Challenge to calvinist.

[Michael26]

First let me state that I have made my conclusions on this debate by reading several different interpretations from both sides. Not everyone on each side necessarily agrees with each other on all points either. Which is why I think it is so important to not limit yourself to just a few opinions. In fact I think in order to make an educated decision on what you believe you must be willing to hear ALL the facts and be willing to hear ALL opinions. I didn't always agree with all interpretations advocates of free will made just as I didn't always agree with all interpretations from the Calvinist side. That being said I believe it is important to understand another truth. There are highly intelligent, educated people with thorough knowledge of the scripture on both sides of the fence. However both sides can't both be accurate. One is obviously misinterpreting scripture. So that clearly reveals that just because someone is very knowledgeable of the Bible doesn't mean that their interpretations are always correct. So that is why it is important to allow your self to be exposed to all opinions from all sides so that you can decide what you believe for yourself and not just follow someone else's opinions. I have a read a lot of different interpretations and explanations from both sides and there are two that I would like to present. My challenge to Calvinist is to read both of these (if you are certain that what you believe is true then you shouldn't be worried about reading a pro free will article.) and give any rebuttal as to why these documents cannot be considered accurate. The first is THE MEANING OF PROGINOSKO (“FOREKNOWLEDGE&#8221 by Thomas R. Edgar. I came upon this article while trying to figure out why definitions had been added to the word foreknow, which is exactly what happened to make verses such as Romans 8:29 support Calvinism. Such definitions as foreordain (there is a greek word for foreordain by the way it is proorizo.) and even of those whom God elected to salvation; to predestinate become suddenly present once this word is in context with God. Go google proginosko and you will see what I mean. It didn't make any sense. What this article gives an incredibly thorough examination of this word and I believe gives information that is vital for us to understand before anyone makes a decision of what they believe concerning this debate. Here is the link: chafer. edu/journal/back_issues/Vol%209-1%20ar3.pdf (I had to seperate parts of the link to post this, it won't let me add links until I have posted more than 50 times.)
After reading this I think it is worth taking a look at this in depth bible study that is also very thorough and clear in its explanation of Romans 9 and it's context. here is the link: w w w.biblestudying.net/romans9-1. html[/url]
I do not deny that these sites are meant to refute Calvinism or at least certain interpretations it implies. I also present this to people who are on the fence about this issue. By all means read the Calvinist interpretations also. Don't limit yourself to just what I present. I do not claim either that these articles address every bit of scripture that has been a part of this debate, but it does examine those I think are most relevant. I also believe that these articles definitely give reason to reexamine other interpretations.

 

[bradfordl]

Oh, Wow! I never heard these arguments before! Now it all makes sense! I'm now an arminian!

Or maybe not. Same autonomy-blinded swill, regurgitated again and again. And it is still disingenuous at number one million as it was at number one. Yes, very intelligent men can believe very wrong things, and will try with all their 'will' to stuff square pegs in to round holes. Plenty of atheist PHD's.

Friend, if your heart is so set on saving yourself rather than God, have at it with all your 'will'. You'll only find that will to be woefully un-'free' and un-reliable, but hey, at least you won't have to humble yourself before a truly all-powerful God who owes you nothing but hell. Whittle it down as small as you can to retain a pretense of humility, but you'll always have the comfort of knowing that no matter how small it is, it was still your decision that saved you, and that is certainly cause for self-celebration. It's your party. Try if you want to.

 

[ReformedChapin]

When I see one scripture passage that says we have free will I will be an arminian.

 

[heymikey80]

It's not a challenge because I'd already read Edgar on it. I've had a thought to take him out to lunch to discuss it, but maybe an email exchange would be a better start to that.

The basic question is whether the construction "foreknow [who]" is different from "foreknow about [who]". Calvinists normally state that "foreknow [who]" is similar to "know who". Edgar's asserting that "foreknow [who]" is actually used more like "know about|that [who]". I couldn't track down the exact instance of this particular construction in his exposition. To me that's an indication that the examination is not incredibly thorough.

