Calvinism provides an excuse for those in hell

[Hammster]

The Westminster Confession of Faith

Chapter 3

3. By the decree of God, for the manifestation of his glory, some men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life; and others foreordained to everlasting death.

Would those predestinated unto everlasting life be the elect?
Would 'others' foreordained to everlasting death be those who aren't elect?

I must ask, are any of those foreordained to everlasting death be the elect?

7. The rest of mankind God was pleased, according to the unsearchable counsel of his own will, whereby he extendeth or withholdeth mercy, as he pleaseth, for the glory of his sovereign power over his creatures, to pass by; and to ordain them to dishonor and wrath for their sin, to the praise of his glorious justice.

Notice the "for their sin" part.

Context helps.

 

[crimsonleaf]

Why do you bother wasting your time with this "stuff"? If you are able to answer the 6 simple questions, go ahead and answer them.

If you are just stalling for some time in order to try to figure out how not to get trapped by these 6 very easy and simple questions, then, by all means, take your time.

Here they are again, just for you.

#1 Did Christ die ONLY for the elect?
#2 Did God choose for heaven ONLY the elect?
#3 Do ONLY the elect go to heaven?
#4 Did Christ NOT die for the non-elect?
#5 Did God NOT choose for heaven the non-elect?
#5 Do ONLY the non-elect go to hell?
#6 Are the elect and non-elect both sinners and both deserve hell?

No I'm not stalling for time, I'm just following the same "pedantry protocol" you've adopted on every thread I've seen you on. Don't ask me if I can, ask me if I will. Now, to answer your questions: it's an obvious yes for all of them. However, as has been pointed out a few times now, you're asking the wrong question.

Hell is mankind's default location. We don't need to invent an excuse for them, and the Calvinist view is no different than anyone else's (except perhaps yours): man goes to hell because he sins. His sins cause him to reject God and rejecting God is, in itself a sin.

The REAL question is "how come not all men go to hell, bearing in mind there is no intrinsic difference between the hell-bound and the heaven-bound?"

The answer is that God chose to save a portion of mankind to show His love and mercy, the remainder being allowed to follow their self-elected path to damnation, demonstrating God's wrath and justice. God gives grace to those he saves and withholds it from those He allows to go their own way. Christ's death paid for the sins of the saved, but not for the unsaved, which would have been a contradiction and logically incoherent. Paying for a man's sins and allowing him to suffer the penalty for them is unjust, something God cannot be.

Of course you may think that God is unjust in only saving some, but that is a central tenet of Arminianism, which you say you deny.

Your OP is massively flawed. For you to try to pretend that men have an excuse in that Christ didn't die for them, is like somebody who complains that his running into a brick wall only happened because no one stopped him. It's ridiculous. The running into a brick wall didn't occur because of any non-action, it occurred because of the action of the runner.

Once you've grasped that elementary truth you can stop this pointless campaign against Calvinists, most of which is based upon your inability to think things through.

 

[Ask Seek Knock]

7. The rest of mankind God was pleased, according to the unsearchable counsel of his own will, whereby he extendeth or withholdeth mercy, as he pleaseth, for the glory of his sovereign power over his creatures, to pass by; and to ordain them to dishonor and wrath for their sin, to the praise of his glorious justice.

Notice the "for their sin" part.

Context helps.

Thanks Hammster, but you didn't answer my questions. Are these 'sinners' God passes by and ordains to dishonor and wrath, the elect?

 

[nobdysfool]

Regardless of what you protest, Calvinism PROVIDES hell dwellers with an excuse for being there.

Even IF that were true (which it is NOT), it would avail them nothing. You know that, I know that, we all know that. So why this constant beating of a dead horse? How will this affect anything? You seem so sure that you have found the chink in the armor, and as I said before, the rest of us are all scratching our heads wondering what you're going on about, and why?

There is nothing more useless and worthless than a useless excuse.

 

[nobdysfool]

Thanks Hammster, but you didn't answer my questions. Are these 'sinners' God passes by and ordains to dishonor and wrath, the elect?

Of course not! The elect are those saved from the Wrath of God, not candidates for it.

 

[Hammster]

Thanks Hammster, but you didn't answer my questions. Are these 'sinners' God passes by and ordains to dishonor and wrath, the elect?

Nope. But that's not why they are in hell.

 

[FreeGrace2]

I said this:

Calvinism believes that Christ died only for some, they call the "elect", and that is because God chose (elected) them for salvation. As such, all the elect receive the free gift of eternal life and will live with God for eternity.

