Calvinists do not really affirm "the purpose of man is to glorify God and enjoy him forever"

bcbsr

Newbie
Mar 17, 2003
4,085
2,318
Visit site
✟193,956.00
Faith
Christian
And this is what you wanted. You can’t actually refute what I said with anything besides “uh-uh”, so now we will spend time discussing anything but that.

Did you read the link on genetic fallacies?
There's nothing to refute. You didn't actually formulate an argument. Why not try to refute my argument.
 
Upvote 0

Hammster

Psalm 144:1
Christian Forums Staff
Site Advisor
Supporter
Apr 5, 2007
140,012
25,178
55
New Jerusalem
Visit site
✟1,718,526.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Married
There's nothing to refute. You didn't actually formulate an argument. Why not try to refute my argument.
I did formulate an argument. I showed you that you are wrong on your understanding of the Reformed Theology view of election. You won’t find any support for your view anywhere, except maybe from hyper-Calvinists, who aren’t Calvinists at all.

Election isn’t salvation. We are elected to salvation. Let’s start with that.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Gr8Grace

Well-Known Member
Mar 11, 2018
1,389
394
51
South Dakota
✟75,931.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I did formulate an argument. I showed you that you are wrong on your understanding of the Reformed Theology view of election.

I know this wasn't to me........I always find it interesting that reformed/calvin folk always say, "Your understanding of reformed theology/ calvinism is wrong or not understood." ........I spent years in a reformed church..........but I don't know a thing about reformed theology!!!!!!!!???????

You won’t find any support for your view anywhere, except maybe from hyper-Calvinists, who aren’t Calvinists at all.
All calvinists are hyper-calvinist. They have figured out the "word game" or are not paying much attention to what their pastors are REALLY saying...........soft determinism,compatible. In the end, It is still HYPER calvinism.

Election isn’t salvation. We are elected to salvation. Let’s start with that.
Same tactic I used. Of course election is not salvation. Election is God choosing us for SERVICE after we FREELY believe in Him for salvation.

We are elected for service. We are given salvation as a free gift the moment we BELIEVE on His person and work for us........Acts 16:31, John 3:16.
 
Upvote 0

Hammster

Psalm 144:1
Christian Forums Staff
Site Advisor
Supporter
Apr 5, 2007
140,012
25,178
55
New Jerusalem
Visit site
✟1,718,526.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Married
Upvote 0

Hammster

Psalm 144:1
Christian Forums Staff
Site Advisor
Supporter
Apr 5, 2007
140,012
25,178
55
New Jerusalem
Visit site
✟1,718,526.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Married
I know this wasn't to me........I always find it interesting that reformed/calvin folk always say, "Your understanding of reformed theology/ calvinism is wrong or not understood." ........I spent years in a reformed church..........but I don't know a thing about reformed theology!!!!!!!!???????


All calvinists are hyper-calvinist. They have figured out the "word game" or are not paying much attention to what their pastors are REALLY saying...........soft determinism,compatible. In the end, It is still HYPER calvinism.


Same tactic I used. Of course election is not salvation. Election is God choosing us for SERVICE after we FREELY believe in Him for salvation.

We are elected for service. We are given salvation as a free gift the moment we BELIEVE on His person and work for us........Acts 16:31, John 3:16.
You missed the point of my post. I wasn’t making an argument for election. I was showing him that he was misrepresenting Reformed Theology. If you spent all that time in a Reformed church, then you’d know that I’m right about what we believe, and that he created a straw man.
 
Upvote 0

The Righterzpen

Jesus is my Shield in any Desert or Storm
Feb 9, 2019
3,389
1,342
53
Western NY
Visit site
✟144,006.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others
About your objection, here's the problem:

The passages you quote about belief / believing are not possible without God first raising a person to spiritual life. A believer's faith actually originates with God.

1 Peter 1:21
Who by Him do believe in God, that raised him up from the dead, and gave him glory; that your faith and hope might be in God.

1 Samuel 26:23
The Lord render to every man His righteousness and His faithfulness;
for the Lord delivered thee into my hand to day, but I would not stretch forth mine hand against the Lord's anointed.