There are meaning problems with the latter (e.g., how does God's impact on a person change the person's response?). Both constructions extend further in their systematics than the word's actual meaning in Scripture. But that's to be expected with a consistent, systematic theology. To me Edgar's complaint about that is throwing stones from a glass house.

 

[DeaconDean]

deleted

 

[Judson]

At any rate, the definition of the one word "foreknow" in the few passages where it's found is not the clinching argument to whether God chooses those who will be saved. There are numerous other passages with other words (like 'choose', 'elect', 'predestined', 'appointed' that need to be considered).

One of my favs: 2 Thes 2:13, "But we ought always to thank God for you, brothers loved by the Lord, because from the beginning God chose you to be saved through the sanctifying work of the Spirit and through belief in the truth."

Rather than squabble over the word "foreknow", once should really wrestle with the word "chose." You won't find nearly as much ambiguity there, unless of course you believe JP Satres that meaning is completely unstable.

 

[TheCosmicGospel]

Why do Calvinists even bother going to church? The sacraments are empty shells that do not offer life or salvation. They are self-secure in their election which they cannot prove. They should not proclaim the Gospel to anyone who are not elect, for Christ did not die for those people.

You have quite a theology there. Jesus should have just come with checkers. You make the cross totally unnecessary.

TULIP is a vacuouos philosophy perpetrated to argue against the heresy of Arminianism. And you are both wrong. Calvin should have remained a lawyer.

You make the Gospel a complete waste of time. If you are the elect, you do not need it. If you are not the elect, the Gospel won't do any good, since the Atonement is for the SELECT ELECT.

I guess your only redeeming grace in this is that you don't believe in TULIP yourselves. You still preach Christ and go to church. Hallelujah for that. Because if you truly practiced hardcore TULIPING, your church going is of no purpose but to be a show off ville of "I think I am one of the ELECT. You see this tie? Yeah buddy, that means more than taking the Lord's Supper!"

When you go fishing and don't catch a fish, I guess you didn't go fishing either?

 

[Judson]

Cosmic, your fundamental error is to mistake Calvinsim with determinsitic fatalism. It's a common caricature which is done by perceiving that God has only ordained the ultimate end, and not the proximate causes that make up that end, thus absolving man of responsibility. this is firmly rejected in every facet of orthodox christianity, including Calvinsim.

Yes, God has ordained eternal life for his elect, but he has ALSO ordained the means by which humanity comes to that end. That is, Israel, salvation history, Jesus, the cross, the preaching of the gospel, the sacraments, the church, etc. These are all elements of God's plan which he has invited humanity to participate in, and they do so freely, in accordance to the grace that has been given.

Of all the traditions, you will find that none of them places a higher emphasis on the gospel, on preaching, on evangelism, and on the finished work of the cross than the traditions that proceed from the Reformation. This is a simple fact.

 

[bradfordl]

Why do Calvinists even bother going to church?

Because our God has commanded that we do so, and because that is where we behold Him, whom we adore, in the preaching of His Word and the sacraments.

The sacraments are empty shells that do not offer life or salvation.

Salvation is not found in wine or bread, nor is life, but in Christ alone. And it is Christ that we find in those sacraments, and proclaim His death 'til He comes.

They are self-secure in their election which they cannot prove.

Nope. Not self-secure. Christ-secure, proven by His promises which cannot fail.

They should not proclaim the Gospel to anyone who are not elect, for Christ did not die for those people.

So your only reason for sharing the gospel is that those who hear it definitely will believe it? Then you must be the one who shouldn't proclaim it, because you know that not all will. We proclaim it to all because our God has commanded us to do so. The results of that proclamation are in His hands. His sheep hear His voice and follow. The goats hear and reject it so that their condemnation is without excuse.

You have quite a theology there. Jesus should have just come with checkers. You make the cross totally unnecessary.

You make an assertion without evidence, and you are completely wrong. The cross is necessary for the redemption of sinners, which all of Adam's race are, including all those whom He has ordained unto eternal life.

TULIP is a vacuouos philosophy perpetrated to argue against the heresy of Arminianism. And you are both wrong. Calvin should have remained a lawyer.

Assertion without evidence. Google 'ad hominem fallacy'.

