The Tulip is broken

[MamaZ]

Please do not insult the intelligence of those of us who read your doctrines every day. To say that you believe all are welcome at the cross is misinformation and contrary to your systematic scheme that says God predestinated most of humanity to hell. He created them for the day of destruction. They cannot believe in him unless he regenerates them first, something he will not do because he hates them (Jacob have I loved and Esau have I hated, you quote often). Unelect cannot be saved by the cross or any other way. The suggestion that they are welcome at the cross in calvinist theology is absurd and insulting.

I ask a calvinist one time if he believed that a person who was not chosen by the Lord to be saved before the foundation of the world could ever be saved under any circumstances or if there were any scenario where one who had been chosen could finally be lost and go to hell and he answered "NO" to both questions.

If you agree with this man, would you please inform us why an invitation to an unelect man to come to the cross of Jesus Christ would make a hill-o-beans of difference to him, except it might make him more of a sinner. Enquiring minds want to know!

You people cannot stand by your own doctrines and I suppose you just expect us to forget about all the things you say. I really think the Mormon doctrines are at least as close to the truth as calvinist doctrines.

If you cannot give a better response than this one, I would just soon you did not answer.

I stand by the doctrine of scripture.. Many are called.. Many.. Few are chosen.. Few.. For even men stood physically at the cross of Christ.. Many.. How many of them walked away chosen? Even the thiefs that were on the cross beside Him.. One was chosen while the other mocked. We take the whole counsel of the scriptures.. Even though you may be against me doesn't matter.. For if God be for me who can really be against me? Do I fear what man may do to me? Nope for I know in whom I believe..

 

[drstevej]

Please do not insult the intelligence of those of us who read your doctrines every day. To say that you believe all are welcome at the cross is misinformation and contrary to your systematic scheme that says God predestinated most of humanity to hell. He created them for the day of destruction. They cannot believe in him unless he regenerates them first, something he will not do because he hates them (Jacob have I loved and Esau have I hated, you quote often). Unelect cannot be saved by the cross or any other way. The suggestion that they are welcome at the cross in calvinist theology is absurd and insulting.

I ask a calvinist one time if he believed that a person who was not chosen by the Lord to be saved before the foundation of the world could ever be saved under any circumstances or if there were any scenario where one who had been chosen could finally be lost and go to hell and he answered "NO" to both questions.

If you agree with this man, would you please inform us why an invitation to an unelect man to come to the cross of Jesus Christ would make a hill-o-beans of difference to him, except it might make him more of a sinner. Enquiring minds want to know!

You people cannot stand by your own doctrines and I suppose you just expect us to forget about all the things you say. I really think the Mormon doctrines are at least as close to the truth as calvinist doctrines.

If you cannot give a better response than this one, I would just soon you did not answer.

I see you insist on not capitalizing "calvinism." Is this a deficiency in grammatical training or manners?

 

[MamaZ]

You know some can throw temper tantrums and even lay on the floor and kick and scream but scriptures stands as written.

 

[AndOne]

I ask a calvinist one time if he believed that a person who was not chosen by the Lord to be saved before the foundation of the world could ever be saved under any circumstances or if there were any scenario where one who had been chosen could finally be lost and go to hell and he answered "NO" to both questions.

If you agree with this man, would you please inform us why an invitation to an unelect man to come to the cross of Jesus Christ would make a hill-o-beans of difference to him, except it might make him more of a sinner. Enquiring minds want to know!

Here is the problem with this line of thinking. No person knows who is elect or not. No person will ever know on this side of eternity. The doctrine of election promotes grace - nothing more. It is not meant for Christians to run around trying to figure out who has got it and who doesn't.

We are called to share the gospel to ALL - that is the bottom line. It's not up to us to figure out who will come or won't - that one is on God. The assumption and hope is always that whoever we are preaching to will receive the gospel.

Don't listen to the supposed Calvinists that say we are not to preach and use election as a tool to scare - they are in the hyper-calvinist camp and have no basis in scripture.

