Calvinism provides an excuse for those in hell

[FreeGrace2]

[FONT=verdana, sans-serif]Prescient Election:[/FONT][FONT=verdana, sans-serif] Wrong concept of Divine Election whereby God in His prescience[/FONT]​

[FONT=verdana, sans-serif]looks [/FONT][FONT=verdana, sans-serif]into the future [/FONT][FONT=verdana, sans-serif]to see [/FONT][FONT=verdana, sans-serif]who shall choose Him (or has other merit), then elects[/FONT]​

[FONT=verdana, sans-serif]those persons unto [/FONT][FONT=verdana, sans-serif]salvation. [/FONT][FONT=verdana, sans-serif]Reduces the Supreme Being to a [/FONT][FONT=verdana, sans-serif]mere ticket-taker [/FONT][FONT=verdana, sans-serif]at[/FONT]​

[FONT=verdana, sans-serif]the gates of Heaven ![/FONT]​

Yep. It's just as wrong as the Calvinistic spin version of election.

God doesn't have to "look into the future" to know anything. If He did, He wouldn't be omniscient.

And the Bible NEVER speaks of election for salvation.

 

[FreeGrace2]

FreeGrace2ism provides an excuse for people in hell. "God, you didn't make me as smart as FreeGrace2! If only I would've been created with the wherewithal to submit to Jesus like he was I would've been saved, but I was created with a more stubborn personality that thought it was more plausible that no God exists! Therefore it's not fair that I'm in hell!"

Is this the best you can do, griff? When you don't have any point to make, you get all smart alecky.

But if deliberately misrepresenting my view floats your boat, knock yourself out with it. But your posts reveal quite a bit regarding the quality of character that you possess, or not. Readers will make up their own minds. But you do make it rather easy for them.

 

[FreeGrace2]

​

This what Calvin referred to as the "secret election
of God". As a secret, we don't know why.

I'm always amused by the "answers" of Calvinists to questions that they can't answer, even though the answer is clearly found in Scripture!

The Bible is very clear. God chose us for salvation through belief of the truth. Yet, y'all claim this equals some kind of synergism or other nonsense.

But it's Biblical truth. God saves people through faith in Christ. It is really that simple and clear. Just not to Calvinists, who read Scripture through very thick tinted glasses of bias.

What's the proof that God chooses to save those who believe?

We know that God always chooses what is His will.

Jn 6:40
“For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day.”

This verse is a promise by God for all who will believe in Christ. They will have eternal life.

And we know that God always chooses what pleases Him.

1 Cor 1:21
For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not come to know God, God was well-pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe.

These verses prove that God chooses to save believers. Not the Calvinistic spin that God chooses who will believe, as their doctrine of election maintains.

 

[Don Maurer]

Deleted by me. I am out.

 

[Don Maurer]

I guess I am done here. It seems pointless to me.

 

[RisingSpirit]

[SIZE=+1] Biggest mistake about reprobation most folks make
is supposing it operates the same as Election. As if
some are elected unto salvation, while others are
elected unto damnation. But it don't work that way !

In Election, God reaches out to the ones He has
chosen, regenerates them, converts them, sanctifies
them, and glorifies them (ordo salutis).

Nothing similar happen with reprobation. The Lord
does NOT reach out to people, then make then bad
so He can damn them !

Everyone -including the Elect- are sinners deserving
of Eternal Hell. The reprobate are simply left in that
state ! This is called Preterit Reprobation. Whereas
in Election the Most High changes people. In
reprobation He doesn't.

[/SIZE]

 

[RisingSpirit]

[SIZE=+1]While only the Elect shall be saved, in point of fact salvation is
open to everyone. There's NOTHING in the Gospel explicitly
excluding the reprobate. They exclude themselves ! All that's
required is to "repent and believe" (Mark 1:15). Hardly an
intrinsically difficult requirement.

So, the Biblical and Reformation doctrine of Divine Election isn't
exclusive. Actually, without it nobody would be saved ! Election
-in reality- is inclusive.

As for the reprobate: They either a.) Refuse to see the need for
their own redemption, or b.) Want redemption on their own terms.



Calvinism, however, teaches Preterit Reprobation.