You make the Gospel a complete waste of time.

Only in your mind, because the theology you despise dethrones you and enthrones Christ, and that sticks in your craw.

If you are the elect, you do not need it.

Every sinner needs it to be reconciled to God.

If you are not the elect, the Gospel won't do any good, since the Atonement is for the SELECT ELECT.

No, it won't do any good because if you're not elect you won't care about it and you won't believe it, so the atonement is of none effect.

I guess your only redeeming grace in this is that you don't believe in TULIP yourselves.

Oh yes I do.

You still preach Christ and go to church. Hallelujah for that.

Amen, hallelujah for that, and we do it because the implications of TULIP engender a burning desire to do so, since it is the proclamation of God's love for us and shed abroad in our hearts.

Because if you truly practiced hardcore TULIPING, your church going is of no purpose but to be a show off ville of "I think I am one of the ELECT.

Absolutely incorrect. Being chosen by God is most humbling, because we know it was not due to any quality of our own, but in spite of every quality in us, which are all wicked and unworthy of the least of His mercies. Why would anyone who understands that everything about himself except what Christ has placed in him is Totally depraved think he had anything to show off?

You see this tie? Yeah buddy, that means more than taking the Lord's Supper!"

Balderdash, 'buddy'.

When you go fishing and don't catch a fish, I guess you didn't go fishing either?

You grow progressively more incoherent with each sentence. Take a deep breath and get a grip. Your anger rises from your flesh, which loathes the fact that the Bible properly understood deprives that flesh of any authority over your own salvation. You want to save yourself, (wouldn't that look nice on a resume?) but the scriptures say you can't, so it crowds and frustrates you. Biblical doctrine such as that you call calvinism explains that impotency on your part, so the sin that dwells in you despises it. So what? Nothing new. You'll have no effect on God's people, He defends His own. All you will accomplish is making yourself look foolish, and then if you are His, give yourself much to regret later.

 

[heymikey80]

Why do Calvinists even bother going to church?

Sometimes we go just to heckle people who think they know what Calvinism is. C'mon, tell us what we define Calvinism is. Or don't bother. We know what you're shooting at. It's not us.

Polemical attack is not a valid method of asserting the truth. It's just cat-calling from the balcony, nothing more.

 

[TheCosmicGospel]

Cosmic, your fundamental error is to mistake Calvinsim with determinsitic fatalism. It's a common caricature which is done by perceiving that God has only ordained the ultimate end, and not the proximate causes that make up that end, thus absolving man of responsibility. this is firmly rejected in every facet of orthodox christianity, including Calvinsim.

Yes, God has ordained eternal life for his elect, but he has ALSO ordained the means by which humanity comes to that end. That is, Israel, salvation history, Jesus, the cross, the preaching of the gospel, the sacraments, the church, etc. These are all elements of God's plan which he has invited humanity to participate in, and they do so freely, in accordance to the grace that has been given.

Of all the traditions, you will find that none of them places a higher emphasis on the gospel, on preaching, on evangelism, and on the finished work of the cross than the traditions that proceed from the Reformation. This is a simple fact.

Thank you Judson for your answers. Your answers I hope are true about the means. Thank you for that. I don't need TULIP to hold on to the means however. Yes, I equate TULIP with fatalism because God chose some and not others from the beginning...in predestination....fatalistic determinism.

TULIP is a fascinating attempt for man to understand things outside what God has revealed. TULIP does not, repeat, does not hold up to even John 3:16. You have to change the meaning of simple words to make it work and reconcile. All of a sudden the "world" becomes the "elect few". Then you say, well, if he died for the whole world, it didn't work...hence my line about fishing.

Balderdash as someone kindly responded. So there is mine. TULIP confounds the Gospel. Again, without the universal atonement, how can you preach the Gospel to anyone? If they are the elect, why do they need it? Or are you now saying that the Gospel is what makes unregenerate sinners into the elect? That is what Lutherans teach and do so quite well without TULIP.

God calls everyone to be saved. But He uses the Church, sacraments, cross, and Gospel under the influence of the Holy Spirit.