 

[cygnusx1]

Here is the problem with this line of thinking. No person knows who is elect or not. No person will ever know on this side of eternity. The doctrine of election promotes grace - nothing more. It is not meant for Christians to run around trying to figure out who has got it and who doesn't.

We are called to share the gospel to ALL - that is the bottom line. It's not up to us to figure out who will come or won't - that one is on God. The assumption and hope is always that whoever we are preaching to will receive the gospel.

Don't listen to the supposed Calvinists that say we are not to preach and use election as a tool to scare - they are in the hyper-calvinist camp and have no basis in scripture.

absolutely right bro !

here are the enemies of God's Grace ;

Pelegian
Arminian
Neo-Nomian
Antinomian
Hyper Calvinian

 

[JDS]

I stand by the doctrine of scripture.. Many are called.. Many.. Few are chosen.. Few.. For even men stood physically at the cross of Christ.. Many.. How many of them walked away chosen? Even the thiefs that were on the cross beside Him.. One was chosen while the other mocked. We take the whole counsel of the scriptures.. Even though you may be against me doesn't matter.. For if God be for me who can really be against me? Do I fear what man may do to me? Nope for I know in whom I believe..

MamaZ, I know you love Calvinism. I do not doubt that. My aim here though is to challenge you to defend those doctrines Scripturally because you say they are the doctrines of scripture. So far, you are not doing a very good job. You have not addressed the text I gave you that refutes your doctrine of "fatalism". That is that God is mindless and that he is so sovereign that he has decided all events before the foundation of the earth and cannot change even one, including his own. This is a box you have your god in and it is a very small one at that. Both the text I gave you in Ge 6, other scripture, and I, have made the case that God repented, which the text says means that he was grieved in his heart, and did something in response to man that did not please him and He killed them! That was not his intention for man.
Re 4:11 Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.
Ge 6:7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.
Eze 33:11 Say unto them, As I live, saith the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked;
Heb 11:6 But without faith [it is] impossible to please [him]: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and [that] he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.
Heb 10:38 Now the just shall live by faith: but if [any man] draw back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him.
You, my friend, are not defending the scriptures, you are defending Calvinism. Every thing you have said in response to me is to reiterate Calvinist dogma. I am sorry for you!
_________________________________

I see you insist on not capitalizing "calvinism." Is this a deficiency in grammatical training or manners?

No, I am not trying to offend you but I type slow and this is mt hurry up mode.
__________________________________

Your agenda is clear, and your hatred shows. For you to lecture Calvinists about their beliefs is presumptuous, and you know it. If you are not willing to civilly discuss and examine these issues, without the rancor and hatred you can't seem to control in yourself, we'd rather you didn't answer, either.

I can expect a Calvinist to be consistent with the doctrines he presents here and not to act sanctimonious and condescending with comments like MamaZ made, "all are welcome at the cross". It is insulting and it does not agree with TULIP. Your doctrine states that a man in his natural state has no ability to respond favorably to God because he is dead, like a corpse. He can and does respond unfavorably to God though, he hates him, according to you, and God must regenerate, quicken, give life to, the dead elect man before he can do anything in relationship to his salvation. The dead unelect man is predestinated to hell and coming to the cross will have no effect whatsoever on him because it is not the sovereighn will of God to regenerate him so he can have the gift of faith and so he can believe and be saved. YOU HAVE AN ORDO SALUTIS, and I know what it is even if MamaZ does not!
____________________________________

Here is the problem with this line of thinking. No person knows who is elect or not. No person will ever know on this side of eternity. The doctrine of election promotes grace - nothing more. It is not meant for Christians to run around trying to figure out who has got it and who doesn't. We are called to share the gospel to ALL - that is the bottom line. It's not up to us to figure out who will come or won't - that one is on God. The assumption and hope is always that whoever we are preaching to will receive the gospel.

