Calvinism and its Secret Universalism

[dóxatotheó]

But I’d still love my children even if they reject me. My love isn’t conditional. It seems that you are saying that God’s love is ultimately conditioned upon whether people love Him back.

Never once said that I literally said multiple times Gods love is equal but if a person rejects him than he doesn't love you back. God love isn't based on us his love is determined if he wants to love you back or not

 

[Hammster]

Never once said that I literally said multiple times Gods love is equal but if a person rejects him than he doesn't love you back. God love isn't based on us his love is determined if he wants to love you back or not

I’m not quite sure what your point is.

 

[Clare73]

I don't see why. There is only one necessary, i.e. God. If God is sovereign, without qualification, then it is not impossible that all be predestined to one, heaven or hell. What is not possible, under those conditions, is that there be any factor in play except God's necessary freedom, i.e. that God can only do whatever God wants to do.

Possible, but not revealed.
What is revealed is two destinies (John 3:18; John 3:36).

 

[Clare73]

I believe more in the compatibilism philosophy I believe in determinism to an extinct.

Does not compatibalism reconcile full determinism?

 

[Clare73]

That's very Augustianian, almost Calvinist.

Calvinism is compatibalism.

All is resolved.

 

[Clare73]

does God knowledge takes away free will? God creating people for hell does sound wrong when we say it as such because we understand God forknews each event so we understand they made the choice which he knew they would.
God wouldn't stop creating because he knows they would choose hell over him.

A distinction without a difference.

You have not absolved God of responsibility for creating people for hell.
So you may as well own direct predestination to condemantion.

 

[Clare73]

You tell me. Obviously, God's knowledge does not take away choice. But
what is free will?

Pardon the grammar, but what free will is. . .is not the issue.
Free will is the power to choose what one prefers without external force or constraint.

The issue is disposition--what one prefers, which governs free will.
The Holy Spirit operates in the disposition, disposing one to prefer the things of God,
or one would never prefer them (1 Corinthians 2:14).
Man's choice of God is freely and willingly.

God does not violate man's will, he uses it to bring men to himself.

I suspect this is not news here.

 

[Clare73]

Arminianism my friend is the view I have concerning election and compatablism is my view concerning free will.

Then you're not a Calvinist.

 

[renniks]

It doesn’t seem that He loves them enough to save them from their bad choices, though.

Lol, ok? Forcing someone to love you back isn't saving them. That's called mental rape.

 

[dóxatotheó]

A distinction without a difference.

You have not absolved God of responsibility for creating people for hell.
So you may as well own direct predestination to condemantion.

Although a man is considered unable to choose against his desires, which are caused by his sin nature or God's intervention, the moral responsibility of sin lies with him. He chose to do it, therefore he is held responsible. Not what caused him to choose, but he that chooses is held responsible.

 

[dóxatotheó]

I’m not quite sure what your point is.

This discussion was about Calvinism and Universalism

 

[dóxatotheó]

Then you're not a Calvinist.

Never said I was lol

 

[dóxatotheó]

Calvinism is compatibalism.

All is resolved.

Of course we have two different views concerning election and free will than I wouldn't fully say Calvinism is compatibalist because yall believe God caused not influence the desires.

 

[dóxatotheó]

Does not compatibalism reconcile full determinism?

I would say it answers it yes.

 

[Hammster]

Lol, ok? Forcing someone to love you back isn't saving them. That's called mental rape.

Where did I say anything about forcing someone to love?

 

[Hammster]

This discussion was about Calvinism and Universalism

I know. But I don’t know what your point was.

 

[Clare73]

Although a man is considered unable to choose against his desires, which are caused by his sin nature or God's intervention, the moral responsibility of sin lies with him. He chose to do it, therefore he is held responsible. Not what caused him to choose, but
he that chooses is held responsible.

Actually, we are all born condemned by Adam's sin (Romans 5:18).

The only choice that makes a difference is faith in the person and work of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sin and right standing with God's justice.

 

[Clare73]

Never said I was lol

I though we were in "Debte with a Calvinist."

 

[Clare73]

Of course we have two different views concerning election and free will than
I wouldn't fully say Calvinism is compatibalist because yall believe God caused not influence the desires.

When it comes to preference, to influence is to cause.

 

[dóxatotheó]

When it comes to preference, to influence is to cause.

Influencing isn't entirely causing. The use of influence doesn't mean interference.