This gives those in hell an excuse for being there; that Christ did not die for them. Calvinists say that they are there because of their sins.

And you said this:

Only if they are there for something other than sin.

Wha does that mean? You keep dodging reality. Your "if they..." makes no sense.

So what's the question?

This is what I said:

But that begs the question: Christ died for the sins of ONLY the elect, and therefore, go to heaven. The so-called non-elect, for whom Christ didn't die, pay for their sins by themselves.

Because both the elect and non-elect are sinners, why aren't the elect where the non-elect are? Is that better?

Thats what I've been saying. Election is about who goes to heaven. Hell is the default.

Sure. My point as well. In your theology, all for whom Christ died have a ticket to heaven. The non-elect weren't given a ticket. It's not their fault. God didn't give them one. It's ALL God's fault.

And here's where you fail. You have yet to demonstrate why this is an excuse.

Really? Here's what I said:

The only difference between sinner human beings in heaven and sinner human beings in hell is that Christ paid for the sins of those in heaven. Again, that provides an excuse for all in hell. No one paid for their sins.

The truth is self evident. The reality is that you don't want to see the excuse.

It's interesting that y'all are bugged by my charge that Calvinism provides an excuse, but you can't refute it. So all you do is look at the facts, and claim you don't see any excuse.

And again, sinners are in hell because they are sinners.

The elect are just as bad sinners as the non-elect, and some, even worse. So that's NO REASON at all.

Since you don't like the word "excuse", and seem to prefer "reason", let's try this:
The reason the elect are in heaven is because Christ died for them.
The reason the non-elect are in hell is because Christ didn't die for them.

If you don't see an excuse in this, there is no hope for you to ever understand.

Now I await for you to explain why they have an excuse.

I've done so many times. But you won't open your eyes to truth.

The EXCUSE is that Christ didn't die for them. Plain and simple. Both are sinners, so sin CANNOT be the reason for any difference.

 

[FreeGrace2]

No I'm not stalling for time, I'm just following the same "pedantry protocol" you've adopted on every thread I've seen you on.

To be polite, that is pure baloney and you know it.

Don't ask me if I can, ask me if I will. Now, to answer your questions: it's an obvious yes for all of them. However, as has been pointed out a few times now, you're asking the wrong question.

Actually, I have asked the RIGHT question, from looking at all the stir among y'all. It's just not a "pleasant" question for y'all to want to answer. But your 6 yes's only prove my point. The only difference between elect and non-elect is for whom Christ died. And that IS an excuse for those hell dwellers.

Hell is mankind's default location. We don't need to invent an excuse for them, and the Calvinist view is no different than anyone else's (except perhaps yours): man goes to hell because he sins. His sins cause him to reject God and rejecting God is, in itself a sin.

Nonsense. The only difference between elect and non-elect is Christ's death ONLY for the elect. THAT is an EXCUSE.

The REAL question is "how come not all men go to hell, bearing in mind there is no intrinsic difference between the hell-bound and the heaven-bound?"

A "real" question, is it? Sure. It is just a question. But it's clear that y'all have squirmed quite a bit at my question, which reveals a lot.

The answer is that God chose to save a portion of mankind to show His love and mercy, the remainder being allowed to follow their self-elected path to damnation, demonstrating God's wrath and justice.

Nice bit of bloviating. Just tell the hell dwellers about God's love and mercy. Sure.

God gives grace to those he saves and withholds it from those He allows to go their own way.

Loose translation: Those not cherry picked by God have an excuse for being where they end up. That's all.

Christ's death paid for the sins of the saved, but not for the unsaved, which would have been a contradiction and logically incoherent.

No, it becomes an EXCUSE for those Christ didn't die for. He could have, but chose not to, in your system. That is an excuse, whether you ever see it or not.

[QUTOE] Paying for a man's sins and allowing him to suffer the penalty for them is unjust, something God cannot be. [/QUOTE]
But that doesn't happen in either your theology or mine, so why do you bother bringing it up?

[QUTOE]Of course you may think that God is unjust in only saving some, but that is a central tenet of Arminianism, which you say you deny.[/QUOTE]
I know much better than to "think" what you suggest. Because God IS totally fair, no one has any excuse for being in hell. Because Christ died for all.

Your OP is massively flawed.