I agree that no one knows who is elect in this scheme and that would include the Calvinist who says he is. There is not a passage in scripture that one can go to and find God personalizing election for a single one of you. Everything is subjective and election is always in a corprate context, except in the case of Jesus Christ. Ask a Calvinist how he knows he is elect and he will not quote God saying he is but will begin to present evidence of good works to validate his election. This will not cut it in the judgment.
Why would a man show up at the judgment claiming he is elect and he did not even have faith, the only principle that God requires of man, and expect to be accepted of God? Especially since God has said words like these, "Jer 17:9 The heart [is] deceitful above all [things], and desperately wicked: who can know it?" And "Pr 20:6 Most men will proclaim every one his own goodness: but a faithful man who can find?"

You say that doctrine of election promotes grace and I say it does not. It promotes limited atonement! Grace is the "giving" of God, it is not the withholding of God. How can the word "limited" even be used in the context of a sovereign God?

Grace is the operative principle of God's divine dealing with mankind in the present age we are living in at this time. It is grace because from Pentecost in Acts 2, God has poured out his Spirit on mankind and offered him as a "gift" to all who would receive him in the name of Jesus Christ. This is divine giving! It is especially "grace" for the gentiles seeing as how God had said this about them in time past! Eph 2:11 Wherefore remember, that ye [being] in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands; 12 That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world: 13 But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.
The Spirit was promised to Jews in a covenant promise, but not to gentiles. Eze 11:19 And I will give them (Israel) one heart, and I will put a new spirit within you; and I will take the stony heart out of their flesh, and will give them an heart of flesh:
Therefore, the giving of the Spirit to the gentiles beginning in Acts 10 to the present day is an act of pure grace by God seeing as he had made no promise to us that he was obliged to keep. The historical book of Acts reflects this truth as well. In the first 10 chapters the word "grace" is mentioned once when Peter was the preacher and the Jews were the focus of his evangelistic efforts but in the rest of the book, "grace" is mentioned 9 (the number for fruitbearing) times when the focus was on the gentiles and Paul was the preacher of record.

Notice how this is expressed in Ephesians, the epistle that explains the church!

Eph 2:1 And you (gentiles) [hath he quickened], who were dead in trespasses and sins; 2 Wherein in time past ye (gentiles) walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:
4 But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us,
5 Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together (Jews who were saved first and gentiles) with Christ, (by grace ye (gentiles) are saved)
Eph 2:8 For by grace are ye (gentiles) saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: [it is] the gift of God:

One needs to ask why Paul would have spoken as if to say that it is the gentiles that are saved by grace through faith like in this statement: 5 Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved). He uses the pronoun "us together" and then singles out the gentiles as being saved by grace. Was paul saved by grace? Yes, but the epistle is explaining the inclusion of the gentiles and on what godly principle they were included. This is the revelation of the "mystery" that both groups were put together in one body and accepted by God IN THAT BODY.

Grace, Holy Ghost, salvation, THE gift of God, and eternal life are all synonyms and mean the same thing in the NT.

I could continue and offer even stronger proof but you are not predisposed to allow anything to challenge your presuppositions. I can ask if you would consider that Calvinism is a systematic error and is not a right division of scripture.

 

[drstevej]

Originally Posted by Rep Daddy;

I see you insist on not capitalizing "calvinism." Is this a deficiency in grammatical training or manners?
​

No, I am not trying to offend you but I type slow and this is mt hurry up mode.

I see you have time to capitalize "I."

 

[nobdysfool]

Originally Posted by nobdysfool;

Your agenda is clear, and your hatred shows. For you to lecture Calvinists about their beliefs is presumptuous, and you know it. If you are not willing to civilly discuss and examine these issues, without the rancor and hatred you can't seem to control in yourself, we'd rather you didn't answer, either.
​

I can expect a Calvinist to be consistent with the doctrines he presents here and not to act sanctimonious and condescending with comments like MamaZ made, "all are welcome at the cross". It is insulting and it does not agree with TULIP.

