imputed (they were made righteous) to all those born of Christ (Ro 4:1-11, Ro 5:19).

Ro 5:19 parallels the contrasting imputations of both sin and righteousness.
Click to expand...

GG101 replies:
How does Romans 5:12-15 state that sin is IMPUTED to us?
Where exactly does it state that?

What it does state is that, due to Adam's fall, we have all become sinners.
This means that we sin.
It does NOT mean that we are imputed with Adam's sin.
He sinned....not each one of us individually.

I believe I've explained what Romans 5:19 means.
I'll post it again since this is very important in understanding our Christianity...

Romans 5:18-19
18Yes, Adam’s one sin brings condemnation for everyone, but Christ’s one act of righteousness brings a right relationship with God and new life for everyone.

Paul is explaining that Adam's sin brought condemnation for everyone. Everyone from that time onward would be lost because Adam's sin affected all of humankind. We are condemned - separated from God, just like Adam became separated after he ate of the fruit.

Where does it state that we are blamed for Adam's sin?
It does not state this.
We are condemned with separation from God...
It does not say we are imputed with Adam's sin.

19Because one person disobeyed God, many became sinners. But because one other person obeyed God, many will be made righteous.

We thus have become sinners.
Our very nature tends toward sin.
But verse 19 also does not state that we are imputed with Adam's sin.
We only suffer the effects of it.

The reason this is important to understand is because of the possible death of a baby/child.
If we were imputed with Adam's sin, then that child would not be able to enter into heaven due to Revelation 21:27 stating that nothing unclean will enter into heaven.

But since the child is born with only the TENDENCY to sin...he is not stained with sin and can enter heaven.

You could be made into an actress...as we were made into sinners.
It doesn't mean you've made any films yet. Just as we do not sin till we sin.

 

[GodsGrace101]

Explained in post #1472.

Please exegete Ro 4:12-15, being true to its words and consistent with Paul's argument there.
Then we will have a basis for discussion

This means that we are held guilty of sin.

There was no sin between Adam and Moses, because there was no law to sin against.
But they all died because of their guilt of sin.
Of what sin were the guilty?

Of what sin were they guilty between Adam and Moses when there was no sin because there was no law to sin against?

I'm not sure I understand what Romans 4:12-15 has to do with the discussion.

Romans 4:12-15
11Circumcision was a sign that Abraham already had faith and that God had already accepted him and declared him to be righteous—even before he was circumcised. So Abraham is the spiritual father of those who have faith but have not been circumcised. They are counted as righteous because of their faith.
12And Abraham is also the spiritual father of those who have been circumcised, but only if they have the same kind of faith Abraham had before he was circumcised.
13Clearly, God’s promise to give the whole earth to Abraham and his descendants was based not on his obedience to God’s law, but on a right relationship with God that comes by faith.
14If God’s promise is only for those who obey the law, then faith is not necessary and the promise is pointless.
15For the law always brings punishment on those who try to obey it. (The only way to avoid breaking the law is to have no law to break!)

 

[Clare73]

Clare,
Here's post 1472:

GG101 replies:
How does Romans 5:12-15 state that sin is IMPUTED to us?
Where exactly does it state that?

What it does state is that, due to Adam's fall, we have all become sinners.

This means that we sin.
It does NOT mean that we are imputed with Adam's sin.
He sinned....not each one of us individually.

I believe I've explained what Romans 5:19 means.
I'll post it again since this is very important in understanding our Christianity...

Romans 5:18-19
18Yes, Adam’s one sin brings condemnation for everyone, but Christ’s one act of righteousness brings a right relationship with God and new life for everyone.

Paul is explaining that Adam's sin brought condemnation for everyone. Everyone from that time onward would be lost because Adam's sin affected all of humankind. We are condemned - separated from God, just like Adam became separated after he ate of the fruit.

Where does it state that we are blamed for Adam's sin?
It does not state this.
We are condemned with separation from God...
It does not say we are imputed with Adam's sin.

Please exegete Ro 5:12-15, being true to its words and consistent with Paul's argument there.
Then we will have a basis for discussion.