Romans 12:3
3 For I say, through the grace given unto me, to every man that is among you, not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think; but to think soberly, according as God hath dealt to every man the measure of faith.

Galatians 2:16 & 20

16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

17 But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is therefore Christ the minister of sin? God forbid.

18 For if I build again the things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor.

19 For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God.

20 I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.

Galatians 3:2-5 & 22
2 This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?

3 Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?

4 Have ye suffered so many things in vain? if it be yet in vain.

5 He therefore that ministers to you the Spirit, and works miracles among you, does He it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?

22 But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.

Ephesians 3:11-12

11 According to the eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord:

12 In whom we have boldness and access with confidence by the faith of him.

Philippians 3:9

9 And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith:

Colossians 2:12

2 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.

Jude 3
3 Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.

1 Thessalonians 1:3 (actually defines faith as a work)
3 Remembering without ceasing your work of faith, and labour of love, and patience of hope in our Lord Jesus Christ, in the sight of God and our Father;

2 Thessalonians 1:11
11 Wherefore also we pray always for you, that our God would count you worthy of this calling, and fulfil all the good pleasure of his goodness, and the work of faith with power:

While I agree with this statement, I would caution to anyone reading that an overemphasis on one's 'election' is an unhealthy pre-occupation. Pondering too much on the domain of God (which is what election is, a divine right of God's, not man's) can turn someone into a dogmatic elitist, equating himself to God, surpassing God even.

How can one "over emphasize" something that is clearly spoken of in Scripture?

How can one become a "dogmatic elitist, equating himself with God, surpassing God even" when they clearly understand this was NONE of their doing? It seems more likely to me that one "becomes elitist, equating himself with God, surpassing God even" when he insists on having a "free will"!
 
Upvote 0

The Righterzpen

Jesus is my Shield in any Desert or Storm
Feb 9, 2019
3,389
1,342
53
Western NY
Visit site
✟144,006.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others
I am not the one with the problem here:

When you insist that God needs to meet your expectations of your definition of love; yes, you are the one with the problem.

Do you believe God is omnibenevolent, the epitome of Love, Love so great it is beyond imagination, and/or at least greater than any Love man could have?

Not according to your definition of love, I don't.

Do you believe while Christ was on earth, He showed Love for everyone if not who did He not Love?

Is physically throwing people out of the temple and telling pharisees they are children of satan "love"?

Note psalm 139 is a "Messianic psalm". It's a fascinating passage because it gives us insight into the psyche of Jesus and his perception of himself and his role in the redemption plan. Verse 22 says: "I hate them with perfect hatred; I count them my enemies."

So no, apparently Jesus did not "love" everyone.

Do you believe we are to Love everyone?

Only in so much as Christ is the example. I understand there are those who will not be redeemed, though I have no idea who the elect are and therefore just because I encounter someone at a given point in their life, who does not display any fruit of the Spirit; this does not mean they will not be redeemed at some point after I've had any dealings with them. So I follow what Scripture says: "for as much as is within you to live peaceably with all men." Sometimes there are people who are toxically hostile and you "kick the dust off your feet" and move on. The only time I will say that it appears someone was not elect is at the point that they die and they are obvious unbelievers. (Which I have seen that on several occasions.)

I see and believe “yes” to all these questions, so the question is: “How can some people wind up in hell?”

People "wind up in hell" as the earning of the wages for their sin.

Which your answer is: “Because God does not Love everyone”, but that contradicts what we know about God/Christ.

Scripture is very clear that God does not love everyone.

You support this by saying: “God/Christ only lovingly atoned for some people.” Which would also contradict God’s Love. So, “why did atonement not take place for everyone”, since I also believe the atonement process was not completed for some?

I already answered this question. (Hint: the answer is in Romans 9.) God did not atone for everyone because for His purposes, He did not see that as to be to the furtherance of His glory.

You are making the problem out to be with: “God’s limited Love”, while God’s Love is not limited.

Well according to Scriptural evidence; apparently God's love is "limited". (And it is not my problem that you don't like that answer.)

People have a really hard time freely accepting pure sacrificial charity (Godly type Love). If they reach the point of never being willing to accept pure charity, than they are hell bound and take on a lesser objective.

You are correct here. They do have a big problem because outside of God's intervention; they aren't willing.

