Featured Can we conclude that Calvinism is a relatively NEW doctrine?

In this day too!:thumbs::thumbs:

 

I'm not concerned with Lorraine Boettner. I and others pointed out how you wrested the Hodge's words not too long ago in an attempt paint your unconventional and somewhat pagan notions concerning election a certain color of orthodoxy. I could do the same here, but 1) it requires reading volumes of a particular author in which I am not interested to gain a genuine understanding of his frame of mind and the stages of his development as a theologian, and 2) it appears someone has beat me to the punch.

In the same vein, to understanding the teaching of the church fathers is a lifelong discipline. Anyone can do online searches wrench blurbs from their contexts to support just about any heresy. It appears you're being taken to task on that one too.

Depends upon whether one is utilizing the connotations intended by the biblical authors, or reading his own definitions into the terms.

Keep telling yourself that. In my usual manner, I go to the Scriptures.

 

You have am ability to weed through this assault and expose it.It is the fact that you are grounded and settled in the scripture that enables you to see clearly on this and offer help and correction to this free moral agent who can seek the truth you offer. Thank you for another good post brother:thumbsup::wavey::thumbs:

 

Nope, nice try to 'force' your viewinto that issue!

Biblical concept is that God , knowing that ALL humans born are sinner by both nature and wills, has decided to show his good pleasure to actively chose out from ALL deserving hell, some to be saved, to His glory and praiase, and allows the rest to do and go where they desire too!

 

Well now that can't be Calvinism. No one desires to go to hell. If God allows men to go where they desire (which is conditionaly true) it would stand to reason God doesn't send men to hell and that they send them selves there. This implies a freewill choice. Looks like your beginning to see the light.:smilewinkgrin:
MB

 

we NEVER denied man has SOME will of his own, its justthat manking is limited by having sin natures to what they can "freely decide" to do, and coming to jesus to get saved NOT one of them able to do on their own!

 

I understand there is no Scripture supporting your obviously false definition of Sovereignty as defined by Calvinists but certainly you can support your so-called Biblical definition with Scripture! Can't you? Or are you simply bloviating?


Skandelon: You apparently believe all people are free moral creatures and that

1. Then why is that all people are not saved.

2. Why is it that you are one of the few among all free moral creatures whom God is able to "conquer"?

3. Why you and not all? Why some and not others? I have yet to get a "freewiller" to answer that question.

4. Is it possible you are incorrect and not all persons are free moral agents?

5. Is it possible that you are completely incorrect and that no person is a free moral agent.

6. Does God choose to save some and leave others in their sins. I believe that is called unconditional election as asserted in the Doctrines of Grace.

 

Major Kudos!!!!!

 

"It is the fact that you are grounded and settled in the scripture that enables you to see clearly on this and offer help and correction to this free moral agent who can seek the truth you offer. Thank you for another good post brother."

 

Gee Skandelon, I apologize. I believe that I missed something in my hurried response to the above definitions by you. You say after incorrectly defining Calvinism {but that is Okay since I am not a Calvinist}, you say and I quote;

I really don't want to put words in your mouth or thoughts in your mind {you are a fgree moral agent and were before God saved you of course} but your above statement? There is something there, perhaps cleverly hid but! I do declare Skandelon, that sounds almost like Irresistible Grace. Lets read that again. I am gouig to quote your exact words Skandelon. Don't want to miss anything.

I got it now:

There it is folks: Irresistible Grace! Grace because

and Irresistible because

Regardless of the free sinful choices of this free moral agent God is able to CONQUER! Whoopee! Irresistible Grace. I never liked that term but Good old Skandelon has defined it so well that I can almost embrace it. God CONQUERS all. So in that one little definition Skandelon shows us Unconditional Election {earlier response please} and Irresistible Grace!

 

Correction:

God created chess, the chessboard and the players. How was His victory ever in question?

EXCEPT for His purposes to redeem the ones who freely reject Him. It doesn't matter how you slice it, dude. Man is the sovereign in your economy.

 

Yes, those who can see better and hear better than others. One has to have some kind of merit to be saved.

You just keep flip-flopping on the same old fallacies. But then, there is nothing new under the sun.

 

You liked Aarons response also....:laugh::thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

 

To the contrary believe I followed your argument very well. I believe you were hoisted by your own petard.

Using your definition of Sovereignty believe I showed either universal salvation or unconditional election. Then using that same definition I showed Irresistible Grace.

Following is your definition of Sovereignty. I take the liberty of emphasis!

True Biblical Sovereignty = God is so powerful, mightly, wise and good that he is able to conquer any free moral creature, regardless of his FREE sinful choices, and accomplish His purposes in, through and despite the FREE choices of his creation.[/QUOTE]

Frankly you did good!

 

The picture you paint of the Creator of the Universe and our Savior is that of an indecisive, weak leader.

God was not in Christ, Christ is God. If anyone perishes it was God's will. In all of your posts you have never explained how someone can reject the truth that never heard the Gospel, since faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God.