Calvinism provides an excuse for those in hell

[guuila]

What you seem to forget, is that with the God-given gift of free will, I am able to choose whether I want to believe Paul had the words of life or not.

Never once denied that. You're responding to an argument I never made.

You have this same gift from God, and you have exercised it to believe Paul to be an apostle, despite it being self-proclaimed.

Yep. And the reason I believe Paul is because of grace.

Anytime Paul contradicts the words of Jesus, I have every right to discard Paul's words.

So do you actually think Jesus sat down with pen in hand and wrote part of the Bible? You do realize mere men wrote down what they heard Jesus say, right? On what basis do you believe their writings are infallible?

Here again, you are using words of Paul, when Jesus said nothing about grace drawing a man. Those who are drawn must be drawn through the truth Jesus taught. Those who come to Jesus are those who heard and learned from the Father (John 6:45). There is no other way to come to Him. Although grace may have a part in this, it is His truth which draws a man through hearing and learning.

Wasn't it Jesus who in one verse prior said no man can come to him unless the Father who sent him draws them? And that he will raise the one who is drawn up on the last day?

Do you consider someone who is obedient better than the disobedient?

No. We're all sinners in need of a savior.

 

[guuila]

The ironic thing is, you MUST believe Paul's writings are inspired, or your salvation, no, your WHOLE theology and belief system is hanging on the line.

So, just an interesting observation. Here we have a man (who hates Calvinism) on FreeGrace2's thread teaching that Paul's words aren't inspired. Do you think FreeGrace2 is actually going to correct him on this error? Of course not. FreeGrace2 is going to pretend he doesn't see it. Why? Because by doing so, he has gained a comrade that will aid him on his crusade to make Calvinism look as ugly as he possibly can.

Amazing how many times I've seen this on these forums. Someone can come along and promote the most ungodly, horrific teaching known to man, but hey, if he hates Calvinism, well, the attitude of the synergists (and the like) is like "Hey! Welcome to the discussion brother!" All error gets a free pass as long as the one promoting it hates Calvinism.

 

[RisingSpirit]

This passage is also valuable because it gives clear guidance as to how the word "all" is used in the Scriptures. We must not forget that it is not only used here but further defined as "all whom the Father giveth me." The "all" for whom Christ died, as this passage shows so clearly, never includes anyone but "all" the elect.


John 10:14, 15. I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine. As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep.

(footnote)

 

[RisingSpirit]

“[If Jesus died for all men]…why then, are not all freed from the punishment of all their sins? You will say, “Because of their unbelief; they will not believe.” But his unbelief, is it sin, or not? If not, why should they be punished for it? If it be sin, then Christ underwent the punishment due to it; If this is so, then why must that hinder them more than their other sins for which he died from partaking of the fruit of his death? If he did not, then he did not die for all their sins.”
John Owen

 

[RisingSpirit]

“We are often told that we limit the atonement of Christ, because we say that Christ has not made satisfaction for all men, or all men would be saved. Now, our reply to this is, that, on the other hand, our opponents limit it: we do not. The Arminians say, Christ died for all men. Ask them what they mean by it. Did Christ die so as to secure the salvation of all men. They say, “No, certainly not.” We ask them the next question–Did Christ die so as to secure the salvation of any man in particular? They answer, “No.” They are obliged to admit this, if they are consistent. They say, “No, Christ has died that any man may be saved if…” –and then follow certain conditions of salvation. Now, who is it that limits the death of Christ? Why, you. You say that Christ did not die so as to secure the salvation of anybody. We beg your pardon, when you say that we limits Christ’s death; we say, “no my dear sir, it is you that do it.” We say Christ so died that he infallibly secured the salvation of a multitude that no man can number, who through Christ’s death not only may be saved, but are saved, must be saved and cannot by any possibility run the hazard of being anything but saved. You are welcome to your atonement; you may keep it. We will never renounce ours for the sake of it.”
Charles Spurgeon

 

[guuila]

“[If Jesus died for all men]…why then, are not all freed from the punishment of all their sins? You will say, “Because of their unbelief; they will not believe.” But his unbelief, is it sin, or not? If not, why should they be punished for it? If it be sin, then Christ underwent the punishment due to it; If this is so, then why must that hinder them more than their other sins for which he died from partaking of the fruit of his death? If he did not, then he did not die for all their sins.”
John Owen

FreeGrace2 has invented this weird concept where people's sins are atoned for by Jesus, yet because of their unbelief (which is a sin that was paid for) they don't possess eternal life. So they go to hell for not having eternal life, not for sinning. (Even though the only reason one wouldn't possess eternal life would be exactly because of sin... but don't expect a logical argument. That would be asking too much.)

