The worst thing about Calvinism

[Bible Highlighter]

You don't believe one earns salvation by their good works do you?

I will create a thread maybe later today or sometime this week to answer this question (God willing) and I will let you know about it.

May God bless you;
And may you please be well.


...

 

[Bible Highlighter]

You wanted me to respond to your example. Your example made the Coast Guard a representation of God. So let's not get away from that.

How was the Coast Guard sinned against in your example?

It is no different than the parable of the Good Shepherd had given to us. Nowhere is it stated that the sheep sinned against the good shepherd. So if this is the case, you cannot use the argument that the coast guard was sinned against within my parable. Do you get it?


...

 

[Hammster]

It is no different than the parable of the Good Shepherd had given to us. Nowhere is it stated that the sheep sinned against the good shepherd. So if this is the case, you cannot use the argument that the coast guard was sinned against within my parable. Do you get it?


...

Okay, then the Coast Guard saves everyone just like Christ saves all of His sheep.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Okay, then the Coast Guard saves everyone just like Christ saves all of His sheep.

But you do not believe that.
You do not believe God makes everyone a sheep and saves all people.

What makes one a sheep vs. one being a goat?

We get a glimpse of what the sheep are like in Matthew 25:31-46.

Was this by some forced regeneration?
If so, then what purpose does it serve to have Matthew 25:31-46 in our Bibles if the sheep are all just going to automatically do such good things?


...

 

[Hammster]

But you do not believe that.
You do not believe God makes everyone a sheep and saves all people.



...

No orthodox Christian believes God makes everyone a sheep and saves them all. That would be universalism.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

No orthodox Christian believes God makes everyone a sheep and saves them all. That would be universalism.

Yes, I do not believe in Universalism. I am saying that if you believe it is ultimately up to God to save people, and it is in no way man's decision, then you must come to the conclusion of Univeralism because God's loving nature is to try and save everyone that He can because He is loving, good, and merciful.


...

 

[Hammster]

Yes, I do not believe in Universalism. I am saying that if you believe it is ultimately up to God to save people, and it is in no way man's decision, then you must come to the conclusion of Univeralism because God's loving nature is to try and save everyone that He can because He is loving, good, and merciful.


...

No, I said He saves His sheep. I've noticed that you have a tendency to ascribe positions to folks that they don't hold to. This is tantamount to a straw man. It makes your argument seem weak.

 

[RisenInJesus]

You said a lot but never resolved anything. You posted verses where you assumed that world means everyone who ever lived. Then you accused me of muddying up the atonement and its application. But you still haven't explained how God can no longer be angry at sin (God's wrath satisfied) and yet someone can still be under that same wrath.

If you'd accept that world has varying definitions, you can avoid the contradiction.

According to the scriptures, God's wrath is satisfied by Christ's finished work on the cross and those who believe in Jesus and are in Christ are not under God's wrath, those who don't and are outside of Christ remain under God's wrath which is only satisfied IN CHRIST. Don't you understand this basic biblical truth?

The word world is used about 80 times in the gospel of John alone and yes, it has varying definitions...but never is one of those definitions "the elect" as Calvinists attempt to impose on the word world.

 

[RisenInJesus]

I will create a thread maybe later today or sometime this week to answer this question (God willing) and I will let you know about it.

May God bless you;
And may you please be well.


...

Thanks

 

[Hammster]

According to the scriptures, God's wrath is satisfied by Christ's finished work on the cross and those who believe in Jesus and are in Christ are not under God's wrath, those who don't and are outside of Christ remain under God's wrath which is only satisfied IN CHRIST. Don't you understand this basic biblical truth?

The word world is used about 80 times in the gospel of John alone and yes, it has varying definitions...but never is one of those definitions "the elect" as Calvinists attempt to impose on the word world.

Is there anywhere in scripture when world means a subset of every single person?

