-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
DeaconDean
γέγονα χαλκὸς, κύμβαλον ἀλαλάζον
- Jul 19, 2005
- 22,188
- 2,677
- 63
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
And aren't you doing the same thing?
Interpreting scripture?
Telling us what scripture means.
And how wrong we have it?
God Bless
Till all are one.
Upvote
0
DeaconDean
γέγονα χαλκὸς, κύμβαλον ἀλαλάζον
- Jul 19, 2005
- 22,188
- 2,677
- 63
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Upvote
0
I'm aware of nothing I said that places God on par with man.
Please cite words I said that do this, or do the godly thing and retract your statement.
I can tell you will not be persuaded to consider the inconsistency of saying God hates some people and at the same time He commands us to love even our enemies. He didn't qualify that as you've implied by saying love those enemies you choose to, elected enemies so to speak.
Really? Ya mean there's a hell? Well, gee whiz Ethel, ya learn somthin' ever day! Yuk
Yuk . We're gonna have ta read that newfangled calvinist bible sum time! Yuk
The tone of your responses speak volumes for your point of view.
The thing God hates is sin, not people. The reason for hell to start with is because of sin, not people. If you retain your sin because you haven't entered into Christ's death, then you will be punished with eternal hell apart from God because of your sin, not because somehow God had arbitrarily chosen to label you as an enemy.
God hating sin and not the sinner is ABC's of the gospel. It is sad to realize that some really don't know this, and have actually heard teachers like the one in the video confuse God's attribute of unconditional love with humanistic concept of love, and at the same time teach a humanistic fleshly concept of God's holiness and wrath, that even though a parent can at the same time love and punish a child they cannot understand that God can both love and punish some of His creations.
You have no scriptural basis for this statement. Jesus did not qualify His statements in the Matthew passage as only applying the elect.
No there aren't. Not yet. Hell is the Lake of Fire, the final place of all those who have sin on them. The dead outside Christ are in Hades, not in hell. You should really learn scripture before you try to teach others, or at least come down of the high horse and stop writing such condescending answers.
Really? Well gosh! I didn't know that!
Because there are no people yet in hell. Again, learn your Bible before trying so hard to teach others.
I tried to, about 2 minutes into it it was obvious how shallow it was and how he misunderstands the basic harmony of God's attributes. But I'm sure he's a credit to this doctrinal persuasion.
Next time I try witnessing, I'll be sure to tell them that God doesn't love all people, and that unless they happen to be lucky enough to be some of the elect, He actually hates them and there is nothing they can do to change that. I bet that'll go over like gangbusters!
Thanks for "teachin' me" !
"Watch this video:", accuracy wise, it may be better than the one you posted:
YouTube - Calvinist Witnessing
Upvote
0
The sovereignty of God is never mentioned in scripture as a basis of assurance or acceptance. (if you doubt this, see post #163). This is something you're inferring from the particular doctrinal emphasis you've been taught, which obviously obsesses on the single doctrine of sovereignty. As I'm sure you're aware although your posts don't show it, that is not the only doctrine, nor is it God's only attribute.
If you don't know the scriptures that speak to assurance, I'll gladly share them. You've already included one, the 1 John passage.
Don't really believe what?
Upvote
0
DeaconDean
γέγονα χαλκὸς, κύμβαλον ἀλαλάζον
- Jul 19, 2005
- 22,188
- 2,677
- 63
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
I beg to differ.
God is the basis on which Israel is accepted in the OT.
"For, behold, the Lord, the LORD of hosts, doth take away from Jerusalem and from Judah the stay and the staff, the whole stay of bread, and the whole stay of water." -Isa. 3:1 (KJV)
In his commentary "The Prophesy of Isaiah" J. Alec Motyer says:
J. Alec Motyer, The Prophesy of Isaiah, Intervarsity Press, P.O. Box 1400,, Downers Grove, Il., 60515, Copyright 1993, A. The Preface. Judah: Dianosis and Prognosis, 1:1-5:30, The Book of the King, The Actual Jerusalem: its social condition (3:1-4:1), p. 59
The Sovereignty of God is the basis Israel was chosen and accepted of God.
