This doesn't follow at all. Are you saying that the essence and value of God's love is based on whether or not it received by His creatures?
No that isn't what I said at all. You are putting words in my mouth. What I said, and which follows logically, is that if God loves all men without exception then His love is a meaningless and worthless emotion for most of those He loves will never be saved. It actually destroys the love of God and robs Him of the power of His love to do for His loved ones what He desires for them. God's wondrous love is backed by His infinite wisdom and power so that He can and does accomplish what He desires for His loved ones.
That seems extremely "man centered" to me. If anything, the fact that God loves even those who will ultimately reject Him only magnifies the greatness of His love. The Calvinist view has man loving God only because God irresistibly causes them to love Him. Not sure how the God of all truth would be satisfied with such a farce.
This is nonsense of course. What happens to His love at judgment? If He loves those who end up in everlasting damnation what good was His love to them? It made no difference at all and makes God to be the most frustrated being to ever exist. You have a very low view of God's love.
And as far as the nonsense about Arminianism meaning that man saves himself or is a self-savior that is obviously false since salvation is a free and undersevered gift from God. To say that in trusting Christ for salvation we are self saviors is oxy-moronic. Trusting Christ to save us is admitting that we are powerless to save ourselves. If we could save ourselves, we wouldn't need to trust in Christ to save us, now would we?
See the post where I explain the difference between an offer and a gift.
http://www.christianforums.com/threads/arminians-why-are-you-arminian.7926633/page-4#post-69100786 If God offers you salvation and you take it you are the one who is saving yourself because you did something that others did not do. If that isn't self salvation then the sky isn't blue. There is no way around it. If you do something that others do not do then you are the one saving yourself by something you do which is a work.
If we receive a free and undeserved gift from the hand of God (even with full power to reject that gift as well) we are in no way earning the gift. Nor did we buy the gift. Nor did we give the gift to ourselves. Nor did we "contribute" to the gift. All such descriptions are plainly absurd. And yet that is what is at the heart of this Calvinist argument: absurdity.
Not absurd at all but very logical and truthful. No one claims that you buy the gift but you are the ones claiming that you must receive the gift. If you must do something in order to be saved you are your own savior.
Calvinists want us to believe that if we receive a gift freely, then we must have earned it.
Straw man of course. That has never been our argument and you know it. Our argument about Arminianism being a works salvation isn't that you earn salvation but that you save yourself by an act of your will which others do not do. That makes salvation depend on you and your will rather than on the complete and finished work of Christ.
They want us to believe that if we receive a gift freely, we must have bought the gift.
Again a straw man. You are the one being absurd with such groundless accusations.
They want us to believe that if we receive a gift freely, that means we contributed to the gift. They want us to believe that if we receive a gift freely, we gave it to ourselves (which flies in the face of the basic distinction between giver and receiver). They want us to believe that a gift cannot truly be a gift unless it is given in such a way that it cannot possibly be rejected (i.e. given irresistibly). They want us to believe that grace can only be grace if it is given in such a way that it cannot be rejected (i.e. irresistibly). They want us to believe that love can only be love if it is fully affirmed and accepted by the object of that love. What?????
More straw man accusations that have nothing to do with the Calvinist argument. Are you so devoid of an original actual argument that you must resort to such tactics?
All such things are obviously false and have no parallel to real life. They exist and are persuasive only in the mind of the Calvinist who must constantly redefine basic universal concepts and engage in major equivocation for any such arguments to hold any water at all. Don't fall for it.
If Calvinists actually argued what you claim that they do it would be ridiculous but you obviously know nothing of what the Calvinist argument is or you simply ignore it in order to build your straw man.
Happy with your tradition?