Men are not able to save themselves, decide for Christ, or make Jesus their personal Savior.

God's foreknowledge of who will receive the Gospel has no influence on their accepting it.....again that depends on the means.

Christ died for all does not mean that all will be saved. But it serves as the basis of proclaiming the Gospel to all men. Without the blood account, what sense would it make to proclaim the Gospel to those outside the Church and who are not the elect? How would they pay for their sins?

Jesus is God. He laid His sovereinty aside to take the cross. The Father is God too. But in His love He offered up His Son. I believe He is sovereign but that didn't prevent Him from serving, offering, giving, and loving. He is not less God for doing so. TULIP is too much a construct built around "sovereignty" while ignoring what God offered to mankind in the cross.

You want to hold to limited atonement because of the results? Then what sense do the Reformed have about the Great Commission?

I DON'T THINK i AM TRYING OR EXPECTING TO CHANGE YOUR MIND ON ANYTHING BUT TO ASK QUESTIONS. But Calvinists don't like questions so they limit anyone only to debate. I only want to understand what the wiggle room in TULIP is there for the Gospel to have an active influence in the world if it is already fatalistically predetermined who the elect are. Who gets to decide who the elect are? For the elect to decide who they are you have to admit, is kind of a weak argument, right? Not even John Calvin was all that sure on his death bed. Philosophy does not replace the cross for a good answer.

 

[Artexerxes]

Wait... wat?

This is how the thread ends? I must have missed something. TULIP does not hold up to John 3:16? How is this so? I think your bias is showing as I see no contradiction between the two.

>>> without the universal atonement, how can you preach the Gospel to anyone? <<<

Open your mouth?

>>> If they are the elect, why do they need it? <<<

Again God has not only ordained the end but also the means. More importantly, who cares if they "need" to hear the Gospel? How about talking about the Gospel cause it ROCKS! It's an amazing story and sure it'll get rejected 9 times out of 10 but that doesn't mean you have to stop you from talking about it 10 times. You and your deontological ethics...

>>> But Calvinists don't like questions so they limit anyone only to debate. <<<

Err... wat? I've yet to meet a Calvinist that couldn't throw down in a good, old-fashioned argument. The same cannot be said for any other denomination I've come in contact with (and I've met alot!). This is the first I'm hearing of our lack of argumentation, but if the gauntlet is getting thrown down - then, good sir - consider it picked up.

>>> Who gets to decide who the elect are? <<<

God does?

TULIP doesn't kill evangelism, quite the contrary. Now a strawman, caricature of TULIP probably does lots of things wrong but then again strawmen, caricatures tend not to hold up to rigorous debate either...

 

[A New Dawn]

Who gets to decide who the elect are?

God does.

As far as the purpose of preaching the gospel, has God told you who the elect are? He hasn't told anyone else, either, so the gospel must be preached to all. After all, it is by the foolishness of preaching that God saves those who believe. Meaning, one must hear the gospel so they can hear and be saved.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Thank you Judson for your answers. Your answers I hope are true about the means. Thank you for that. I don't need TULIP to hold on to the means however. Yes, I equate TULIP with fatalism because God chose some and not others from the beginning...in predestination....fatalistic determinism.

It is not fatalistic determinism at all. God has elected those who are going to be saved through His foreknowledge of who is going to respond to the Gospel and who is going to reject it. We don't know everything about God, because He has not revealed His complete nature to us. In our mortal state, we would not be able to take it. He has revealed enough of Himself to show us His plan of salvation.

People will be lost, not because God originally planned it that way, but through their rejection of Christ. He has given the invitation for all sinners to come to Christ. The Holy Spirit works in all people to show them their sin so they will know that only Christ will be able to save them. We know that some will accept what the Holy Spirit is doing and will embrace Christ, and others will reject Christ and carry on in their sin. God knows all this from the foundation of the world. Much of the doctrine of election and reprobation is a mystery. It is only when a person responds to the Gospel and embraces Christ that he knows that he has been elected.

This is not fatalistic determinism because every sinner has a free choice to accept or reject the invitation of God to receive salvation through Christ according to the Gospel.