"For thou art an holy people unto the LORD thy God: the LORD thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto himself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth. The LORD did not set his love upon you, nor choose you, because ye were more in number than any people; for ye were the fewest of all people:" -Deut. 7:6-7 (KJV)
God Bless
Till all are one.
Upvote
0
faceofbear
Veteran
- Aug 3, 2009
- 1,380
- 99
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
- Politics
- US-Others
JM and Dean are probably High, Ultra-high, or Hyper. If not, my bad. And what you are teaching is borderline high Calvinism.
Sovereign is completely different from forcing people to something. Sovereign just means that He is in control, that He allows things and disallows things. Not that He forces people to go to Hell without any hope in the world. They exist solely to burn in Hell forever. This completely contradicts passages teaching that God is love. How can God decree sin, then predestine people to Hell for His decree? You might disagree with this or put it more gently, but it's what Calvinism teaches... and I can quote people if you'd prefer. However, I believe that this view teaches that God is the only sinner, is morally ambiguous, and then sends people to Hell for His choice of making them sin without providing them any grace to do otherwise.
I agree that saved people understand the Bible, but it seems like you are suggesting a saved person has an infallible understanding of the Bible which is contrary to church history, the Old Testament, and the New Testament Epistles where various people are rebuked for not understanding the scriptures. Oh wait, I guess they were never saved even though Paul thought they were. And I guess Martin Luther was never saved either because clearly he didn't understand the Bible. Gotcha'. Not to mention apparently John Calvin himself didn't even understand the Bible since he taught infant baptism and imprisoned various people, some even tortured, for refusing to have their baby baptized. Or for teaching doctrine he disagreed with. Sounds contrary to what Jesus taught to me. Hmmm... I guess the arguments a two-edged sword.
So, back to the point of the thread, eternal security, (salvation) is a gift of the sovereign God. The saved are safe with God by the power of God forever because nothing can change God's plans and overpower him, thus eternal security.
Again, you're confusing a tyrant with sovereignty. However, even if we believe in eternal security. It's not as if it is a doctrine that belongs to the Calvinist. I don't understand what is so difficult to understand about sovereignty.
Sounds contradicting to me. "You can't do anything to be saved but you have to repent and trust, oh and you have to hear the Gospel too." Correctly: we're not saved by deeds of the law.
Can I ask you something, did God force, want, or will Adam to sin to create the fall?
Last edited:
Upvote
0
And I'm fine with that. We can agree to disagree, as long as we see it as where we've come to today in our journey, and not that we have the final word on doctrine and truth.
I expected verses that put the sovereignty of God directly as the answer for assurance of salvation. This comment and verse don't do that.
Let me be clear: God is sovereign and does His will in accordance with the attributes of His character. And also that God is behind all assurance. Based on what I know and have read of the post-ers here, this is the foundation they have of God, myself included.
That's wonderful that someone has a quote that reinforces God's sovereignty in choosing Israel as His people. I don't know any instances of people really walking with the Lord and having doubts about their salvation or acceptance by God who doubt that God sovereignly chose the Gentiles with Israel as His people the church.
The mistake, IMHO, that DD2008 and you by attempting to defend him are making is dismissing the fact that doubts are subjective, and do not always spring from the biggest picture objective truths. These may help, but they don't IMHO get down to the ground level to where these doubts spring.
