Featured Preaching the whole of scripture

1. Instead of questioning the statement I dug into Scripture to research God's love. It contradicted the reformed / calvinist view.

2. I do believe God loves those in Hell forever, so no contradiction. If I were a judge and my son committed a murder...and I was on the bench judging him based on his actions, would I love him any less after I sentenced him to death? Of course not. It would pain me to do so, but I would never hate him. Actually the view you propose of God hating those He withstood His atonement from and the ability to accept Him while judging them for just that is so far off kilter it was an easy decision recanting my view. I instead now embrace God's love AND righteousness...not His love OR His righteousness. I would suggest you do the same :thumbs:

 

This pre-supposes he is correct. Why not ask Skandelon if he tires of correcting mis-understandings and mis-applications of Arminian Theology. You act as though you are speaking (in the third person) about uninformed retards who have never considered these topics before. I could pick apart Icon's post there, and he would also have a rejoinder for it, and on and on. He would pick apart my rejoinder, I could pick apart his. Allow me to submit this to you, despite my disagreement with Icon, I can at least aknowledge these types of things:

Have you ever been capable of understanding not only the tenents of, but indeed the MERITS of another point of view? It is the Merits and strengths of an opposing point of view that one needs to reasonably consider and debate them. Please post a quote of yours where you were able to distinguish the merits of the Arminian point of view.

That being said, Icon's post is not accurate, It is full of conditional statements that Calvinists deny are in fact conditional statements. Read them more closely next time.

 

Would you give Scriptures for this belief?

This is assuming that those in hell are actually "His son."

That is not the case.

Jesus states, "I never knew you."

Your illustration is based upon an relationship that does not exist between the unregenerate humankind and God.

 

WOW!! really?? I guess I don't understand Calvinism as much as I thought then. Yes, he loves them, and it in fact grieves him that men choose damnation over eternal fellowship with a loving God. Are there no passages in Scripture which express how grieved God is at the damnation of the wicked? Perfect Justice....ergo sin must be punished...perfect Love...in that Jesus was willing to satisfy the conditions to allow the guilty sinner to go free.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_NiCaXyU4eM

Can a Cal not write a song like this and remain theologically consistent?

 

Well, at least we have honesty folks...perish the thought, that Calvinism teaches that "God Loves You!" God in fact loves...the elect....whether or not you are one of those is, well, for him to know...and you to find out on judgement day. I will say this aged.....your theology is consistent. [snipped by administrator]
"Say unto them, As I live, saith the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live; turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die, O house of Israel?" (Ezekiel 23:11)
This may be...the only question I am aware of in the Scriptures, that God simply does not know the answer to. And it hurts him.

 

Of course.

Perhaps one day I might, but that wasn't who I posted at this point in time.

I made no such assumption in my mind nor in the post. However, you seem to have taken offense when none was meant. Perhaps not in your case, but usually such offense might generate from a prideful condition of what Paul would refer to as "knowledge puffed up."

Acknowledgement does not mean acceptance. If Icon, you, or anyone else is to view the Scriptures as authoritative, then there must be a move to acceptance of even that which might be unpalatable to human thinking.

For instance: Because John, in the Revelation, records that the names in the book of life were written before the foundations of the world, then it follows that they were in fact written at that time. They were not written as some other time of "human" history. As Winman pointed out, there is no record of names have been added to the book of life.

Therefore, though unpalatable as it may be, truth of Scriptures present a view that Icon agrees and some would argue against because they don't like the taste.

Two answers:

First, yes - because I am human and still have the mind of human understanding which is limited and self serving.

Second, no - because the "merits" of views that are not Scripturally sound have no merits in which to value.

Why should I do that?

Why would I post what I consider has no "merits or strength?"

The ultimate end of such a view is that man has some kind of innate capability that the Scriptures do not warrant. When the Scriptures plainly state, "No man..." it doesn't fudge with "every man is given a void that only God can fill." When the Scriptures state, "My sheep hear My voice..." it doesn't fudge with "you are given multiple kinds of grace from God."

Calvinists are in denial.

Which group denies that man is totally depraved but touts that each person has ability by their own volition to "come to Christ" and be saved?

Which group denies a limited atonement but still limits atonement.

Which group denies the ultimate perseverance of the saved and makes salvation conditional upon man keeping some man generated walk.

Which group denies that faith is the grace of God measured to all who will be saved, but make faith as a human generated trust in which to curry favor with God.

Calvinists are in denial???

 

The Gospel is not as complex as some make it out to be. Sure, the Holy Ghost must lead them, and show them what they must do to be saved. But the Gospel is not complex.

Acts 8:26-39

26 And the angel of the Lord spake unto Philip, saying, Arise, and go toward the south unto the way that goeth down from Jerusalem unto Gaza, which is desert.