The difference between this and Arminianism is that a sinner cannot "unblind" himself to the truth of the Gospel, and does not have the strength of will to receive Christ unless the Holy Spirit does the initial work.

TULIP is a fascinating attempt for man to understand things outside what God has revealed. TULIP does not, repeat, does not hold up to even John 3:16. You have to change the meaning of simple words to make it work and reconcile. All of a sudden the "world" becomes the "elect few". Then you say, well, if he died for the whole world, it didn't work...hence my line about fishing.

The doctrine of election is consistent with John 3:16. It is a matter of at what point the Holy Spirit becomes involved in the conversion process. Arminians believe that the sinner makes his choice first through the strength of his own will, then the Holy Spirit starts working in him. Calvinists believe that the Holy Spirit starts the work, opening the sinner's eyes to his sin and when the sinner starts crying out to God for mercy, He then gives the strength of will and the faith to embrace Christ.

The knowledge that God has of who is going to embrace Christ and who is not has not been revealed to us. God keeps that information to Himself within the mystery of His will and purpose. In order for God to be God, He has to retain the mysteries of who He is and what He knows.

Balderdash as someone kindly responded. So there is mine. TULIP confounds the Gospel. Again, without the universal atonement, how can you preach the Gospel to anyone? If they are the elect, why do they need it? Or are you now saying that the Gospel is what makes unregenerate sinners into the elect? That is what Lutherans teach and do so quite well without TULIP.
There is no such thing as universal atonement. Jesus did not die for the whole world. He died for those who come to Him and embrace Him. The death and resurrection of Christ is ineffective for those who reject Him. There is no atonement for those who choose to remain in their sin.

Concerning preaching the Gospel. Jesus instructs His disciples to go out and make disciples from every nation. We don't know who is part of the Elect and who is not. Therefore, we go out and share the Gospel in the hope that some of the people we encounter are those who will accept the Gospel and come to Christ.

God calls everyone to be saved. But He uses the Church, sacraments, cross, and Gospel under the influence of the Holy Spirit.

Men are not able to save themselves, decide for Christ, or make Jesus their personal Savior.

God's foreknowledge of who will receive the Gospel has no influence on their accepting it.....again that depends on the means.

Christ died for all does not mean that all will be saved. But it serves as the basis of proclaiming the Gospel to all men. Without the blood account, what sense would it make to proclaim the Gospel to those outside the Church and who are not the elect? How would they pay for their sins?

There is no objection to what you have said here. I have already explained the purpose of preaching the Gospel in terms of the Elect and the Reprobate.

Jesus is God. He laid His sovereinty aside to take the cross. The Father is God too. But in His love He offered up His Son. I believe He is sovereign but that didn't prevent Him from serving, offering, giving, and loving. He is not less God for doing so. TULIP is too much a construct built around "sovereignty" while ignoring what God offered to mankind in the cross.

Nothing you are saying here is contradictory to Election.

You want to hold to limited atonement because of the results? Then what sense do the Reformed have about the Great Commission?

I explained that above. Going out and sharing the Gospel helps us to discover who is Elect and who is not.

I DON'T THINK i AM TRYING OR EXPECTING TO CHANGE YOUR MIND ON ANYTHING BUT TO ASK QUESTIONS. But Calvinists don't like questions so they limit anyone only to debate. I only want to understand what the wiggle room in TULIP is there for the Gospel to have an active influence in the world if it is already fatalistically predetermined who the elect are. Who gets to decide who the elect are? For the elect to decide who they are you have to admit, is kind of a weak argument, right? Not even John Calvin was all that sure on his death bed. Philosophy does not replace the cross for a good answer.

I think that there is a problem when we try to work out everything that God is and what He knows. He has revealed to us only a very small sliver of the knowledge of His character and nature. Most of who God is, is shrouded in mystery and we have to accept that. We will possibly know more when we enter the glory with Christ when He comes again.

Election and Reprobation is not as black and white as you make out. It is certainly not fatalistic determinism. Every sinner who ever lived has the equal opportunity to come to Christ. Jesus said that whoever comes to Him, He would in no wise cast out. That holds very true within the doctrine of Election.