You obviously cannot distinguish between the value of Christ's work, and its application. Calvinist doctrine states that Christ's Atoning work is sufficient for all, but efficient only for the Elect. I doubt that even you would argue against the sufficiency of the Atonement, that it can accommodate all who place their faith in Him. No one argues against that.

But, while Calvinists believe that God makes specific application of the Atonement via Election, Arminianists such as yourself avoid the clear fact that by placing the application of the Atonement in the realm of the "free choice" of men, the Atonement is limited, because not all men will choose. The real difference between us is that I view the Atonement as limited in intent, and efficacious in that intent, while you view it as unlimited in intent, but efficacious only for those who choose it. I view the Atonement as actual and efficacious without fail for whom it is intended, while you view it as only potential and efficacious only for those who choose to receive its benefits.

For you to vilify Calvinists for believing in a Limited Atonement, when you own theology points to precisely the same thing, is hubris, it is hateful, and it is dishonest.

Your doctrine states that a man in his natural state has no ability to respond favorably to God because he is dead, like a corpse. He can and does respond unfavorably to God though, he hates him, according to you, and God must regenerate, quicken, give life to, the dead elect man before he can do anything in relationship to his salvation.

Rather crudely put, and not entirely accurate. Unregenerate men have no moral ability to respond favorably to God, because they find God and His Wisdom to be foolish. Yes, they respond unfavorably to God, because it is their nature to do so. Dead in sins is not synonymous with a corpse, which is dead physically. But as to the things of God, they are dead men walking, because their judgment is already pronounced (the soul that sinneth shall die), and that judgment is Just. Dead in trespasses and sins.

You seem to think that men are morally neutral with regard to the things of God, and equally able to choose for or against, when given enough information to make that choice. So for you, Salvation is a mental choice that one makes. You deny the depravity of man and its depth. Scripture says men are spiritually dead, but you say they are only spiritually "sick". Scripture says that men are totally depraved. You say that all men are basically good. Or, at least when such theology is taken to its logical conclusion, that's where it ends up, if one were being honest.

The dead unelect man is predestinated to hell and coming to the cross will have no effect whatsoever on him because it is not the sovereighn will of God to regenerate him so he can have the gift of faith and so he can believe and be saved. YOU HAVE AN ORDO SALUTIS, and I know what it is even if MamaZ does not!

Yes, we have an Ordo Salutis, and it is based on scripture, and borne out by observable fact. Can you give us an example of a dead unelect man coming to the cross? no, you can't. You erect a straw man, and then make show of knocking it down. Big woop! Jesus Himself said that "he who comes to Me I will in no wise turn away." Jesus Himself negates your false "dilemna".

You don't know who the Elect are, and neither do I. It can be argued that anyone who does come to the Cross is one of the Elect, and you cannot disprove that. The evidence is stronger that they are, than they are not. but none of us knows with certainty in advance who the Elect are. We will know in retrospect, in glory, exactly who the Elect are, that much is certain. But to rail against a doctrine you don't like, simply because it completely removes your hand from the control of your own life, is a mark of rebellion. Rebellion is not of God. He does not condone it, and He has judged it. But being Sovereign, He uses such rebellion to further His Purpose, in spite of what those in rebellion try to do. God is in control. And that's what really grinds your gears, isn't it?

 

[MamaZ]

MamaZ, I know you love Calvinism. I do not doubt that.

This is your first error.. I love the word of God..

I do not follow after a man called Calvin. I follow after my Lord and savior and His name is Christ Jesus. His word is light unto my path..


My aim here though is to challenge you to defend those doctrines Scripturally because you say they are the doctrines of scripture.

I have given you scripture.. For scripture tell us those whom He predestined He called..
Here are some more..
Act 4:27 "For truly in this city there were gathered together against Your holy servant Jesus, whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel,
Act 4:28 to do whatever Your hand and Your purpose predestined to occur.


Once again we see that what was done to Jesus was not by act of men without Gods predestination...