 

[RisenInJesus]

There is a reason. You just don't like the reason, because it means that He, not you, determines the outcome.

"For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” (Romans 9:15)

Mercy is NOT obligatory, otherwise it would not be mercy.

That is right, there is no obligation on God's part concerning the exercise of mercy/grace or it would not be mercy and grace. If the demands of justice are satisfied, His mercy and grace does not conflict with justice, nor does the withholding of mercy and grace conflict with justice. Having paid for sin by the blood of Christ, God's judicial nature was satisfied with regards to sin. Now God can freely dispense grace on his own terms, whatever arbitrary terms suit his pleasure. Or he could decide not to exercise mercy and grace at all. It's His choice, not ours. So what is God's arbitrary condition upon which his grace is dispensed? According to the scriptures it is faith in Jesus Christ, not predestination. That's the reason Paul is going through this and the point of this chapter is that the unbelieving Jews took offense at the idea that salvation is granted solely to those who believe in Christ.

 

[RisenInJesus]

Is there anywhere in scripture when world means a subset of every single person?

There may be, if you have some particular instance in mind feel free to point it out.

 

[Hammster]

There may be, if you have some particular instance in mind feel free to point it out.

“So the Pharisees said to one another, "You see that you are not doing any good; look, the world has gone after Him."”
‭‭John‬ ‭12:19‬ ‭NASB‬‬

 

[RisenInJesus]

“So the Pharisees said to one another, "You see that you are not doing any good; look, the world has gone after Him."”
‭‭John‬ ‭12:19‬ ‭NASB‬‬

Okay, that verse plainly uses "world" in a hyperbolic way. I am not disputing that the word world is uses in different senses, but it is never used in the Bible to signify the so-called "elect" as Calvinism imposes on the word world.

 

[Hammster]

Okay, that verse plainly uses "world" in a hyperbolic way. I am not disputing that the word world is uses in different senses, but it is never used in the Bible to signify the so-called "elect" as Calvinism imposes on the word world.

I've never made the argument that it did mean elect. But I am saying that it's used hyperbolicly in 1 John 2:2. If it's not, you are left with a contradiction that you keep insisting isn't one.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

No, I said He saves His sheep. I've noticed that you have a tendency to ascribe positions to folks that they don't hold to. This is tantamount to a straw man. It makes your argument seem weak.

So you believe God saves sheep (i.e. those who He knows would choose Him of their own free will if after He regenerates them)?


...

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I've never made the argument that it did mean elect. But I am saying that it's used hyperbolicly in 1 John 2:2. If it's not, you are left with a contradiction that you keep insisting isn't one.

It says WHOLE world and it contrasts it with believers in 1 John 2:2. It is what the verse plainly says.
But you do not like what this verse says because it goes against what you believe.


...

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Thanks

I will probably create the thread maybe next week.

May God bless you.


...

 

[RisenInJesus]

I've never made the argument that it did mean elect. But I am saying that it's used hyperbolicly in 1 John 2:2. If it's not, you are left with a contradiction that you keep insisting isn't one.

True, you haven't, but of course the Calvinist must insist that world does not actually mean everyone of the world to support their peculiar doctrine of limited atonement and if that were not the case you would read 1 Jn. 2:2 in a normal way. There is nothing in the context to suggest a hyperbolic view of the word world. On the contrary, the contrast within the verse between "our sins" which refers to those of saved believers/ the elect and "the sins of the whole world" is an unambiguous declaration that Christ is the propitiation for the sins of all mankind...the whole world. Just as it is plainly stated elsewhere, even specifically denoting that...."Christ tasted death for every man" ( Hebrews 2:9).

Logically, as Christ is the Son of Man and the second Adam He represents the entire human race and His death and victory over sin paid for Adam's sin which brought all sin into the world and death upon all mankind.

 

[Hammster]

So you believe God saves sheep (i.e. those who He knows would choose Him of their own free will if after He regenerates them)?


...

Close enough.