 

[FreeGrace2]

And you still fail to explain, for the umpteenth time, why that would be an excuse.

Well, maybe you just aren't understanding the explanation.

But for a theology whose centerpiece is election and limited atonement, it does seem strange how much you just won't admit that not being chosen is an excuse.

Or, go ahead and face facts. In your theology, it is the REASON for being in hell. They weren't chosen.

Either way, makes no difference to me. But to deny what is so obvious is perplexing.

 

[FreeGrace2]

This passage is also valuable because it gives clear guidance as to how the word "all" is used in the Scriptures. We must not forget that it is not only used here but further defined as "all whom the Father giveth me." The "all" for whom Christ died, as this passage shows so clearly, never includes anyone but "all" the elect.


John 10:14, 15. I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine. As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep.

Please don't try to insert your reasoning here into Heb 2:9.

The vast majority of translations understood the writer to mean "everyone".

 

[Metal Minister]

The ironic thing is, you MUST believe Paul's writings are inspired, or your salvation, no, your WHOLE theology and belief system is hanging on the line.

This prevents you from testing any of Paul's writings to see if they are true. You must accept them, whether false or true. You must take Paul's words as truth, even though Paul called himself a liar and a deceiver.

Thus, Paul keeps you in bondage to his gospel.

So when you claim Paul's words aren't inspired, do you think Peter is lying? 2Peter 3:15-16

Bear in mind that our Lord's patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.

Because if Peter is lying, then I guess he wasn't inspired either right? So you just threw out about half the new testament in your zeal to "debunk" calvinism.

 

[guuila]

So when you claim Paul's words aren't inspired, do you think Peter is lying? 2Peter 3:15-16

Bear in mind that our Lord's patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.

Because if Peter is lying, then I guess he wasn't inspired either right? So you just threw out about half the new testament in your zeal to "debunk" calvinism.

 

[FreeGrace2]

“[If Jesus died for all men]…why then, are not all freed from the punishment of all their sins? You will say, “Because of their unbelief; they will not believe.”

Not me. Not ever. I have told you. Because they refused the free gift of eternal life, that is by grace through faith. Eph 2:8

But his unbelief, is it sin, or not?

Yes, and Jesus died for ALL sins. Not just some of them. Kinda like Calvinism's Christ died ONLY for some of mankind.

If not, why should they be punished for it? If it be sin, then Christ underwent the punishment due to it; If this is so, then why must that hinder them more than their other sins for which he died from partaking of the fruit of his death?

Faulty argument. People are in hell for not possessing eternal life, which was purchased for all of them and rejected by the majority of them.

They rejected it for several different reasons. Some don't believe God exists, nor hell. Some think they can save themselves (all religions). Others just didn't think God's gift was all that much.

If he did not, then he did not die for all their sins.”
John Owen

Yes, Christ died for the sins of the whole world. Once and for all (time and people).

No one is in hell for their sins. They were ALL paid for. They are there for not having the free gift that Christ purchased for them.

In a marriage sort of sense, are all engagement rings accepted? Of course not. There have been many a man left standing with a purchased engagement ring in his hand; rejected by the one he loved. He purchased that ring to show his love. It was rejected.

Reminds me of Jesus' words in Luke 13:34
O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing!

 

[FreeGrace2]

FreeGrace2 has invented this weird concept where people's sins are atoned for by Jesus, yet because of their unbelief (which is a sin that was paid for) they don't possess eternal life.

Watch what Biblical teachings you call "weird".

So they go to hell for not having eternal life, not for sinning. (Even though the only reason one wouldn't possess eternal life would be exactly because of sin... but don't expect a logical argument. That would be asking too much.)

Go ahead and throw your centerpiece of your theology, election and limited atonement, under the bus, bud.

 

[nobdysfool]

FreeGrace2 has invented this weird concept where people's sins are atoned for by Jesus, yet because of their unbelief (which is a sin that was paid for) they don't possess eternal life. So they go to hell for not having eternal life, not for sinning. (Even though the only reason one wouldn't possess eternal life would be exactly because of sin... but don't expect a logical argument. That would be asking too much.)

Exactly. He ignores that which he cannot answer, then turns around and taunts. He cannot provide a reason why his "excuse" theology has any relevance, or what the supposed excuse actually does, or accomplishes, he just throws it out there and accuses us of not being able to answer or even acknowledge this little bit of fluff, but he's sure that he has stopped Calvinism dead in its tracks with it. Bottom line, he hates Calvinism, so he feels duty-bound to oppose it, and antagonize Calvinists who don't immediately bow down at the revelation of this 'great wisdom' that he (apparently alone) has uncovered. What does he expect us to do? Stop being Calvinists, simply because of this?