So far, you are not doing a very good job. You have not addressed the text I gave you that refutes your doctrine of "fatalism". That is that God is mindless and that he is so sovereign that he has decided all events before the foundation of the earth and cannot change even one, including his own. This is a box you have your god in and it is a very small one at that. Both the text I gave you in Ge 6, other scripture, and I, have made the case that God repented, which the text says means that he was grieved in his heart, and did something in response to man that did not please him and He killed them! That was not his intention for man.
Re 4:11 Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.
Ge 6:7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.
Eze 33:11 Say unto them, As I live, saith the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked;
Heb 11:6 But without faith [it is] impossible to please [him]: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and [that] he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.
Heb 10:38 Now the just shall live by faith: but if [any man] draw back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him.
You, my friend, are not defending the scriptures, you are defending Calvinism. Every thing you have said in response to me is to reiterate Calvinist dogma. I am sorry for you!
_________________________________



No, I am not trying to offend you but I type slow and this is mt hurry up mode.
__________________________________


I can expect a Calvinist to be consistent with the doctrines he presents here and not to act sanctimonious and condescending with comments like MamaZ made, "all are welcome at the cross". It is insulting and it does not agree with TULIP. Your doctrine states that a man in his natural state has no ability to respond favorably to God because he is dead, like a corpse. He can and does respond unfavorably to God though, he hates him, according to you, and God must regenerate, quicken, give life to, the dead elect man before he can do anything in relationship to his salvation. The dead unelect man is predestinated to hell and coming to the cross will have no effect whatsoever on him because it is not the sovereighn will of God to regenerate him so he can have the gift of faith and so he can believe and be saved. YOU HAVE AN ORDO SALUTIS, and I know what it is even if MamaZ does not!
____________________________________



I agree that no one knows who is elect in this scheme and that would include the Calvinist who says he is. There is not a passage in scripture that one can go to and find God personalizing election for a single one of you. Everything is subjective and election is always in a corprate context, except in the case of Jesus Christ. Ask a Calvinist how he knows he is elect and he will not quote God saying he is but will begin to present evidence of good works to validate his election. This will not cut it in the judgment.
Why would a man show up at the judgment claiming he is elect and he did not even have faith, the only principle that God requires of man, and expect to be accepted of God? Especially since God has said words like these, "Jer 17:9 The heart [is] deceitful above all [things], and desperately wicked: who can know it?" And "Pr 20:6 Most men will proclaim every one his own goodness: but a faithful man who can find?"

You say that doctrine of election promotes grace and I say it does not. It promotes limited atonement! Grace is the "giving" of God, it is not the withholding of God. How can the word "limited" even be used in the context of a sovereign God?

Grace is the operative principle of God's divine dealing with mankind in the present age we are living in at this time. It is grace because from Pentecost in Acts 2, God has poured out his Spirit on mankind and offered him as a "gift" to all who would receive him in the name of Jesus Christ. This is divine giving! It is especially "grace" for the gentiles seeing as how God had said this about them in time past! Eph 2:11 Wherefore remember, that ye [being] in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands; 12 That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world: 13 But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.
The Spirit was promised to Jews in a covenant promise, but not to gentiles. Eze 11:19 And I will give them (Israel) one heart, and I will put a new spirit within you; and I will take the stony heart out of their flesh, and will give them an heart of flesh:
Therefore, the giving of the Spirit to the gentiles beginning in Acts 10 to the present day is an act of pure grace by God seeing as he had made no promise to us that he was obliged to keep. The historical book of Acts reflects this truth as well. In the first 10 chapters the word "grace" is mentioned once when Peter was the preacher and the Jews were the focus of his evangelistic efforts but in the rest of the book, "grace" is mentioned 9 (the number for fruitbearing) times when the focus was on the gentiles and Paul was the preacher of record.

Notice how this is expressed in Ephesians, the epistle that explains the church!