There's no election unto perdition like there is election unto salvation.

We don't teach that -out of the mass of good people- God picks some
to make bad so He can send them to Hell.


IMPORTANT POINT

Instead: Out of the mass of Fallen Men all of whom are sinners,
Gracious God picks some to save from Hell.

The saved are elected. The unsaved aren't elected. They're born sinners
(Psalms 51:5) ...and the Lord simply leaves them that way.

Preterit Reprobation.[/SIZE]

 

[RisingSpirit]

[SIZE=+1]Resentment towards Reformation Christians as thinking
we're 'better than thou' because we were elected is totally
unfounded.



The only difference between us and the reprobate being
that God determined for His own reasons to save us, and
not them.

Ain't because we are better. In fact, often we were worse !
(1 Corinthians 1:27)


All humanity is a mass of sinners on their way to perdition.

"There is no one righteous,
not even one"
(Romans 3:10 NIV, 1984 Ed.)

A "few" God elects unto salvation based on no inhering merit
of their own. (Divine Election.)

The rest He just allows to continue on their way to Hell. (Preterit
Reprobation.)
[/SIZE]

 

[FreeGrace2]

Nope, everyone knows your an Arminian. Even Arminians know it, but they are embarrassed at you. Actually, most Arminians are better then you are.

I think you meant "thAn", not "then".

To give a reply would be easy, but I think your too thick to actually read and profit. Its a waist of time talking to you.

I think you meant "you're", not "your".
I think you meant "waste", not "waist".

Here's what I know about you, from your posts.

#1 You are quite rude and very unChristian in your judgmental attitude.
#2 You love to throw labels even when they don't fit.
#3 You don't check your spell checker.

I'm not going to bother reporting your rudeness. I know that hammster reads all these posts. And he knows what to do when rules are violated. He doesn't need my help.

 

[FreeGrace2]

[SIZE=+1]While only the Elect shall be saved, in point of fact salvation is
open to everyone.

Not true from the Calvinist view. Why? Christ died only for the elect. Those He didn't die for cannot be saved, no way, no how. So your claim is false, and thanks for another opportunity to correct the errors of Calvinists.

There's NOTHING in the Gospel explicitly
excluding the reprobate.

Since this is true, it is just amazing that Calvinists claim that Christ didn't die for everyone, which DOES "explicitly exclude" their so-called non-elect from salvation.

You guys want it both ways. To claim that Christ DIDN'T die for everyone, but that salvation is open to everyone. LOL

They exclude themselves ! All that's
required is to "repent and believe" (Mark 1:15). Hardly an
intrinsically difficult requirement.

Again, while true, Calvinist view claims that Christ DIDN'T die for everyone, so therefore, salvation CANNOT be for everyone.

RS, you have just totally contradicted your own theology!!! LOL

So, the Biblical and Reformation doctrine of Divine Election isn't
exclusive.

Another incredible statement!! How is limited atonement and God's speshul choice of individuals NOT "exclusive"???

Maybe RS just doesn't know the meaning of words. LOL

 

[RisingSpirit]

...And the Bible NEVER speaks of election for salvation.

I never heard of "election for salvation".

 

[Ask Seek Knock]

[SIZE=+1]As for the reprobate: They either
a.) Refuse to see the need for
their own redemption, or
b.) Want redemption on their own terms.[/SIZE]

Hmm, conditional reprobation. And what if the reprobate doesn't meet these conditions? Are they a reprobate before or after they meet these conditions?

 

[guuila]

Is this the best you can do, griff? When you don't have any point to make, you get all smart alecky.

But if deliberately misrepresenting my view floats your boat, knock yourself out with it. But your posts reveal quite a bit regarding the quality of character that you possess, or not. Readers will make up their own minds. But you do make it rather easy for them.

It's no more absurd than the OP.

 

[crimsonleaf]

Not true from the Calvinist view. Why? Christ died only for the elect. Those He didn't die for cannot be saved, no way, no how. So your claim is false, and thanks for another opportunity to correct the errors of Calvinists.


Since this is true, it is just amazing that Calvinists claim that Christ didn't die for everyone, which DOES "explicitly exclude" their so-called non-elect from salvation.