It is important that we do not make our own decision about who is Elect and who is Reprobate, even though we might be sorely tempted when confronted by some.

Also, it is equally important that we don't make the mistake of promoting easy believerism by encouraging sinners to "accept Christ" without having a clear knowledge of their own sinfulness and helplessness in being able to do anything about it.

 

[A New Dawn]

It is not fatalistic determinism at all. God has elected those who are going to be saved through His foreknowledge of who is going to respond to the Gospel and who is going to reject it. We don't know everything about God, because He has not revealed His complete nature to us. In our mortal state, we would not be able to take it. He has revealed enough of Himself to show us His plan of salvation.

People will be lost, not because God originally planned it that way, but through their rejection of Christ. He has given the invitation for all sinners to come to Christ. The Holy Spirit works in all people to show them their sin so they will know that only Christ will be able to save them. We know that some will accept what the Holy Spirit is doing and will embrace Christ, and others will reject Christ and carry on in their sin. God knows all this from the foundation of the world. Much of the doctrine of election and reprobation is a mystery. It is only when a person responds to the Gospel and embraces Christ that he knows that he has been elected.

This is not fatalistic determinism because every sinner has a free choice to accept or reject the invitation of God to receive salvation through Christ according to the Gospel.

The difference between this and Arminianism is that a sinner cannot "unblind" himself to the truth of the Gospel, and does not have the strength of will to receive Christ unless the Holy Spirit does the initial work.


The doctrine of election is consistent with John 3:16. It is a matter of at what point the Holy Spirit becomes involved in the conversion process. Arminians believe that the sinner makes his choice first through the strength of his own will, then the Holy Spirit starts working in him. Calvinists believe that the Holy Spirit starts the work, opening the sinner's eyes to his sin and when the sinner starts crying out to God for mercy, He then gives the strength of will and the faith to embrace Christ.

The knowledge that God has of who is going to embrace Christ and who is not has not been revealed to us. God keeps that information to Himself within the mystery of His will and purpose. In order for God to be God, He has to retain the mysteries of who He is and what He knows.

Balderdash as someone kindly responded. So there is mine. TULIP confounds the Gospel. Again, without the universal atonement, how can you preach the Gospel to anyone? If they are the elect, why do they need it? Or are you now saying that the Gospel is what makes unregenerate sinners into the elect? That is what Lutherans teach and do so quite well without TULIP.
There is no such thing as universal atonement. Jesus did not die for the whole world. He died for those who come to Him and embrace Him. The death and resurrection of Christ is ineffective for those who reject Him. There is no atonement for those who choose to remain in their sin.

Concerning preaching the Gospel. Jesus instructs His disciples to go out and make disciples from every nation. We don't know who is part of the Elect and who is not. Therefore, we go out and share the Gospel in the hope that some of the people we encounter are those who will accept the Gospel and come to Christ.



There is no objection to what you have said here. I have already explained the purpose of preaching the Gospel in terms of the Elect and the Reprobate.



Nothing you are saying here is contradictory to Election.



I explained that above. Going out and sharing the Gospel helps us to discover who is Elect and who is not.



I think that there is a problem when we try to work out everything that God is and what He knows. He has revealed to us only a very small sliver of the knowledge of His character and nature. Most of who God is, is shrouded in mystery and we have to accept that. We will possibly know more when we enter the glory with Christ when He comes again.

Election and Reprobation is not as black and white as you make out. It is certainly not fatalistic determinism. Every sinner who ever lived has the equal opportunity to come to Christ. Jesus said that whoever comes to Him, He would in no wise cast out. That holds very true within the doctrine of Election.

It is important that we do not make our own decision about who is Elect and who is Reprobate, even though we might be sorely tempted when confronted by some.

Also, it is equally important that we don't make the mistake of promoting easy believerism by encouraging sinners to "accept Christ" without having a clear knowledge of their own sinfulness and helplessness in being able to do anything about it.

Did you forget that this is the Ask A Calvinist forum?

 

[Shulamite]

Oh, Wow! I never heard these arguments before! Now it all makes sense! I'm now an arminian!