According to MacArthur in one of the sources you included, the doubts stem from:
1. Strong preaching (& the subsequent guilt of sin wrongly responded to)
2. Guilt (I'm too bad to be forgiven)
3. Ignorance (here he mentions God's sovereignty; not understanding that salvation is a totally sovereign operation built on the historic reality of what Christ accomplished, again remedied by what God says and believing it)
4. Uncertainty due to not remembering their salvation date.
5. Temptation ("they feel the pull of their unredeemed flesh and wonder if they have a new nature")
6. Trials (doubting God's goodness. Not His sovereignty, His goodness.)
7. Fleshliness (not walking in the Spirit)
8. Disobedience (sin in their lives. "It's been well said that high degrees of assurance cannot be enjoyed by those who persist in low levels of obedience. To live in sin is to live in doubt." Spurgeon)
#1 & 2 are the same, and are countered by correct discipleship in what the Word says regarding responding to conviction of sin. Sovereignty may be the foundation, but doesn't help unless you get good follow-up teaching and scriptures to back it up on how to respond to guilt, which isn't being done in this thread.
#3 is the only one where he directly references sovereignty of God. But it can't be countered by telling people God is sovereign. God's Word, correctly applied to the specific area of doubt is the only practical thing that works.
#4 is again very subjective in the person having it. They often know God is sovereign; they doubt whether they are in the group He sovereignly elected or not. The teaching of sovereignty is useless in practically dealing with this situation.
# 5-8 all deal with sin or our response to temptations and trials. Again, telling people who don't know how to interpret trials or respond to temptation or who are captive to certain sins, that God is sovereign, although true and well meaning, gives no practical scriptural advice to counter these issues. It is useless.
Telling people that they need to embrace sovereignty as the catch-all end-all to their doubts, and that the things God has given them in the Word aren't any good, which others have done but you have not, will not promote all becoming one.
It's fine if DD2008 sees sovereignty as all he needs, but others do not, and it is ineffective practically in dealing with many of the above issues. It's fine if you want to defend him or believe the same. But that is different from saying that another's way of establishing security based on God's Word and faith in that Word, is not good enough.
Whatever brings the truth of acceptance home, if scriptural, is good enough for that person.
Blessings,
H.
Upvote
0
You claim that man can override God's election by his decision. That is false.
Romans 9:13 NIV
Just as it is written: "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."
This doesn't say GOd just hated Esau's sin. It says he hated Esau.
It is quite obvisous that those in hell are not accepted. He clearly distinguishes between the elect and non elect in John.
From the Baptist confession of 1689:
CHAPTER 31
OF THE STATE OF MAN AFTER DEATH, AND OF THE RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD
Paragraph 1. The bodies of men after death return to dust, and see corruption;1 but their souls, which neither die nor sleep, having an immortal subsistence, immediately return to God who gave them.2 The souls of the righteous being then made perfect in holiness, are received into paradise, where they are with Christ, and behold the face of God in light and glory, waiting for the full redemption of their bodies;3 and the souls of the wicked are cast into hell; where they remain in torment and utter darkness, reserved to the judgment of the great day;4 besides these two places, for souls separated from their bodies, the Scripture acknowledgeth none.
1 Gen. 3:19; Acts 13:36
2 Eccles. 12:7
3 Luke 23:43; 2 Cor. 5:1,6,8; Phil. 1:23; Heb. 12:23
4 Jude 6, 7; 1 Peter 3:19; Luke 16:23,24
Link: Historic Church Documents at Reformed.org
Upvote
0
Sovereign is who God is. It is the most basic fundamental of scripture. Because God is the top of the ladder he is trustworthy.
That you are saved. If you don't trust Jesus has saved you, then you don't believe you are saved. That means you don't have saving faith. It's that simple.
Upvote
0
Whatever they are, they are the two of the most biblically orthodox posters in the Baptist forum and I respect their input on every issue.
I believe God in his wisdom has willingly and with careful planning predestined the wicked to hell. This is for the benefit of the elect and for his own glory in demonstrating his justice in destroying wickedness. The purpose of the wicked is to be destroyed.
There will always be mistakes with the unsanctified. However, when you see that the bible clearly spells out predestination and election in no uncertain terms, the most major theologians all agree on predestination and election, and you see that it is common sense that a sovereign all powerful all knowing God would predestine and elect because he knows everything. It is quite obvious that predestination and election by a sovereign God are true.