 

[GodsGrace101]

If you don't wish to answer what looks to you like nonsense, I can understand that. But it seems you took it more as insult than nonsense. Just saying...

So, what is your point of view? Is God's Grace comprehensive, or do we add to God's Grace by our faith? Is our faith something we produce, or is it produced by the indwelling Spirit of God? Always a 'cooperative' effort? Or are we In Him, he living within us?

When someone tells you what you think...it wastes too much time trying to correct the wrong impression instead of getting on with the topic at hand. I wasn't insulted.

Yes, God's grace is open for all to take advantage of or deny.
We cannot add to God's grace in any way...God is full of grace - one cannot be more full than full.

The following verses about God's mercy (which is a part of His grace) tells that all are welcomed:

Isaiah 30:18
18So the LORD must wait for you to come to him
so he can show you his love and compassion.
For the LORD is a faithful God.
Blessed are those who wait for his help.

The above shows that God is waiting for us to go to HIM...again, we are able to seek God.
And then He will have love and compassion for us.

Psalm 86:15
15But you, O Lord,
are a God of compassion and mercy,
slow to get angry
and filled with unfailing love and faithfulness.

Matthew 5:4
“Blessed are the merciful, for they shall receive mercy.

so many more...


Our faith is not something we produce. Faith is already available to us as a gift from God.
The difference between the reformed and the rest of Christianity is that they believe faith is given to a select few,
whereas God's faith is available to all.
I've said before that Ephesians 2:8 is understood to mean that all mentioned are gifts: Grace, Faith, and Salvation


As to the living...it is the Holy Spirit that lives in us.
Everyone believes this...I won't even post anything since the alternative you state (we live in HIM) is not believed by anyone.

As to cooperation:
Yes. Our WALK with God is a cooperation between what we do in our lives and what God would have us to do.
I said OUR WALK with God. Please don't reply that I'm saving myself.
What could be debated is whether or not we have anything to do with our actual justification/salvation.

I'd have to say that, yes, we also cooperate in our salvation in the sense that God must make the offer of salvation,
and man must reply with a yes or a no.

Revelation 22:17
17The Spirit and the bride say, “Come.” Let anyone who hears this say, “Come.” Let anyone who is thirsty come. Let anyone who desires drink freely from the water of life.

We're invited by God in some way or other - each in a different manner.
So God's grace calls to our heart, as God calls to everyone, and we must reply.

Matthew 23:37 Jesus said
37“O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones God’s messengers! How often I have wanted to gather your children together as a hen protects her chicks beneath her wings, but you wouldn’t let me. 38And now, look, your house is abandoned and desolate.


Jerusalem wouldn't LET Jesus protect her.
So now her house is desolate.
Not because Jesus caused it, but because Jerusalem would not have faith in Jesus.

So there definitely is a calling and a reply.

 

[GodsGrace101]

And here on this site repeatedly I've been told I have no reason for assurance of my salvation due to my theology. Oh, well...

A woman went up to ask John Piper a question after a debate or discussion, can't remember.
She was very sad because she wasn't sure she was saved.
Now, if I was asked such a question I'd answer that if someone is worried that they are NOT saved, it most surely means they are.
Unsaved persons don't go through life worrying about it.

However, Piper replied that she was right...that she could not be sure.
Where is the good news?
I would tend to wonder if it was really true that I was one of the lucky chosen ones.

However, I do want to say that although I understand what they're saying...
I also want to state that we cannot be the judge of anyone's soul.
We're just talking here.

 

[GodsGrace101]

J Mick said:
what's a Calvinist?



Are you saying that you are not biased? We all are. Get used to that fact, so you can try to see around the bias.

If I'm biased it means I'm prejudiced.
If I'm prejudiced it means I'm judging something without knowing about it...it's emotional.
I disagree with the reformed faith, calvinism, call it what you will.
And I state why in every post.

You outright instruct @J Mick that Calvinism is not Biblical and was never accepted by the church. No bias there? I notice you didn't mention Reformed Theology, which is pretty much the same as Calvinism in its tenets, which tenets spawned Protestantism.