Or maybe not. Same autonomy-blinded swill, regurgitated again and again. And it is still disingenuous at number one million as it was at number one. Yes, very intelligent men can believe very wrong things, and will try with all their 'will' to stuff square pegs in to round holes. Plenty of atheist PHD's.

Friend, if your heart is so set on saving yourself rather than God, have at it with all your 'will'. You'll only find that will to be woefully un-'free' and un-reliable, but hey, at least you won't have to humble yourself before a truly all-powerful God who owes you nothing but hell. Whittle it down as small as you can to retain a pretense of humility, but you'll always have the comfort of knowing that no matter how small it is, it was still your decision that saved you, and that is certainly cause for self-celebration. It's your party. Try if you want to.

AMEN

 

[Shulamite]

Because our God has commanded that we do so, and because that is where we behold Him, whom we adore, in the preaching of His Word and the sacraments.
Salvation is not found in wine or bread, nor is life, but in Christ alone. And it is Christ that we find in those sacraments, and proclaim His death 'til He comes.
Nope. Not self-secure. Christ-secure, proven by His promises which cannot fail.
So your only reason for sharing the gospel is that those who hear it definitely will believe it? Then you must be the one who shouldn't proclaim it, because you know that not all will. We proclaim it to all because our God has commanded us to do so. The results of that proclamation are in His hands. His sheep hear His voice and follow. The goats hear and reject it so that their condemnation is without excuse.
You make an assertion without evidence, and you are completely wrong. The cross is necessary for the redemption of sinners, which all of Adam's race are, including all those whom He has ordained unto eternal life.
Assertion without evidence. Google 'ad hominem fallacy'.
Only in your mind, because the theology you despise dethrones you and enthrones Christ, and that sticks in your craw.
Every sinner needs it to be reconciled to God.
No, it won't do any good because if you're not elect you won't care about it and you won't believe it, so the atonement is of none effect.
Oh yes I do.
Amen, hallelujah for that, and we do it because the implications of TULIP engender a burning desire to do so, since it is the proclamation of God's love for us and shed abroad in our hearts.
Absolutely incorrect. Being chosen by God is most humbling, because we know it was not due to any quality of our own, but in spite of every quality in us, which are all wicked and unworthy of the least of His mercies. Why would anyone who understands that everything about himself except what Christ has placed in him is Totally depraved think he had anything to show off?
Balderdash, 'buddy'.
You grow progressively more incoherent with each sentence. Take a deep breath and get a grip. Your anger rises from your flesh, which loathes the fact that the Bible properly understood deprives that flesh of any authority over your own salvation. You want to save yourself, (wouldn't that look nice on a resume?) but the scriptures say you can't, so it crowds and frustrates you. Biblical doctrine such as that you call calvinism explains that impotency on your part, so the sin that dwells in you despises it. So what? Nothing new. You'll have no effect on God's people, He defends His own. All you will accomplish is making yourself look foolish, and then if you are His, give yourself much to regret later.

....AND AMEN......

Arminians accuse me of being prideful for saying I am elect of God. Nothing can be further from the truth. I am so humbled, awed and fall on my face before Him over this revelation. There is nothing in me that would be the basis for Him choosing me. But, He did. He chose me IN Him before the foundation of the world. Why? Because He is God and He "has mercy on whom He has mercy and hardens whom he hardens."

No pride. Just complete and total humble awe! Thankyou, Lord.

 

[Christum Crucifixum]

I am but a lowly Lutheran, and thus my confession will, most likely, be ill-received on this matter of the eternal election and foreknowledge of God. So I will simply make the following observation, namely, that, if I had to choose between belonging to an Arminian or a Calvinist church, I would most definitely, positively, without question go with Calvinism and the Reformed tradition.

If we are to study both the Holy Scriptures and ourselves seriously, we must accept the reality that we are dead to God, and that, if we believe in His Son, Jesus Christ, it is only because, before the foundations of the world were laid down, this Blessed Lamb was slain on our behalf.

"In Christ we too have been claimed as God’s own possession, since we were predestined according to the one purpose of him who accomplishes all things according to the counsel of his will" (Ephesians 1:11).