God is only a tyrant if he is unjust. There is no unjustice in punishing the wicked or in using a vessel for it's purpose.
Romans 9:10-24 NIV
19You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?” 20On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, “Why did you make me like this,” will it? 21Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use? 22What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction? 23And He did so to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory, 24even us, whom He also called, not from among Jews only, but also from among Gentiles.
You misunderstand. Everyone is naturally evil. God has elected some to salvation. These he gives a new nature by the power of the Holy Spirit, because he does this they do repent and believe. They are saved from wickedness, they are saved from the wrath of God, they didn't do anything but just received the outpouring of the grace of God.
God created the universe knowing Adam was going to sin and he willed that by his Divine Sovereign decree so that he could demonstrate the riches of his grace to his elect.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
You utterly miss the point that the reason God's word is trusted is because he is Sovereign. If he wasn't Sovereign we couldn't trust his word.
We know he is Sovereign because that's how he has revealed himself to us by Jesus Christ, the prophets and apostles, as well as in nature. We know that whatever God says goes because he is the all powerful God.
Does it bother you that God is in control and created you without your blessing? Would you rather have not existed, or do you thank him for his grace in giving you life?
Last edited:
Upvote
0
faceofbear
Veteran
- Aug 3, 2009
- 1,380
- 99
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
- Politics
- US-Others
I agree with them on many things and definitely respect their input, but you just called their stance heretical prior to this. I don't follow your logic.
I believe the same thing. I just don't believe God forces people to sin and then punishes it for them solely for the sake of the elect.
This is first of all a false argument. Arminians believe in predestination and election, just not the Calvinist sense of it. Again, the disagreement is semantics of what the word means and God's order of operation. An Arminian doesn't believe that God wills sin in anyway shape or form because then it makes God the ONLY sinner who ever existed and denies His goodness and love. In other words, the Arminian doesn't believe that God dictates by forcing people to sin, then provides them NO means for salvation -- but leaves them helpless, then send them to hell for eternity because God caused them to sin.
Election and predestination is spelled out all through Arminius' own theology, it's the understanding of predestination's semantics.
Lastly you're making an error in saying most theologians believe in predestination. It's called a hasty generalization in that you provide no statistics or support for your claim, but only provide it to support your stance with no proof. But for the sake of time, I agree, but the majority of theologians don't necessarily believe in the Calvinistic sense of predestination. However, even if we say, "Most people believe in this." Does that honestly matter? Last I checked God said the way is wide that leads to destruction. Last I checked this age is wicked. Last I checked the church is in a great age of apostasy. And wherever there was apostasy or corruption it was blamed upon false teachers in the Old Testament and in the Epistles.
Again, I agree. I just refuse to believe that God is the author of sin, forces people to sin, provides no grace to be saved for those sinners, then sends them to hell for His decision to force them to sin and His decision not to save them. This would be a tyrant and is completely contrary to the Jesus I know.
So God caused people to be evil by His deterministic sovereignty then only provides the grace for some to believe and repent? Again. This is punishing people for God's choice to make people sin and providing them no means of grace. I understand what you're saying, but you're accusing me of falsehood for believing a similar view from a different stance than yours. I believe God is sovereign. I believe that God has predestined people. I believe in election. I just don't believe in a God who is deterministic, but rather allows things to happen thus remains sovereign. That is, I cannot raise my hand without God allowing it -- therefore, God is sovereign, but God doesn't force me to raise my hand.
This is the Arminian view of the fall, not a Calvinistic. God according to His foreknowledge knew Adam would sin, but did not decree or will Adam to sin. That is, Adam went contrary to God's will (because if Adam was working with God's will, you suggest that God wills sin).
The Calvinist version would say that God willed the sin because nothing can happen outside of God's will. But that is because the Calvinist confuses God's sovereignty with God's will. God doesn't will anyone to sin or perish, but God allows sin and people to perish. Why? Because if we start with the fact that God's nature is love, we end up with God who allows sin, but doesn't will it.