I said calvinism (the theology of predestination) was never accepted by the church.
This is correct.
The church did not begin in 1,500AD

The church began after Jesus' ascension.
That was 2,000 years ago.

I don't know of any Early Church Theologian that believed in predestination UNLESS he was gnostic in belief.
In the 5th century Augustine came up with some idea about predestination but it wasn't double predesetination and the church did not accept it. Ausustine had been in a gnostsic sect called Manechaesm for 10 years before deciding to become Catholc.
To this day the CC does not accept any Calvinist teaching.

You didn't represent Calvinism with mere facts concerning Calvinism, and you missed a lot of them.

LOL
I'm sure I missed a lot.
But that T.U.L.I.P. acronym does come in handy, doesn't it?
But what I DID state were facts.
If you don't agree with them, maybe you're not a calvinist??

You jump immediately into what seems (granted that it seems to me) to be perhaps a favorite gripe of yours, Double Predestination. You ALL-CAPS the supposed doctrines you seem to hate. (Some people consider this to be SHOUTING).

I use caps because it's easier and I type very fast. Posters that know me know I don't shout. Sometimes it's to highlight.
Double predestination IS A GRIPE to me.
It means God makes some people to go to heaven,
and then, He makes some people to go to hell, and He's supposed to be doing this to glorify Himself.
How that glorifies God is a mystery to those of us that are not Calvinist.
And how does that represent a loving, merciful and just God will never be understood not even by Calvinists.

You don't explain what Calvinists mean by MAN HAS NO FREE WILL. You claim that double predestination means that MAN IS TOTALLY UNABLE TO SEEK OR FIND GOD, instead of pointing out any difference between the lost and the regenerated —why didn't you say, "Man as fallen..." or "Unregenerate man is totally unable..."?

Simple Mark.
Because I know what calvinists believe.
If you think I'm wrong, you could educate me.
But I know I'm not.
In calvinism MAN HAS NO FREE WILL!! Man DOES have free will.
In calvinism MAN IS UNABLE TO SEEK GOD. Man IS ABLE to seek God.

I DO agree that MAN IS FALLEN. This does not mean he is unable to seek for God. I've posted many verses to support this.
I DID NOT say that unregenerate man is totally unable because I believe MAN IS ABLE to seek after God.

Then you say that double predestination means that GOD HAS TO CHOSE WHOM WILL BE SAVED BECAUSE OF THE ABOVE. That is simply not true. God doesn't HAVE to do anything. His choice was made by the council of his own will, by his own authority, before the foundation of the world, before any of the three items you list came into play. God chose what he chose because he wanted to, for his own purposes —not as a reaction to anything anyone would do, nor even because of the sorry state they are in. Bias, my man!

I don't know what you're referring to by BECAUSE OF THE ABOVE.
However, you cannot deny that double predestination exists.

If God chooses, before the dawn of time, who will be saved - based on nothing at all that you or any calvinist knows,
the He is also, in effect, also choosing who will be damned - again based on nothing either you or any calvinist knows.
God choosing who will be saved and damned is not the God of the bible...
and so, calvinism is unbiblical because it creates a God that does not exist, and it creates a new doctrine that is not in the history of the church.
Think of mormonism, JWs, etc.

And you gloss right over the fact that double predestination doesn't even deal directly with those three items you listed. Not only that, but you don't even mention that "double predestination", while logically reasonable, does not stand alone as such, but is only a logically reasonable conclusion —it is not Calvinist doctrine as such. Calvinism teaches that God does nothing capriciously, though that too is not the core doctrine of the matter. God has a purposeful, and just, reason for the damnation of those at enmity with him, contrary to any notion that he damns the same way that he saves.

Whoa!
And what do you know is the purpose of God creating persons to go to hell for His own purposes...
What could that JUST reason possibly be?
I would say that a god that sends some to hell through no fault of the persons is VERY capricious.