 

[crimsonleaf]

This is just a really lame request. No one "willfully" changes their belief system. Which again proves my claim that I have made before. All belief is based on some kind of information, whether true or false. But in order to change one's mind, MORE evidence must be given. Always. And that is the point of preaching the gospel; to give people MORE evidence regarding sin, eternity and their need for God's salvation.

Why then, do atheists who have heard the Gospel not believe? Try and answer without LOLLING.

As an atheist I had more information that the average Christian. You are therefore wrong in the above "answer".

 

[Hammster]

Well, maybe you just aren't understanding the explanation.

But for a theology whose centerpiece is election and limited atonement, it does seem strange how much you just won't admit that not being chosen is an excuse.

Or, go ahead and face facts. In your theology, it is the REASON for being in hell. They weren't chosen.

Either way, makes no difference to me. But to deny what is so obvious is perplexing.

I guess you think that by repeating your false premise over and over that it qualifies as an explanation. It's no more than "because I said so".

 

[guuila]

Exactly. He ignores that which he cannot answer, then turns around and taunts. He cannot provide a reason why his "excuse" theology has any relevance, or what the supposed excuse actually does, or accomplishes, he just throws it out there and accuses us of not being able to answer or even acknowledge this little bit of fluff, but he's sure that he has stopped Calvinism dead in its tracks with it. Bottom line, he hates Calvinism, so he feels duty-bound to oppose it, and antagonize Calvinists who don't immediately bow down at the revelation of this 'great wisdom' that he (apparently alone) has uncovered. What does he expect us to do? Stop being Calvinists, simply because of this?

Yep. I gave him an equally ridiculous example of how sinners in hell will have an excuse in his theology, too. They will be able to say "God, you didn't make me as spiritually wise and discerning as FreeGrace2! For some reason, atheism made more sense. I didn't have the reasoning powers FreeGrace2 had! Therefore, it's not fair that I'm in hell!"

No sinner will ever be able to blame God for the fact they're in hell. God owes no man mercy. The "excuse" FreeGrace2 has invented is just as ridiculous as saying I have an excuse for sinning since God has the power to stop me and he isn't.

 

[crimsonleaf]

Yep. I gave him an equally ridiculous example of how sinners in hell will have an excuse in his theology, too. They will be able to say "God, you didn't make me as spiritually wise and discerning as FreeGrace2! For some reason, atheism made more sense. I didn't have the reasoning powers FreeGrace2 had! Therefore, it's not fair that I'm in hell!"

No sinner will ever be able to blame God for the fact they're in hell. God owes no man mercy. The "excuse" FreeGrace2 has invented is just as ridiculous as saying I have an excuse for sinning since God has the power to stop me and he isn't.

Just like the guy who deliberately ran into a wall blaming the onlookers for not stopping him. Dumb.

 

[Hammster]

Yep. I gave him an equally ridiculous example of how sinners in hell will have an excuse in his theology, too. They will be able to say "God, you didn't make me as spiritually wise and discerning as FreeGrace2! For some reason, atheism made more sense. I didn't have the reasoning powers FreeGrace2 had! Therefore, it's not fair that I'm in hell!"

No sinner will ever be able to blame God for the fact they're in hell. God owes no man mercy. The "excuse" FreeGrace2 has invented is just as ridiculous as saying I have an excuse for sinning since God has the power to stop me and he isn't.

He can't stop you from sinning. He's omniscient. He already knows that you will sin and He can't change what He knows.

 

[Charis kai Dunamis]

Please don't try to insert your reasoning here into Heb 2:9.

The vast majority of translations understood the writer to mean "everyone".

It actually should translated "for all" or "for everything", since the immediate context is that all has been put in subjection to Him.

 

[Skala]

So, just an interesting observation. Here we have a man (who hates Calvinism) on FreeGrace2's thread teaching that Paul's words aren't inspired. Do you think FreeGrace2 is actually going to correct him on this error? Of course not. FreeGrace2 is going to pretend he doesn't see it. Why? Because by doing so, he has gained a comrade that will aid him on his crusade to make Calvinism look as ugly as he possibly can.

Amazing how many times I've seen this on these forums. Someone can come along and promote the most ungodly, horrific teaching known to man, but hey, if he hates Calvinism, well, the attitude of the synergists (and the like) is like "Hey! Welcome to the discussion brother!" All error gets a free pass as long as the one promoting it hates Calvinism.

Noticed this many, many times on these boards.