Eph 2:1 And you (gentiles) [hath he quickened], who were dead in trespasses and sins; 2 Wherein in time past ye (gentiles) walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:
4 But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us,
5 Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together (Jews who were saved first and gentiles) with Christ, (by grace ye (gentiles) are saved)
Eph 2:8 For by grace are ye (gentiles) saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: [it is] the gift of God:

One needs to ask why Paul would have spoken as if to say that it is the gentiles that are saved by grace through faith like in this statement: 5 Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved). He uses the pronoun "us together" and then singles out the gentiles as being saved by grace. Was paul saved by grace? Yes, but the epistle is explaining the inclusion of the gentiles and on what godly principle they were included. This is the revelation of the "mystery" that both groups were put together in one body and accepted by God IN THAT BODY.

Grace, Holy Ghost, salvation, THE gift of God, and eternal life are all synonyms and mean the same thing in the NT.

I could continue and offer even stronger proof but you are not predisposed to allow anything to challenge your presuppositions. I can ask if you would consider that Calvinism is a systematic error and is not a right division of scripture.

Will be continued

 

[MamaZ]

So far, you are not doing a very good job. You have not addressed the text I gave you that refutes your doctrine of "fatalism". That is that God is mindless and that he is so sovereign that he has decided all events before the foundation of the earth and cannot change even one, including his own.

and here we see another of your errors.. God is mindless?
He is always at work day and night.. He never sleeps or slumbers.. He is at work to preform His word.. God is so sovereign that even the devil cannot do what God does not allow him to do.. We read this with Job..
So if even the devil cannot why do you believe that man can?

This is a box you have your god in and it is a very small one at that.


Actually MY God is the one an only true God sovereign ruler over man and earth and even the demons..
You put God in the subjection of man.. Therefore saying that God is not sovereign man is.. This is not even a scripture teaching in any of the writings of God.. Your god is subservant to man.. MY God is ruler over all..

Both the text I gave you in Ge 6, other scripture, and I, have made the case that God repented,

which the text says means that he was grieved in his heart, and did something in response to man that did not please him and He killed them! That was not his intention for man.
Re 4:11 Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.

Jesus wept also..Does that make HIm subject to man?

 

[MamaZ]

agree that no one knows who is elect in this scheme and that would include the Calvinist who says he is. There is not a passage in scripture that one can go to and find God personalizing election for a single one of you. Everything is subjective and election is always in a corprate context, except in the case of Jesus Christ.

Lets look at this shall we.. Lets look at the very first to preach Jesus.. John the Baptist.. He was chosen to do this even before he was conceived.. He didn't just have faith that God submitted to and then was sent..

Lets look at the Apostles.. They did not run up to Jesus and ask if they could follow Him.. He went to them and said follow me.. They dropped everything and did as He bid them..

 

[MamaZ]

So much more to say.. Will get back to this..

 

[MamaZ]

Can you show me in any scriptue where the will of men is what saved him?

 

[JDS]

You obviously cannot distinguish between the value of Christ's work, and its application. Calvinist doctrine states that Christ's Atoning work is sufficient for all, but efficient only for the Elect. I doubt that even you would argue against the sufficiency of the Atonement, that it can accommodate all who place their faith in Him. No one argues against that.

This is not the Calvinists agrument and you know it. It is the MO of the Calvinist and it is the consistent manner in which they present themselves. Your whole post reeks of this deliberate attempt to change the subject, confuse the issue, and deal with something that is not the topic in an attempt to look spirtual and to sound intelligent.

The idea that Christ atonng work is sufficient for all, and I guess you mean the whole world, is a non sequiter. It cannot suffice for someone who cannot believe it and will not be given the ability to believe it by the only one who can give the ability to believe it, God. The ability is "the gift of faith", in Calvinist theology. Even one of your own solas is "faith alone", man! The argument that Christ's atoning work is sufficient for all mankind in tulip theology is patently absurd.

I am not going to deal with you as having a sane doctrine if you cannot do better than this!

The real problem is that you do not even understand your own system of theology and that is why we constantly get these conflicting statements from Calvinists that are more arminian than Calvinistic, like, "everyone is welcome at the cross," while saying on the other hand that God hates sinners and has created them for the day of destruction (Jacob have I loved but Esau have I hated), and that "the atonement is sufficient for the whole world but efficient for the elect alone".