It is totally fair of God to provide all mature adults with the limited autonomous free will to chose to accept or reject His charity in the form of forgiveness, so they can become like God Himself in that they have Godly type Love (…he that is forgiven much Loves much…). God is giving all mature adults the only way possible for us to become like He is. God cannot force His Love on us like a shotgun wedding with Him holding the shotgun nor can God make the Love instinctive to humans, since that would make it robotic.

It's totally fair for God to cast the entire human race into the lake of fire!

God sends these refusers of His Love to hell, not because He Loves them (which He does) or to help them, but for God’s Love of others, who still can choose and need to realize hell awaits them, if they do not accept God’s grace/charity/Love/mercy/Forgiveness soon. It can be a motivator for those who come to their senses and see where they are headed (hell, like the prodigal son starving to death in a pigsty was where he was headed).

:scratch: boy, that's some "love" for those who end up in hell.

It is fair of God to accept all those and only those who accept His charity as charity, for heaven has only Godly type Love (charity) in it, so those who have shown they do not like or want charity will not be happy there. (God’s not going to force them to go.)

So, God is a respecter of persons..... hum.... only respects those that accept Him. That my friend; is a works gospel!

Paul points out in Ro. 9-11 that even though the Jews seemed to be privileged, it is just as hard for them to accept salvation as it is for the Gentiles.

Because election isn't according to the flesh; neither of genetic heritage or human endeavor.
 
Upvote 0

bcbsr

Newbie
Mar 17, 2003
4,085
2,318
Visit site
✟193,956.00
Faith
Christian
I did formulate an argument. I showed you that you are wrong on your understanding of the Reformed Theology view of election. You won’t find any support for your view anywhere, except maybe from hyper-Calvinists, who aren’t Calvinists at all.

Election isn’t salvation. We are elected to salvation. Let’s start with that.
You're just using a tautology and not speaking to the substance of the argument. Are the elect not destined to go to heaven? In fact are they not eternally secure in that fate prior to coming to faith in Christ? Or are you ignorant of the claims of Calvinism?
 
Upvote 0

Hammster

Psalm 144:1
Christian Forums Staff
Site Advisor
Supporter
Apr 5, 2007
140,012
25,178
55
New Jerusalem
Visit site
✟1,718,526.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Married
You're just using a tautology and not speaking to the substance of the argument. Are the elect not destined to go to heaven? In fact are they not eternally secure in that fate prior to coming to faith in Christ? Or are you ignorant of the claims of Calvinism?
Of course they are destined. You, too, believe there are people destined to heaven, unless you are an open theist. However, you brought up Acts 16.

and after he brought them out, he said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” They said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.”
— Acts 16:30-31

You seemed confused as how this could fit in with Reformed Theology. So I explained that election isn’t salvation, but that we are elected to salvation.

Now, I’m not asking to believe what Reformed Theology teaches. All I’m asking is that you don’t misrepresent what’s taught. That would be the brotherly thing to do. Agreed?
 
Upvote 0

bcbsr

Newbie
Mar 17, 2003
4,085
2,318
Visit site
✟193,956.00
Faith
Christian
Of course they are destined. You, too, believe there are people destined to heaven, unless you are an open theist. However, you brought up Acts 16.

and after he brought them out, he said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” They said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.”
— Acts 16:30-31

You seemed confused as how this could fit in with Reformed Theology. So I explained that election isn’t salvation, but that we are elected to salvation.

Now, I’m not asking to believe what Reformed Theology teaches. All I’m asking is that you don’t misrepresent what’s taught. That would be the brotherly thing to do. Agreed?
So you agree that Calvinism indicates that a person is elect to eternal life from birth, and they are eternally secure in their destiny to go to heaven. At no time in their entire life from birth to death were they ever in danger of going to hell. Thus they are, all the way from birth, saved from condemnation. That is, saved from ending up in hell fire, even not having come to believe in Christ. Did they have to believe in Christ in order to have that fate? As you just read and agreed with, Calvinism indicates they already had that fate prior to believing in Christ. Believing in Christ didn't change that fate. Before they believed in Christ they were eternally secure, free from a hell-bound fate. And after they believed in Christ, the same case.