Really? How could I have missed such an important fact? LOL Instead of dramatic but phony statements, why not rather just show me ANY flaw. I invite you to do that.

For you to try to pretend that men have an excuse in that Christ didn't die for them, is like somebody who complains that his running into a brick wall only happened because no one stopped him. It's ridiculous.

Scuze me, but I ain't pretending nothing. I am charging Calvinism with providing an excuse for the hell dwellers, and sin isn't why they are there. Not having Christ die for them is the reason they are there, and that IS an excuse for them, since the elect are just as bad sinners.

The running into a brick wall didn't occur because of any non-action, it occurred because of the action of the runner.

Your analogy lacks imagination, truth, and reality.

Once you've grasped that elementary truth you can stop this pointless campaign against Calvinists, most of which is based upon your inability to think things through.

What is becoming extremely pointless is seeing any Calvinist come to the knowledge of the truth, even when repeatedly shown to them.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Nope. But that's not why they are in hell.

We all know why anyone is in hell. They refused the free gift of eternal life.

But Calvinism provides a big excuse for being there. That Christ just didn't "pick" them. Bummer.

 

[Hammster]

Some are in heaven. That's why some are in hell with an excuse. No, it's not because they were sinners. It's not because they rejected God. It's not because their sin is worthy of punishment. It's because God didn't show mercy upon them. Who cares that God said " I will show mercy to whom I will show mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion."

That's irrelevant. Oh well. God tried His best to communicate.

 

[Hammster]

We all know why anyone is in hell. They refused the free gift of eternal life.

But Calvinism provides a big excuse for being there. That Christ just didn't "pick" them. Bummer.

That is His prerogative. For He tells Moses: I will show mercy to whom I will show mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. (Romans 9:15 HCSB)

 

[crimsonleaf]

To be polite, that is pure baloney and you know it.

Not so.

Actually, I have asked the RIGHT question, from looking at all the stir among y'all. It's just not a "pleasant" question for y'all to want to answer. But your 6 yes's only prove my point. The only difference between elect and non-elect is for whom Christ died. And that IS an excuse for those hell dwellers.

we're ALL happy to answer the six questions. What you fail to see is that we believe that people are in hell because they're sinners. I have no idea why you can't grasp that.

Nonsense. The only difference between elect and non-elect is Christ's death ONLY for the elect. THAT is an EXCUSE.

Not only is it not an excuse (why would we want to excuse them?) but they are there, as all men should rightfully be, for their sins.

A "real" question, is it? Sure. It is just a question. But it's clear that y'all have squirmed quite a bit at my question, which reveals a lot.

Honestly, no one is squirming. We just totally disagree with you, your theology and your inept conclusions. We may be mildly embarrassed for you if that helps...

Nice bit of bloviating. Just tell the hell dwellers about God's love and mercy. Sure.

It's not bloviating. the words aren't empty or long-winded. It's an explanation for you to think about, as you clearly never have. Hell dwellers can reassure themselves that they're there not because of God's inaction, but because of their own actions.

Loose translation: Those not cherry picked by God have an excuse for being where they end up. That's all.

Not an excuse - a reason. Sin.

No, it becomes an EXCUSE for those Christ didn't die for. He could have, but chose not to, in your system. That is an excuse, whether you ever see it or not.

It's like talking to someone who perpetually operates in transmit mode. No receive function.

Paying for a man's sins and allowing him to suffer the penalty for them is unjust, something God cannot be.

But that doesn't happen in either your theology or mine, so why do you bother bringing it up?

In your theology God accepts payment for the sins of all, yet some go to hell. Weird.

Of course you may think that God is unjust in only saving some, but that is a central tenet of Arminianism, which you say you deny.

I know much better than to "think" what you suggest. Because God IS totally fair, no one has any excuse for being in hell. Because Christ died for all.

If Christ atoned for all, and all have no excuse, then all are saved. Now you're a universalist?

Really? How could I have missed such an important fact? LOL Instead of dramatic but phony statements, why not rather just show me ANY flaw. I invite you to do that.

It's flawed because it makes no sense. Learning long words doesn't automatically make you bright y'all.

Scuze me, but I ain't pretending nothing. I am charging Calvinism with providing an excuse for the hell dwellers, and sin isn't why they are there. Not having Christ die for them is the reason they are there, and that IS an excuse for them, since the elect are just as bad sinners.

One mouth, two ears - use them in that proportion. It is not Christ's inactivity which condemns men to hell, it is their own sinful activity. Whatever faith you are promulgating here it isn't mainstream Christianity.