Before you respond, I really want you to consider the implication of suggesting that God willed Adam and Eve to sin. You said early that God is just for punishing wickedness, I agree. But if God willed Adam and Eve to sin, God caused people to be wicked thereby making God morally ambiguous and possibly wicked Himself. But then doesn't stop there. He provides no escape for these wicked people and then sends them to be tormented forever because he forced them to be wicked and left them with no hope. Don't just read those words. Honestly think about that implication. It's the only place it ends up logically. I am not opposed to election or predestination or God's sovereignty. I'm opposed to the suggestion that God is indirectly a sinner and completely destroying the character and attributes of God as He is represented biblically.
Upvote
0
- Mar 27, 2007
- 38,940
- 6,551
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
FaceofBear I have a question for you brother.
If God is perfect then He lacks nothing. If He lacks nothing then He has all knowledge. If He has all knowledge then He has knowledge of all future actions. Given this, how can God be contingent on man's free will? Can man "change" God's knowledge?
If God is perfect then He lacks nothing. If He lacks nothing then He has all knowledge. If He has all knowledge then He has knowledge of all future actions. Given this, how can God be contingent on man's free will? Can man "change" God's knowledge?
Upvote
0
faceofbear
Veteran
- Aug 3, 2009
- 1,380
- 99
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
- Politics
- US-Others
Hey, quite a more-or-less philosophical question. I'd have to do some more brainstorming on this, or perhaps future questions will help me answer... but I'll give it a try.
First of all, I believe the premise of the question is flawed. To suggest that God being perfect means He lacks nothing is not necessarily true -- and in fact is paradoxical. If God lacks nothing then He does not lack imperfection and therefore is imperfect as well as perfect, or else He is lacking imperfection.
Putting that aside, I do agree with you that He has all knowledge, as the Bible teaches that it is those whom He foreknew that He predestined, whom He called, whom He justified, whom He glorified. And in that order, therefore it always hinges on foreknowledge (and God), but not determinism. Thus God is not sitting there waiting for man. He already knows and He has already destined and He has already called and He has already Justified and He has already glorified, those whom He foreknew.
Let me give you an analogy. If I have a child and they reach for the stove that is hot, I know it is going to burn them. My knowledge of what is going to happen does not make me contingent on the child's will. I know if the child will touch it, it will burn the child, but if the child doesn't, it won't burn the child. This is based on foreknowledge. Or there's sometimes certain kids how you just KNOW they're going to do one thing or another -- but with God, He obviously knows it all. However, if we accept a determinism view of Calvinism, it would suggest that God knows the child who is going to touch the stove and the child that isn't going to touch the stove because God forces the child to touch the stove or forces the child not to touch the stove.
But again, let me make this clear. I do not believe in free will in a palagian sense. I do not believe God is sitting in the sky waiting for humans to make a humanistic free will decision. Our will was bound by the fall, but I believe that God has provided the grace to all men to be able to believe or disbelieve, which is why God is the Savior of all men, especially those who believe. That is, lets suppose there are a group of people who can't swim standing by the deep end of a pool. I don't believe God pushed the helpless people into the pool to seemingly drown, then chooses who to throw a rope to, then forces them to grab the rope, so that they will be saved, and that He simply does not throw a rope to others to leave them to drown for His decision to push non-capable swimmers into the pool. That sounds more like Satan than God to me.
If you wish to suggest that God doesn't throw the rope to the others based on His foreknowledge, that is something I could agree with. But I wouldn't agree that God forces helpless people to drown. Or in biblical terms, I don't believe God forces people to sin to leave them helpless into Eternal Damnation.