 

[nobdysfool]

This is not the Calvinists agrument and you know it. It is the MO of the Calvinist and it is the consistent manner in which they present themselves. Your whole post reeks of this deliberate attempt to change the subject, confuse the issue, and deal with something that is not the topic in an attempt to look spirtual and to sound intelligent.

The idea that Christ atonng work is sufficient for all, and I guess you mean the whole world, is a non sequiter. It cannot suffice for someone who cannot believe it and will not be given the ability to believe it by the only one who can give the ability to believe it, God. The ability is "the gift of faith", in Calvinist theology. Even one of your own solas is "faith alone", man! The argument that Christ's atoning work is sufficient for all mankind in tulip theology is patently absurd.

I am not going to deal with you as having a sane doctrine if you cannot do better than this!

Well, it's obvious that you don't want to discuss, you want to pontificate. Take your irrational hatred of Calvinism and Calvinists, and stuff it. You aren't interested in discussion, you just want to pound Calvinists into the dirt, to prove what man you are. Hatred is an ugly, sinful emotion, one you are obviously ruled by.

I will withstand your falsehoods, and your hatred, but I will not make the mistake of thinking that you can or will discuss rationally the truths of scripture. Your bias is obvious, and it precludes any discussion. You don't know Calvinism like you think you do. Any Calvinist here can see that as clearly as the sun coming up in the morning.

 

[drstevej]

You obviously cannot distinguish between the value of Christ's work, and its application. Calvinist doctrine states that Christ's Atoning work is sufficient for all, but efficient only for the Elect. I doubt that even you would argue against the sufficiency of the Atonement, that it can accommodate all who place their faith in Him. No one argues against that.

This is not the Calvinists argument and you know it.

You are wrong JDS, that is precisely the historic Calvinistic position. The non-sequitur is in your mind alone.

The phase is Augustine's: "Sufficient for all, efficient for the elect."

Encyclopedia of the Reformed Faith, p. 49

The Sovereignty of Grace, Arthur Custance

also Wikipedia correctly notes

Some Calvinists do not have a problem accepting these scriptures on face value since they believe that scripture speaks of the atonement in two-fold manner, holding to the classic medieval formula that Christ's death was "sufficient for all, but efficient for the elect".

 

[drstevej]

Roger Nicole

Notably Gottschalk in the ninth century had given express support to definite atonement and the scholastics had discussed the topic and advanced a partial resolution in asserting that Christ’s death was “sufficient for all men and efficient for the elect.” Calvin alludes to and endorses this distinction but views it as insufficient for a proper analysis of 1 John 2:2.

 

[JDS]

Well, it's obvious that you don't want to discuss, you want to pontificate. Take your irrational hatred of Calvinism and Calvinists, and stuff it. You aren't interested in discussion, you just want to pound Calvinists into the dirt, to prove what man you are. Hatred is an ugly, sinful emotion, one you are obviously ruled by.

I will withstand your falsehoods, and your hatred, but I will not make the mistake of thinking that you can or will discuss rationally the truths of scripture. Your bias is obvious, and it precludes any discussion. You don't know Calvinism like you think you do. Any Calvinist here can see that as clearly as the sun coming up in the morning.

How can one discuss ones theology if you are not true to it? I have discussed evangelism with a calvinist evangelist that wept because people would not believe the gospel and be saved while telling me that it was impossible for them to believe it if God did not elect them. They were trying to love someone God had already predetermined to hate. Does that make any sense to you? It don't to me.

But, hey! If it turns your crank, I say go for it!

PS, I don't hate you!

RepDaddy

It really doesn't matter whose position it is, it is wrong!

 

[MamaZ]

So we are not to weep for those whom are not saved?

 

[drstevej]

This is not the Calvinists agrument and you know it.

RepDaddy

It really doesn't matter whose position it is, it is wrong!

Guess that is your version of an apology. LOL

Mene mene tekel upharsin