Now for some reason you appear to be incapable of understanding the logical connection between these statements. I would think any rational person could comprehend the above. Is the above too difficult for you to understand? How could I make it easier for you?

As for my comment on "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?", apparently you haven't thought through the theological implications of Calvinism. You might want to do that.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Hammster

Psalm 144:1
Christian Forums Staff
Site Advisor
Supporter
Apr 5, 2007
140,012
25,178
55
New Jerusalem
Visit site
✟1,718,526.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Married
So you agree that Calvinism indicates that a person is elect to eternal life from birth, and they are eternally secure in their destiny to go to heaven. At no time in their entire life from birth to death were they ever in danger of going to hell. Thus they are, all the way from birth, saved from condemnation. That is, saved from ending up in hell fire, even not having come to believe in Christ. Did they have to believe in Christ in order to have that fate? As you just read and agreed with, Calvinism indicates they already had that fate prior to believing in Christ. Believing in Christ didn't change that fate. Before they believed in Christ they were eternally secure, free from a hell-bound fate. And after they believed in Christ, the same case.

Now for some reason you appear to be incapable of understanding the logical connection between these statements. I would think any rational person could comprehend the above. Is the above too difficult for you to understand? How could I make it easier for you?

As for my comment on "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?", apparently you haven't thought through the theological implications of Calvinism. You might want to do that.
Here’s what I posted earlier.

Salvation is many-faceted. Election is only part of it. We are elected to salvation. Election isn’t salvation. There’s also regeneration (born again; new heart). And there’s justification (the result of belief). God ordains the means as well as the ends.

So perhaps you do engage with Calvinists. But you are listening to what is said.
 
Upvote 0

bling

Regular Member
Supporter
Feb 27, 2008
16,158
1,805
✟794,647.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
When you insist that God needs to meet your expectations of your definition of love; yes, you are the one with the problem.


Not according to your definition of love, I don't.
I am taking scripture like 1 Cor. 13, 1 John 4 and everything Christ said and did to be the definition of Godly type Love.

This is not my unique personal definition of Love.

Can you give me how you feel the Bible defines Godly type Love?

Is physically throwing people out of the temple and telling pharisees they are children of satan "love"?
YES!!! Very much so!! Do you tell your children they are being bad when they do something seriously wrong? Do you discipline your children? If you knew your child was allowing him/herself to be controlled by satan what would you say to them, to lovingly help them to change?
Note psalm 139 is a "Messianic psalm". It's a fascinating passage because it gives us insight into the psyche of Jesus and his perception of himself and his role in the redemption plan. Verse 22 says: "I hate them with perfect hatred; I count them my enemies."

So no, apparently Jesus did not "love" everyone.
First off: Psalms 139 is David speaking about David and do not see this as being Christ speaking.

David is also addressing a time prior to the indwelling Holy Spirit, where the Jews were to “hate” those who hated God, hate in that they were to separate themselves from them. They were to be a separate nation set aside for a great work.

Again, you can hate and Love at the same time like Christ asked us to do with our family.



People "wind up in hell" as the earning of the wages for their sin.
But you sinned and “earned a wage for your sins” and do not wind up in hell, so that is not the reason?

Scripture is very clear that God does not love everyone.
Not according to the definition of Godly type love in 1 Cor., 1 John 4 and Christ’s life.

I already answered this question. (Hint: the answer is in Romans 9.) God did not atone for everyone because for His purposes, He did not see that as to be to the furtherance of His glory.
I explained Ro. 9 which is not talking about limited atonement or limited election.

You keep throughout “God’s purpose” like God has some inter need hidden personal objective. God objective seems to be doing or allowing everything possible to help those who are willing to accept his help fulfill their earthly objective.

If a few give God glory, then why would more not be showing greater Love and thus giving God greater glory?

Well according to Scriptural evidence; apparently God's love is "limited". (And it is not my problem that you don't like that answer.)
The answer “God’s Love is limited” contradicts “God being Love” since God is infinite that would mean His Love is infinite, which is consistent with what we read in scripture and see in Christ’s life.

Where do you find this definition of limited Love being Godly type Love? (Hating does not limit God’s Love).

