- May 12, 2021
- 991
- 318
- 19
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Republican
Upvote
0
Correct I am debating a CalvinistI though we were in "Debte with a Calvinist."
Not relevant to what you literally quoted because I agreeActually, we are all born condemned by Adam's sin (Romans 5:18).
define this moreA
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.
There is no interference in the choosing according to one's changed disposition.Influencing isn't entirely causing. The use of influence doesn't mean interference.
Explain more for meThere is no interference in the choosing according to one's changed disposition.
"he that chooses is held responsible"define this more
Don't know much on this surface yet and I will admit ignorance."he that chooses is held responsible"
A pivot on your "choose."
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.
I agree and good discussion I will study more let God prevail God blessThe usual objection: to "free will" being the object of "interference."
Are you insinuating I cant prove my premises OK I will prove each premise right now with scripture.
P1)God Loves All and desires all to be saved 1 John 4:7-8, 2 Peter 3:9, John 3:16, and 1 Timothy 2:4
P2) God Isn't halfway Romans 2:11 and Deuteronomy 1:16-17
P3) Gods Love is Loving his creation like the others What I mean by this is that God isn't partial in anything and that he loves all the same way because hes not partial and hes Love which is shown in scripture. John 3:16 and Romans 2:11 and 1 John 4:7-8
P4) God can give unconditional grace to everyone because he loves everyone and desire them to be saved; Are you implying God chooses certain people to be saved but still desires all them to be saved and loves all his creation equally?
P5) God choosing certain people isn't love and its him being partially. Deuteronomy 10:17 and Romans 2:11 and 1 Timothy 2:4
This conclusion is still grounded now are you gonna respond to my premises or call that im being fallacious and that my beliefs aren't grounded?
Okay. And?You said God didn't try to save them. Which is wrong, first off. And if he did save them I against their will, that's by force.
I agree with your general argument that, strictly speaking, Calvinism leads to Universalism. In fact, the most deplorable aspects of Calvinism (double-predestination) disappear once that conclusion is reached. I disagree that it should be rejected on that basis, but quite the opposite. At any rate, you make a good point.
Where? When Is the last time you've seen a Calvinist say everybody will be saved? It's not true. It's never been true and I'm extremely against universalism because it's plain not true and taught nowhere in the Bible. Jesus never taught it, the Prophets never taught it, its not true. They taught the doctrine of Election but Election is not applied to everyone because scripture teaches over and over again that God did not elect everyone.
Not everyone will be saved. There will be lost people or we would be denying the book of Revelation as well. Just, plain not true.
Saving someone from eternal torture is love, wouldn’t you say?And that's not love.
And saving them all would not be forcing all to love Him.Sure. And that offer has been extended to all.
You are right --not news to me. And thanks for chiming in. I was hoping to draw the reasoning out of him. I wanted him to tell me what he meant by free will, and the logical implications were to follow.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.
The Catholic Church is in a sense Universalist in the teaching on baptism: Baptism of desire etc.P1) God Loves All and desires all to be saved
P2) God Isn't halfway
P3) Gods Love is Loving his creation like the others
P4) God can give unconditional grace to everyone because he loves everyone and desire them to be saved
P5) God choosing certain people isn't love and its him being partially.
Conclusion: Calvinism is Universalism because God loves all creation and he isn't partially and he can give his unconditional grace to all creation because he loves all his creation equally.
So No nobody disagrees with the sovereignty of God, we disagree with John Calvin's core doctrine. Sorry to say but John Calvinism soft determinism fails according to my premises and conclusions, any rebuttals would be fallacious because P1 and P3 goes together do you agree?
I believe Calvinism fails because these prepositions came to light if any Calvinist has an explanation from my argument; I would love to see it and note: I agree with all scriptures that you believe proves it. I will address those verses after you address my argument against the belief.
Why would Jesus command his followers to love our neighbors as ourselves, if God himself does not love our neighbors?I agree that God doesn’t love all.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?