Lastly, if we say that God does not respond to human will, then we mind as well say God sent Christ for no purpose. That is, sending Christ's was God's response to our sin. So to suggest that God simply doesn't respond to man's will because He already knows is a fallacy. If that be the case then everything we are going through right now is essentially purposeless. That is, Adam and Eve served no purpose, therefore, so did Christ, and all of human history has no purpose. God could just force His glory to be exalted and sent people to Hell and Heaven without living any life on Earth because it would all be useless. I don't believe man is in charge of God, but nonetheless to suggest that if God responds at all to man, then God isn't God is a faulted argument (and no we can't change God's knowledge, but by way of your argument, if God knows everything, then why make any decisions at all? We obviously know that would be illogical.).
Last edited:
Upvote
0
The reason God's word is trustworthy is because we make it so by our faith. Our faith makes it trustworthy. No, it doesn't bother me that God is in control because he is not. God is only as sovereign as we allow him to be. Without our faith God would be nothing. (cough cough gag gag, vomit)
There! Do you feel better now. Isn't that what you wanted me to say? Isn't that what you're insinuating that I believe? Make ya feel better?
Now you can misquote me and use that famous 5-Pt-er word and tell all your buddies that Hupo is a Heretic!!!! Based on the way you're failure to understand my position or where I'm coming from, I probably need to point out that the above comments are sarcasm and I don't believe any of that stuff.
No, brother, I didn't miss the point. I don't understand why you feel you have this need to fit me into that box you're trying to, but it must be because you need to do that to make your points. You have your own doctrinal comfort box and so you have another comfort box you need to fit others into that you perceive as enemies to your own doctrinal comfort box.
I have said several times that I believe God is sovereign, and you even acknowledged it. If you wish to see "missing the point", maybe you don't need to look any further than your own posts. I do believe God is sovereign, but I do not obsess over one single doctrine or one single attribute of God's nature.
Believe me; I get it! God is sovereign, and you see the attribute of sovereignty as the catch-all end-all. You wish to think of nothing else. That's fine. Go ahead and ignore all His other attributes and go around saying SOVEREIGN SOVEREIGN SOVEREIGN. See how that works out for you in spiritual growth.
Upvote
0
Again, you need to study the scriptures before you try to teach others.
If you look up the reference Paul is drawing from, Malachi 1:2-3, you will see that it is nations referred to and not the individuals of Jacob and Esau; and it is covenental acceptance referred to, not emotional love and hate. But you haven't done that, have you? You've just believed what you've been told, and are here to teach us. But I don't expect you to take my word for it; here are notes from the "Believer's Study Bible", formerly known as the "Baptist Study Edition",
Editor - W.A. Criswell, Ph.D.;
Managing Editor - Paige Patterson, Th.D.; both solid Baptists impeccable in credentials. Put out by Nelson Publishers.
"In view of the emphasis in Malachi on covenant faithfulness, it is important to note that terms for love were common in ancient Near Eastern treaties as synonyms for loyalty. In cuneiform texts, divine love was said to motivate selection of a king. In the Hebrew Bible, ^ahav, "love," is often found in passages dealing with choosing (Deut. 7:7, 8; 10:15; Ps. 78:68; Isa. 41:8) and with covenant faithfulness (Ex. 21:5; Deut. 15:16; 1 Sam. 18:1-4; Jer. 31:3; Hos. 11:4).
"The word also describes deeds done on behalf of someone. In its use in Malachi it refers to Yahweh's act of choosing Israel for a special and exclusive relationship and His continually performing acts in accordance with that relationship. It was God's covenant relationship with Israel that had caused Him to bring Israel back to the land where He wanted to bless them (cf. Neh. 9:7, 8). Edom, however, had no such covenant promises. "Hate" in this case means that God had not chosen Edom as He had Israel, and that He was treating their rebellion against Him differently. Their sinful rebellion against Him had been dealt with by their permanent destruction as a nation.
"It is important to note that the election in view here is national rather than individual; thus, it is temporal, not eternal or salvific. Individuals in Israel could still miss salvation through lack of faith (Rom. 9:6), and descendants of Esau could be saved if they believed."