You are correct here. They do have a big problem because outside of God's intervention; they aren't willing.
God has given all mature adults free will, but that just allows them to accept pure charity and does not make them accept pure charity.

It's totally fair for God to cast the entire human race into the lake of fire!
God cannot due that and be true to His words, since He will save those who accept His charity and God is charitable.

:scratch: boy, that's some "love" for those who end up in hell.
God is not happy about sending people to hell, but they have shown they do not want to be in heaven with God and since death is needed to help some accept Charity while on earth, these people, God does Love, must die and not go to heaven.

So, God is a respecter of persons..... hum.... only respects those that accept Him. That my friend; is a works gospel.
No, it is not! You cannot use your personal definition of “work”, but see how scripture define “work”.

If you accept a gift it is not payment for work, since a gift is not something you earned.

A righteous bagger is not working to get what he is given, it was given to him as charity.

Trusting (having faith) in God’s grace is not work and is the opposite of working to earn/deserve God’s grace.

Worship is not “work”, God is not paying priests to worship Him (like the pagan priests were paid to worship pagans), but the priest can physically and mentally ware themselves out on a sabbath, yet the priests were keeping the sabbath rest. What we do as priest under the new covenant is worship 24/7 and not work.
 
Upvote 0

bcbsr

Newbie
Mar 17, 2003
4,085
2,318
Visit site
✟193,956.00
Faith
Christian
Here’s what I posted earlier.

Salvation is many-faceted. Election is only part of it. We are elected to salvation. Election isn’t salvation. There’s also regeneration (born again; new heart). And there’s justification (the result of belief). God ordains the means as well as the ends.

So perhaps you do engage with Calvinists. But you are listening to what is said.
Once again you ignored what I just said. Again, you agreed that Calvinism indicates that a person is elect to eternal life from birth, and they are eternally secure in their destiny to go to heaven. At no time in their entire life from birth to death were they ever in danger of going to hell. Thus they are, all the way from birth, saved from condemnation. That is, saved from ending up in hell fire, even not having come to believe in Christ. Did they have to believe in Christ in order to have that fate? As you just read and agreed with, Calvinism indicates they already had that fate prior to believing in Christ. Believing in Christ didn't change that fate. Before they believed in Christ they were eternally secure, free from a hell-bound fate. And after they believed in Christ, the same case.

Do you understand the implications of that?
 
Upvote 0

Hammster

Psalm 144:1
Christian Forums Staff
Site Advisor
Supporter
Apr 5, 2007
140,012
25,178
55
New Jerusalem
Visit site
✟1,718,526.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Married
Once again you ignored what I just said. Again, you agreed that Calvinism indicates that a person is elect to eternal life from birth, and they are eternally secure in their destiny to go to heaven. At no time in their entire life from birth to death were they ever in danger of going to hell. Thus they are, all the way from birth, saved from condemnation. That is, saved from ending up in hell fire, even not having come to believe in Christ. Did they have to believe in Christ in order to have that fate? As you just read and agreed with, Calvinism indicates they already had that fate prior to believing in Christ. Believing in Christ didn't change that fate. Before they believed in Christ they were eternally secure, free from a hell-bound fate. And after they believed in Christ, the same case.

Do you understand the implications of that?
The problem is that you are ignoring what I’m saying. How many times have I said that election isn’t salvation?

The elect still need sins atoned for. The elect still need to be born again. The elect still need to be justified. The elect still need to be sanctified. The elect still need to be justified.

So the elect still must believe on the Lord Jesus Christ to be saved.

I hope that’s clear enough.
 
Upvote 0

Hammster

Psalm 144:1
Christian Forums Staff
Site Advisor
Supporter
Apr 5, 2007
140,012
25,178
55
New Jerusalem
Visit site
✟1,718,526.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Married
Before they believed in Christ they were eternally secure, free from a hell-bound fate
Unless you hold to open theism, you believe this, too.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

bcbsr

Newbie
Mar 17, 2003
4,085
2,318
Visit site
✟193,956.00
Faith
Christian
The problem is that you are ignoring what I’m saying. How many times have I said that election isn’t salvation?

The elect still need sins atoned for. The elect still need to be born again. The elect still need to be justified. The elect still need to be sanctified. The elect still need to be justified.