But skipping the importance of the doctrine of God's sovereignty, and so on —i.e. that Calvinism isn't merely represented by TULIP— you even presented TULIP wrong:

Leaving alone Total Depravity as you stated it —you were close enough— you present a drawn conclusion from what Unconditional Election does say, instead of showing what Unconditional Election does say: (In my own words), that God's choice is based on nothing that we are, that we did, that we are doing or that we can do.

Exactly. That's the problem.

Limited Atonement you present with words ("Jesus did not die for the whole world") to make it seem to conflict with words of Scripture (such as in Hebrews 2:9 and 1 John 2:2). If I was to present it in opposition to you, I would have put, "Jesus did not die for absolutely every person who ever will have lived". You could at least have presented the notion of Definite Atonement, which is more to the point. But no, you had to jump right in to controversy, with no allowance of what Limited Atonement is really about. Bias.

Jesus died for everyone in the whole world - past, present and future.
Even some calvinists believe this.
But hyper calvinists do not. They believe Jesus died ONLY for some persons.
Even some calvinists can't accept Limited Atonement.

So no, what you told him is not what Calvinists believe.

Perhaps you could tell us what calvinism believes...?

 

[GodsGrace101]

That was likely a Misquote, LOL. I know Nothing about "calvinism" that's happened a few times in the last couple of days >.<

Saying that calvinism was never accepted by the church was not a misquote.

see my post no. 1515.
I'm very careful in what I post.

 

[Lost Witness]

Saying that calvinism was never accepted by the church was not a misquote.

see my post no. 1515.
I'm very careful in what I post.

the Post you are quoting was originally a quote from another poster that i was going to add an image to but it messed up and i deleted it.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I sincerely apologize brother it wasn’t my intention to misrepresent your post. I really thought that was what you were saying. I should’ve asked first before carrying on the way I did. I’m truly sorry, I only got like 5 hours of sleep last night and I replied first thing in the morning and I was super groggy so I wasn’t thinking clearly. Like I said I should’ve asked if that was what you actually meant instead of proceeding to refute your explanation. When you said that the jailer has lost custody of them I took that as they had escaped so I suspected that you probably read a commentary somewhere and didn’t compare it to the scriptures. This is a common mistake made here on CF and I’m confident that you’ve witnessed these kinds of mistakes as well. When you mentioned the jail being ruined I suspected that you were implying that the damage was a result of Paul and Silas and not from the earthquake. Like I said I’ve seen these kind of mistakes made before where people make claims that are contrary to what the scriptures say so it didn’t seem unfathomable to me. I just wanted to explain my actions here and convey my sincerest of apologies and I will strive to be more inquisitive in the future before making false claims against you brother. God bless.

Thank you. Nicely handled.

No doubt I could have been more clear myself.

 

[Mark Quayle]

A woman went up to ask John Piper a question after a debate or discussion, can't remember.
She was very sad because she wasn't sure she was saved.
Now, if I was asked such a question I'd answer that if someone is worried that they are NOT saved, it most surely means they are.
Unsaved persons don't go through life worrying about it.

However, Piper replied that she was right...that she could not be sure.
Where is the good news?
I would tend to wonder if it was really true that I was one of the lucky chosen ones.

However, I do want to say that although I understand what they're saying...
I also want to state that we cannot be the judge of anyone's soul.
We're just talking here.

I'm not sure what you are getting at here. Is it just the question: "Where is the good news?"?

The good news is the Gospel. Grace. If you want more than that, the answer ranges from creation to Heaven, and involves even the very nature of God. It is far from being only a safe final destination. It is the journey and the character of the destination. I'm not looking forward to being in Heaven as much as I am looking forward to seeing his face. Yet even here there is no end of joy and delight in speaking with him, who is delighted with what he is doing and what he has done —with what he is making.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Whoa!
And what do you know is the purpose of God creating persons to go to hell for His own purposes...
What could that JUST reason possibly be?
I would say that a god that sends some to hell through no fault of the persons is VERY capricious.

Whoa! Indeed! Who teaches God sends some to hell through no fault of the persons?

I was going to leave your post alone, but this plain galls me.