You guys want it both ways. To claim that Christ DIDN'T die for everyone, but that salvation is open to everyone. LOL


Again, while true, Calvinist view claims that Christ DIDN'T die for everyone, so therefore, salvation CANNOT be for everyone.

RS, you have just totally contradicted your own theology!!! LOL


Another incredible statement!! How is limited atonement and God's speshul choice of individuals NOT "exclusive"???

Maybe RS just doesn't know the meaning of words. LOL

Round about now you really do need to have researched free will in some depth, understood what is meant by it in different theologies and approaches, and maybe you won't have looked quite so out of your depth. But I warned you about that a couple of weeks ago.

You don't even know the difference between proof and evidence.

We cannot prove anything to you because of your presuppositions. Where evidence indicates proof to us, it doesn't to you. Everything you say is just white noise to Calvinists, and poorly prepared white noise at that. Through the blinkers of prejudice I'm sure we're not getting through to you either. The thing that's sad is your blatant 4-point Arminianism seemingly remaining a mystery to you.

You've come here with one of the weakest forms of goading argument I've ever seen, and from that point onwards you've been pretty offensive to a number of people, sounding more like a spoiled college kid that somebody who claims to have "studied" this for decades. You've stuck both fingers in your ears and now you're spinning around with your eyes squeezed shut shouting "I'm Right, You're Wrong" over and over in the hope that someone will make it so. Well, you're wrong, on too many counts to drag up again.

Oh, and maybe you're the one who needs to check his spell-checker; "Speshul" isn't really a word.

 

[guuila]

Round about now you really do need to have researched free will in some depth, understood what is meant by it in different theologies and approaches, and maybe you won't have looked quite so out of your depth. But I warned you about that a couple of weeks ago.

You don't even know the difference between proof and evidence.

We cannot prove anything to you because of your presuppositions. Where evidence indicates proof to us, it doesn't to you. Everything you say is just white noise to Calvinists, and poorly prepared white noise at that. Through the blinkers of prejudice I'm sure we're not getting through to you either. The thing that's sad is your blatant 4-point Arminianism seemingly remaining a mystery to you.

You've come here with one of the weakest forms of goading argument I've ever seen, and from that point onwards you've been pretty offensive to a number of people, sounding more like a spoiled college kid that somebody who claims to have "studied" this for decades. You've stuck both fingers in your ears and now you're spinning around with your eyes squeezed shut shouting "I'm Right, You're Wrong" over and over in the hope that someone will make it so. Well, you're wrong, on too many counts to drag up again.

Oh, and maybe you're the one who needs to check his spell-checker; "Speshul" isn't really a word.

Amen.

 

[nobdysfool]

Round about now you really do need to have researched free will in some depth, understood what is meant by it in different theologies and approaches, and maybe you won't have looked quite so out of your depth. But I warned you about that a couple of weeks ago.

You don't even know the difference between proof and evidence.

We cannot prove anything to you because of your presuppositions. Where evidence indicates proof to us, it doesn't to you. Everything you say is just white noise to Calvinists, and poorly prepared white noise at that. Through the blinkers of prejudice I'm sure we're not getting through to you either. The thing that's sad is your blatant 4-point Arminianism seemingly remaining a mystery to you.

You've come here with one of the weakest forms of goading argument I've ever seen, and from that point onwards you've been pretty offensive to a number of people, sounding more like a spoiled college kid that somebody who claims to have "studied" this for decades. You've stuck both fingers in your ears and now you're spinning around with your eyes squeezed shut shouting "I'm Right, You're Wrong" over and over in the hope that someone will make it so. Well, you're wrong, on too many counts to drag up again.

Oh, and maybe you're the one who needs to check his spell-checker; "Speshul" isn't really a word.

Hear hear! Amen, brother!

None are so blind as those who WILL NOT see....

 

[nobdysfool]

Here's what I know about you, from your posts.

#1 You are quite rude and very unChristian in your judgmental attitude.
#2 You love to throw labels even when they don't fit.
#3 You don't check your spell checker.

I'm not going to bother reporting your rudeness. I know that hammster reads all these posts. And he knows what to do when rules are violated. He doesn't need my help.