So the elect still must believe on the Lord Jesus Christ to be saved.

I hope that’s clear enough.
You're confused between a "term" and a "concept".

Once again you ignored what I just said. Again, you agreed that Calvinism indicates that a person is elect to eternal life from birth, and they are eternally secure in their destiny to go to heaven. At no time in their entire life from birth to death were they ever in danger of going to hell. Thus they are, all the way from birth, saved from condemnation. That is, saved from ending up in hell fire, even not having come to believe in Christ. (That's the concept.) Did they have to believe in Christ in order to have that fate? As you just read and agreed with, Calvinism indicates they already had that fate prior to believing in Christ. Believing in Christ didn't change that fate. Before they believed in Christ they were eternally secure, free from a hell-bound fate. And after they believed in Christ, the same case.
 
Upvote 0

Hammster

Psalm 144:1
Christian Forums Staff
Site Advisor
Supporter
Apr 5, 2007
140,012
25,178
55
New Jerusalem
Visit site
✟1,718,526.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Married
You're confused between a "term" and a "concept".

Once again you ignored what I just said. Again, you agreed that Calvinism indicates that a person is elect to eternal life from birth, and they are eternally secure in their destiny to go to heaven. At no time in their entire life from birth to death were they ever in danger of going to hell. Thus they are, all the way from birth, saved from condemnation. That is, saved from ending up in hell fire, even not having come to believe in Christ. (That's the concept.) Did they have to believe in Christ in order to have that fate? As you just read and agreed with, Calvinism indicates they already had that fate prior to believing in Christ. Believing in Christ didn't change that fate. Before they believed in Christ they were eternally secure, free from a hell-bound fate. And after they believed in Christ, the same case.
It’s obvious that you are going to continue to ignore anything I say. So hopefully, at least, others can follow our “discussion” and see that I’ve addressed your argument, and shown that you are willfully (now) misrepresenting what Reformed Theology teaches.

Again, I’m not asking you to agree with my position. I’m just asking for truthful representation, as a brother in Christ should want to do.
 
Upvote 0

bcbsr

Newbie
Mar 17, 2003
4,085
2,318
Visit site
✟193,956.00
Faith
Christian
It’s obvious that you are going to continue to ignore anything I say. So hopefully, at least, others can follow our “discussion” and see that I’ve addressed your argument, and shown that you are willfully (now) misrepresenting what Reformed Theology teaches.

Again, I’m not asking you to agree with my position. I’m just asking for truthful representation, as a brother in Christ should want to do.
You're claiming that if a person is guaranteed not to go to hell, that the person is eternally secure in his fate of going to heaven, it is "misrepresenting Calvinism" to say that such a person has been saved from a hell-bound fate.

As you should have noticed, I used "saved" in a certain context. It is you who misrepresent me as to what I mean by "saved". So I suggest you stop misrepresenting me.
 
Upvote 0

Hammster

Psalm 144:1
Christian Forums Staff
Site Advisor
Supporter
Apr 5, 2007
140,012
25,178
55
New Jerusalem
Visit site
✟1,718,526.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Married
You're claiming that if a person is guaranteed not to go to hell, that the person is eternally secure in his fate of going to heaven, it is "misrepresenting Calvinism" to say that such a person has been saved from a hell-bound fate.

As you should have noticed, I used "saved" in a certain context. It is you who misrepresent me as to what I mean by "saved". So I suggest you stop misrepresenting me.
Remember, this all started because of your use of Acts 16 to show how Reformed Theology is inconsistent. I have spent numerous posts showing how Reformed Theology works with that passage.

If you had a different meaning for “saved”, I missed it and apologize. Maybe you can expound on what you meant.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

bcbsr

Newbie
Mar 17, 2003
4,085
2,318
Visit site
✟193,956.00
Faith
Christian
Remember, this all started because of your use of Acts 16 to show how Reformed Theology is inconsistent. I have spent numerous posts showing how Reformed Theology works with that passage.

If you had a different meaning for “saved”, I missed it and apologize. Maybe you can expound on what you meant.
I was using "saved" as the Philippian jailer was using it. Namely salvation from being hell-bound. (The guy's not a theologian, and certainly not a Calvinist)
 
Upvote 0