Your analogy lacks imagination, truth, and reality.

Your opinion doesn't concern me. You believe that men are in hell because someone didn't do something, whereas they are there because THEY did something. A child could understand that.

What is becoming extremely pointless is seeing any Calvinist come to the knowledge of the truth, even when repeatedly shown to them.

We already have the truth thanks. All I get from you is a headache.

 

[Don Maurer]

If there are 10 death row rapist/mass murderers. The governor releases 2 of them. He allows the other 8 to go to their just execution.

When the other 8 scream that they now have an excuse. Their excuse is that the Governor released the first 2. Why is it that only FG2 would say the 8 have a proper excuse? Why is it that only FG2 sees this excuse as a just excuse?

FG2 will never admit it, but he has massive and wrong presuppositions. He things that God is morally required to release, or at least provide a means of release for the 8 if he releases the 2.

FG2, you ask the same questions over and over that any Calvinist here is willing to answer. Then you make this ridiculous leap of logic assuming that Calvinists answers to your 6 questions makes it clear that anyone in hell now has an excuse... and it is a ridiculous leap of logic. You are trolling in this thread. You simply make the same false assumptions over and over that have been debunked repeatedly by other individuals in this thread. If anything, you are a demonstration of the power of your own erroneous traditions. Your traditions run so deep and strong you do not see your own presuppositions, and the fact that you are trolling. You still are totally clueless why Calvinist point to sin as the reason men are in hell. Christ is under no obligation to die for anyone. If he chooses to die for some, that in now way provides an excuse to anyone else. You presuppose that if Christ dies for some, he is under obligation to die for all. That is a presupposition, but a very wrong presupposition. Christ is under no obligation to die for anyone at all.

 

[Don Maurer]

Ya know, I already know FG2s response.

He does not answer questions or engage in any reasonable dialogue. For FG2 to actually engage in any reasonable conversation about his 6 questions, you must first assume that his 6 questions are a real excuse for those in hell. In other words, FG2 is assuming that which he is trying to prove.

Again, such pre-suppositions represent a tradition so strong, that no amount of scripture or dialogue could even dent that tradition.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Some are in heaven. That's why some are in hell with an excuse.

Correct. God didn't choose for them to be in heaven for no apparent reason.

No, it's not because they were sinners.

Correct. Because Christ died for the sins of the whole world.

It's not because they rejected God.

Correct. It's because God rejected them.

It's not because their sin is worthy of punishment. It's because God didn't show mercy upon them.

Correct. He chose not to, for no apparent reason.

Who cares that God said " I will show mercy to whom I will show mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion."

Certainly NOT the hell dwellers, for whom God DIDN'T say that to. For no apparent reason.

That's irrelevant.

No, that's quite relevant. Your trial of sarcasm actually demonstrated the truth.

Oh well. God tried His best to communicate.

But many aren't even trying to understand what He communicated. "Oh well" is right.

No one in hell will have an excuse. They rejected the free gift of eternal life.

Why does that bother the Calvinists so much, that rejecting the free gift of eternal life removes any excuses?

 

[FreeGrace2]

I said this:

We all know why anyone is in hell. They refused the free gift of eternal life.

But Calvinism provides a big excuse for being there. That Christ just didn't "pick" them. Bummer

And hammster said this:

That is His prerogative. For He tells Moses: I will show mercy to whom I will show mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. (Romans 9:15 HCSB)

So, there it is in computer black and white, or whatever your screen color is:

Calvinists ADMIT that God's choosing is "His prerogative". That is tantamount to admitting that their view of God's plan DOES give an excuse to the hell dwellers.

Bummer is right.

 

[FreeGrace2]

we're ALL happy to answer the six questions. What you fail to see is that we believe that people are in hell because they're sinners. I have no idea why you can't grasp that.

So, ALL of you are happy to? Then why only 2 of you did? The rest just whined about my charge against Calvinism?

What YOU fail miserably to see is that your belief about why people are in hell is WRONG. People in heaven are SINNERS as well, but they're not in hell, so your "belief" about why people are in hell is totally short sighted. In fact, you guys just DON'T WANT TO FACE THE FACT THAT YOUR SYSTEM OF THEOLOGY GIVES AN EXCUSE TO HELL DWELLERS.

Not only is it not an excuse (why would we want to excuse them?) but they are there, as all men should rightfully be, for their sins.