Mat 7:3-5 KJV And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

(4) Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?

(5) Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

 

[FreeGrace2]

I never heard of "election for salvation".

Which is why you've never heard of it.

 

[FreeGrace2]

It's no more absurd than the OP.

Actually, it was quite a bit way more absurd than the OP, which, btw, neither you nor your buddies have been able to refute.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Round about now you really do need to have researched free will in some depth, understood what is meant by it in different theologies and approaches, and maybe you won't have looked quite so out of your depth. But I warned you about that a couple of weeks ago.

Thanks for the warning, but I don't need. I am not interested in other views of it. I know that free will has nothing to do with one's will, as in "willing something to happen". God's will has power to accomplish. Free will is probably not the best phrase for free choice anyway.

So, you can put me down for "I don't believe in free will", if you force your or the Arminian view of it on to me.

But, please do put me down for "I absolutely do believe that it is a totally free choice to either accept the gospel promise or reject it.

We cannot prove anything to you because of your presuppositions.

In truth, you cannot prove anything of what you claim because you have no evidence for it.

Where evidence indicates proof to us, it doesn't to you.

There's no evidence at all for limited atonement, or that God chooses who will believe the gospel. Not a shred.

Everything you say is just white noise to Calvinists

Which very clearly explains all the errors of the Calvinists when "attempting" to represent my views beforce attacking them. At least you've been helpful in clearing that up.

Through the blinkers of prejudice I'm sure we're not getting through to you either.

I would agree that your prejudice does limit your attempts to "get through" to me.

The thing that's sad is your blatant 4-point Arminianism seemingly remaining a mystery to you.

Speaking of which, I answered, oh, say, about 5 questions that Metal Minister posed to me in post #476, and I answered in post #488, page 49. Here are my answers:

1)Human Free Will - This states that though man is fallen, he is not incapacitated by the sinful nature and can freely choose God. His will is not restricted and enslaved by his sinful nature.
This statement is in error. No one believes from their "will". And free will is about making choices, not about what one "wills".

2)Conditional Election - God chose people for salvation based on his foreknowledge where God looks into the future to see who would respond to the gospel message.
This statement is in error. It suggests that God isn't omniscient.

3)Universal Atonement - The position that Jesus bore the sin of everyone who ever lived.
That is correct, as the Bible says so.

4)Resistable Grace - The teaching that the grace of God can be resisted and finally beaten so as to reject salvation in Christ.
If you hadn't added the goofy "and finally beaten so as" nonsense, it would have been correct. Salvation is a gift which can be received or rejected. There is nothing about "being beaten".

5)Fall from Grace - The Teaching that a person can fall from grace and lose his salvation.
Heretically wrong.

So, it shows that I'm at best a 1.5 point Arminian, since I didn't fully accept question #4.

So, have you ever heard of a 1.5pt Calvinist? I haven't. I have heard of 3pt, 4pt, and 5pt Calvinists, but never just 2pt. So at best, you could call me a 1.5pt Arminian. But why be so clear and honest, when you and your guys can just keep throwing labels in a very weak and pathetic attempt to rile me.

But, in fact, it doesn't rile me. I understand that when people don't have a good defense, they come up with whatever comes to mind. Kind a like a childish tactic to "call names", as if that's a defense.

You've come here with one of the weakest forms of goading argument I've ever seen, and from that point onwards you've been pretty offensive to a number of people, sounding more like a spoiled college kid that somebody who claims to have "studied" this for decades.

Now, now, now. It's going to be alright. Just take it easy, sit down, take a few deep breaths and you've feel all better in no time. LOL

What I came here with was a challenge that no Calvinist has been able to refute. Deny, denigrate, etc. But not refute. Your whining is sad.

You've stuck both fingers in your ears and now you're spinning around with your eyes squeezed shut shouting "I'm Right, You're Wrong" over and over in the hope that someone will make it so. Well, you're wrong, on too many counts to drag up again.

OK, sure. Can you recall even one of those "many counts" of yours?

Oh, and maybe you're the one who needs to check his spell-checker; "Speshul" isn't really a word.

Sure. I knew that. I was just emphasizing the word for you guys. I thought you'd understand.