Did you notice that nothing is said in the above document about God's love? Your evidence here, in a worst case scenario (hell), argues against you. The verse you use in your avatar should speak to you if nothing else does. And did you notice you subtly changed the word in our discussion of God's love from "love" to "accepted"? No one said God "accepts" everyone. I said God loves everyone, not accepts.
And it's beside the point anyway, having nothing to do with life in this present world anyway. And I will not be drawn into a discussion about hell and whether God loves souls in hell just because this is where you had to reach to find support for your assertion that God doesn't love the world, only the elect in the world. It's one thing to say God elects some and not others; it's another thing to say that God hates some because they're not elect. It shows your misunderstanding of election. How God feels about souls after the Judgment Day and after sentence is passed, has nothing to do with life in this present world and I won't be drawn into this. It's your straw man and you can have it.
OK, partner. We can discuss all you want to, but I don't appreciate your accusations and misrepresenting what I believe.
I ask you, as a Christian, cite quotes I made claiming that man can override God's election, or retract this statement.
I asked you a few posts ago when you misrepresented me and you ignored it. Is this the Christian image you wish to put forward as an example of your doctrinal perspective? It is a lie at worst, and presumptive accusation at best. This is not in accordance with the new rules at the site, saying we shouldn't address attacks against the post-er, but the post; and that we should show support for statements and not just allege.
You may believe whatever you wish, I have no problem with that and will be glad to have dialogue. But I will stand by for false statements about my beliefs and posts. I draw the line there.
Hentenza, I know you are reading this thread as well, brother. What do you think about someone deliberately misrepresenting what a person believes and offering no support for it?
Thanks,
H.
Upvote
0
No. I didn't I said there are no hyper calvinists posting in this thread. You are the one evidently calling them hyper calvinists. They are not
God is not the "author" of sin. He allowed sin to happen and he decreed it will be destroyed. He has provided sufficent grace for the unbeliever to repent and believe, however they will not. The ones God has elected to salvation he has given a greater amount of grace to. He has given them the irresistible grace of regeneration.
God in his sovereignty has decreed that everything will work out according to his plan. He works all things according to thepurpose of his will. He takes what is evil destroys it and makes good come from it. The arminians were calvinists who made salvation contingent upon the plans of man. So their theology has some truth to it, but is just very inconsistant.
You are a very confused young man. I recommend you find a good Baptist Church and sit under the instruction of a pastor.
God has commanded that everyone repent. Everyone has the free will to repent. However they make decisions according to their nature so only the regenerate actually do repent. God is not obligated to save anyone.
God, is not indirectly a sinner. God is perfect. He allowed man to get himself into a mess. When we say allowed we mean he didn't prevent man from sinning because he allowed man to chose his own path. God gave clear instructions on what to do man had the ability to chose not to go against God but did it anyway. God then rescued some men from the mess. He did this based on his own choice. The rest of the men he gives justice for what they have done.
Upvote
0
I rely on the bible, history, education, confessions, and conviction before I share a view with you. I am here as a christian to share my views. I'm not here to "teach" you. I'm just giving you the answer I know is correct. I don't have one smidgeon of a shadow of a doubt in my mind that the saved are eternally secure in Christ and cannot lose their salvation. To me it is a hill to die on and a pillar of the christian faith. Non-negotiable.
No it isn't. He is actually talking about Jacob and Esau themselves. He uses this as an illustration about election.
If God loved everyone he would save everyone. When the time is right the Holy Spirit regenerates a elect person and that person repents and believes. God loves the elect from all over the world, not just Jews.
That's because you know it is absurd to say that God loves the souls in hell. That position is not defendable Hell exisiting with people in it proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that God doesn't love everyone, just the elect.
You are arguing against the eternal security of the believer. We have this whole thread as an example. You obviously believe man who has once been saved can then reject God and become unsaved. You believe that salvation is dependent upon the decision of man and not of God. Your posts all speak for themselves. This is what I have gleaned from your posts. If that is not true state your position clearly and quite making such a fuss.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Similar threads