Here is what I said, resulting in your comment:

Nonsense. The only difference between elect and non-elect is Christ's death ONLY for the elect. THAT is an EXCUSE.

You can whine and squeal all you want about sin being the reason people are in hell, but it's phony and bogus because the elect are just as much sinners, yet they AREN'T in hell. Why? Christ died for them ONLY. That GIVES an excuse to the hell dwellers.

Honestly, no one is squirming.

"Honestly"?? Really? Why don't you peruse the thread a bit, and just see all the reaction by your campers. LOL

We just totally disagree with you, your theology and your inept conclusions. We may be mildly embarrassed for you if that helps...

Pitiful. Real pitiful. I have demonstrated that your theology provides an excuse for hell dwellers, and none of y'all even get it. I would suggest that y'all should be quite a bit MORE than "mildly embarrassed" at that.

It's not bloviating. the words aren't empty or long-winded. It's an explanation for you to think about, as you clearly never have. Hell dwellers can reassure themselves that they're there not because of God's inaction, but because of their own actions.

Why aren't the elect there as well, you know, for their actions? Huh?

Not an excuse - a reason. Sin.

If sin were the reason, then the elect would be there too. But they were chosen, for no apparent reason. That GIVES the hell dwellers an excuse: Christ didn't die for them.

It's like talking to someone who perpetually operates in transmit mode. No receive function.

Yes, I agree with this description of Calvinists.

[QUTOE]In your theology God accepts payment for the sins of all, yet some go to hell. Weird.[/QUOTE]
What's so weird about those who refuse the free gift? How is that weird? Only in your theology where God cherry picks certain ones for no apparent reason to save, and rejects the rest. And you think that is not weird???

If Christ atoned for all, and all have no excuse, then all are saved. Now you're a universalist?

Oh, for pity sakes. Get a grip. Salvation isn't because of who Christ died for. It's because of receiving the free gift through faith in Christ. I thought all believers knew that. Where have you been?

It's flawed because it makes no sense.

Refusing the free gift being the reason for dwelling in hell makes perfect sense. Why doesn't it to you? How does it not make sense to you?

Actually, claiming people are in hell because of their sin makes no sense because those in heaven are just as much sinners. That makes no sense.

Your doctrine of election makes no sense and cannot be found in Scripture.

Learning long words doesn't automatically make you bright y'all.

I invited you to explain to me any flaw in my view, and all you can say is that it doesn't "make sense". Well, obviously not to you. But why not to you? Just saying it doesn't make sense doesn't tell me why not. Why can't you do that?

And what does "long words" have to do with anything? Oh, right. Just another smokescreen diversion tactic to take the pressure off y'all. Got it.

It is not Christ's inactivity which condemns men to hell, it is their own sinful activity.

They why is anyone in heaven, sin "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God"? What's the difference?

Whatever faith you are promulgating here it isn't mainstream Christianity.

Loose translation: what you promulgate isn't Calvinistm. Whoever said that "mainstream Christianity" equals Calvinism?

Your opinion doesn't concern me.

Nor does yours concern me.

You believe that men are in hell because someone didn't do something, whereas they are there because THEY did something. A child could understand that.

Actually, any child can and does understand FAR BETTER that your system of theology gives those in hell an excuse over those in hell because they refused a free gift.

We already have the truth thanks.

Ha. From your "answers" and comments, you certainly don't know the truth.

All I get from you is a headache.

Then I recommend 2 aspirins and don't post to me.

 

[Hammster]

I said this:

And hammster said this:

So, there it is in computer black and white, or whatever your screen color is:

Calvinists ADMIT that God's choosing is "His prerogative". That is tantamount to admitting that their view of God's plan DOES give an excuse to the hell dwellers.

Bummer is right.

Let me post what God said. Again.

What should we say then? Is there injustice with God? Absolutely not! For He tells Moses: I will show mercy to whom I will show mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. (Romans 9:14, 15 HCSB)

 

[FreeGrace2]

If there are 10 death row rapist/mass murderers. The governor releases 2 of them. He allows the other 8 to go to their just execution.

When the other 8 scream that they now have an excuse. Their excuse is that the Governor released the first 2. Why is it that only FG2 would say the 8 have a proper excuse? Why is it that only FG2 sees this excuse as a just excuse?

Well, DM, let's analyze your example. First, we have to know WHY 2 were released. Without that bit of info, we can't make ANY conclusions about reasons or excuses. So you need to add that to make it relevant.

Calvinism believes that all the elect go to heaven, and all the non-elect go to hell. It also believes that Christ died ONLY for the elect. So why are the elect in heaven? You can call it grace, mercy, etc, but the bottom line is that in Calvinism the chosen ones got a ticket to heaven, while the rest didn't. That is the only difference between the 2 groups. And why y'all WON'T see that FACT is quite amazing.

FG2 will never admit it, but he has massive and wrong presuppositions. He things that God is morally required to release, or at least provide a means of release for the 8 if he releases the 2.

First, your sinful judgment of what I will admit is out of line.
Second, where did I ever claim or demand that God is "morally required to release or at least provide a means of release" to anyone? Please don't confuse your inadequate example with the very serious issue of who goes to heaven and who goes to hell.

FG2, you ask the same questions over and over that any Calvinist here is willing to answer. Then you make this ridiculous leap of logic assuming that Calvinists answers to your 6 questions makes it clear that anyone in hell now has an excuse... and it is a ridiculous leap of logic.

Well, the ONLY difference between the 2 groups is who Christ died for. How is that a "ridiculous leap of logic"? It is the FACT of the matter. I'm really amazed that when given clear FACTS, y'all still don't/won/t get it.

You are trolling in this thread.

If I am, that's not your problem, is it. I've been in discussion with hammster, who IS a mod. He'll be the one to determine that. Not your business.

And just for the record, can you explain how asking simple questions equals trolling?

You simply make the same false assumptions over and over that have been debunked repeatedly by other individuals in this thread.

"debunked"? Really? Can you show me any post where that occurred? I'll tell you what y'all have done. Whine. Claim I'm wrong. Claim people are in hell because of their sin. Which ignores the FACT that those in heaven are just as much sinners as those in hell, which DEBUNKS your claim that they are in hell because of sin.

I won't hold my breath waiting for you to show me ANY post where I've been "debunked". LOL

If anything, you are a demonstration of the power of your own erroneous traditions. Your traditions run so deep and strong you do not see your own presuppositions, and the fact that you are trolling.

You are free to express your own opinion, just as I am free to LOL about it.

You still are totally clueless why Calvinist point to sin as the reason men are in hell.

Oh, no. I fully understand WHY y'all point to sin. You can't stand the idea that your system does give an excuse to the hell dwellers.

It's as obvious as the nose on your face. And y'all totally ignore it.

Christ is under no obligation to die for anyone.

I never said that He was. Your point is moot. See, you guys keep bringing up totally irrelevant stuff. My charge against Calvinism is clear, simple and to the point. ONLY the elect go to heaven, and Christ died ONLY for them. That IS an excuse for the hell dwellers, who are NO WORSE sinners than the elect.

If he chooses to die for some, that in now way provides an excuse to anyone else.[/QUYOTE]
Yes, it does, but you just don't like that FACT.

You presuppose that if Christ dies for some, he is under obligation to die for all. That is a presupposition, but a very wrong presupposition.

Actually, it's you with all the wrong presuppositions here. I've made NO statement at all about anyone under any obligation. You bring up false issues, as a way to attempt to deflect your inability to defend against the charge that Calvinism provides an excuse for the hell dwellers.

Christ is under no obligation to die for anyone at all.

Correct. So what? I never said He was.

Here's the issue again: all those He died for get a ticket to heaven, and all those He didn't die for get a ticket to hell.

If that isn't correct, please explain HOW. I INVITE you to.

Bringing up all these phony issues is just your method of trying to divert away from the real issue that you can't defend against.

Right. All the phony issues comes straight from your camp. All of them.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Ya know, I already know FG2s response.

He does not answer questions or engage in any reasonable dialogue.

Just a quick glance at this thread will demonstrate the total untruth of DM's statement.

[QUTOE] For FG2 to actually engage in any reasonable conversation about his 6 questions, you must first assume that his 6 questions are a real excuse for those in hell.[/QUOTE]
It doesn't take any assumption. ALL of the questions are based on what Calvinism believes, and both hammster and CL acknowledged that. So again, DM's comment here is just untrue.

Again, such pre-suppositions represent a tradition so strong, that no amount of scripture or dialogue could even dent that tradition.

I have proven from the Calvinist playbook that Calvinism provides an excuse for the hell dwellers.

You haven't proven anything other than your failure to refute my charge. Just like all the rest have failed.