27 And he arose and went: and, behold, a man of Ethiopia, an eunuch of great authority under Candace queen of the Ethiopians, who had the charge of all her treasure, and had come to Jerusalem for to worship,

28 Was returning, and sitting in his chariot read Esaias the prophet.

29 Then the Spirit said unto Philip, Go near, and join thyself to this chariot.

30 And Philip ran thither to him, and heard him read the prophet Esaias, and said, Understandest thou what thou readest?

31 And he said, How can I, except some man should guide me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him.

32 The place of the scripture which he read was this, He was led as a sheep to the slaughter; and like a lamb dumb before his shearer, so opened he not his mouth:

33 In his humiliation his judgment was taken away: and who shall declare his generation? for his life is taken from the earth.

34 And the eunuch answered Philip, and said, I pray thee, of whom speaketh the prophet this? of himself, or of some other man?

35 Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus.

36 And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?

37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.

39 And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, that the eunuch saw him no more: and he went on his way rejoicing.



Philip preached Jesus to this Eunuch, and when he confessed Jesus(as Philip told him he must do), he baptized him.



Romans 10:9-15
9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

11 For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.

12 For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.

13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?

15 And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!



On either side of the debate, both sides believes the unbeliever must believe in order to be saved.



John 8:24 I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins.

 

The bible says the way to know is IF we keep the commandments.
1John 2:3
And by this we know that we have come to know him, if we keep his commandments.

 

John 3:16 comes to mind first, along with Romans 5:8

Who is assuming those in Hell are His "sons" Certainly not I! You took my analogy someplace not intended, as all imperfect analogies seem to end up.

Let me see...Jesus commands US to love even our own enemies which He describes as a "perfect" love...yet He loves His enemies imperfectly?

Ok.

 

Iconoclast and agedman do not have a comprehensive Biblical understanding of the D0G and the doctrine of predestination/election coupled with a true working definition of the all-knowing feature of Jehovah. Using those terms in a sentence does not mean you know and understand them. Their faith is in the abundance of great thinkers that espouse what they think are their own views.

But even the Arminians amoung us don't have the understanding of these concepts as well. While I tend more towards the calvanistic view of things, I think that calvanists spend too much time worrying about who is among us elect and not enough time and effort making disciples for Christ.

Many (Calvanists) assume, incorrectly in my opinion that since they are of the elect, they have a special ability (that the Arminian believer doesn't have) to see in the Bible concepts that are not in the Bible. I refer to covenant/replacement theology. To the covenant believer, Jehovah is ready willing and able to break his promises to the sons of Abraham through Isaac through Jacob and give that which is promised to others. As kids we used to say "Indian Giver' to someone who gives something to someone, then takes it back and gives it to another.

 

You back your view with no Scriptures!!!!

I didn't state God is not grieved nor Christ weep over humankind.

For you to consider that for eternity this is God's view will need more than just a feel good song in which the mercy of God is sung and is not a statement of support of a specific doctrinal view.

BTW, one could hold a Calvinistic view and write this type of song; it would fit nicely into the Calvinistic thinking.

Consider the songs of Issac Watts:

Alas! and did my Savior bleed,
and did my Sovereign die!
Would he devote that sacred head
for sinners such as I?​

 

BUT with all that you posted, it did not prove by Scriptures that God loves those in hell.

You are assuming that because God does not "take pleasure in the death of the wicked" that He extends His unconditional love to those in hell.

Prove that is true by Scriptures.

So far, you haven't.

The Scriptures state:

Psalms 5:4-6 For thou art not a God that hath pleasure in wickedness: neither shall evil dwell with thee. The foolish shall not stand in thy sight: thou hatest all workers of iniquity. Thou shalt destroy them that speak leasing: the LORD will abhor the bloody and deceitful man. ​

 

Why some take poetic, figurative Psalms literally...I cannot understand.

Do you also consistently take the rest of Psalm 5 literally?

 

This time...I own what I believe all of the time

It was God's love that sent His Son and for the Son to lay His life down for man.

I don't see how this proves that God loves only believers, only that God has a special love for believers in the same way there is a special love within the Godhead.

 

I will be polite, as I feel that, if you bother to listen or consider these will be appropriate and also informative answers to last portion of your last post. I will not attempt (at this time) to answer the previous portions. I will answer from a Classical Arminian perspective your questions...albeit, I harbour no illusions that you are asking them without a belief that you already know the answers:

neither side does

Neither view does, Arminianism does not contend that any natural man has any desire or ability to come to Christ or to choose of their own ability.

You will dislike this, but Arminianism denies Limited Atonement and believes that the application of the Atonement is limited to those who accept. Others could describe this more clearly than I could.

Again, I know you don't believe this but, neither side does...Arminianism is not a rejection of Perseverance....I believe in Perseverance wholeheartedly, and I am a member of the Society of Evangelical Arminians myself. I am also a Molinist, which pre-supposes Perseverance, someone has lied to you about Arminian belief, and you aren't aware of it.

You are not merely ignorant of the MERITS of the alternative view, you are also obviously ignorant of the CONTENT of the alternative view.

This sentence was hard to understand, but I will break it down into two parts. Here goes:

Probably both sides, in that "Faith" and "Grace" are simply not the same word, and they do not carry the same meaning. This sentence is akin to saying: "Which group denies that "faith" is "grace"?

The answer is: both sides

Again, neither side. There are Arminians who believe that one may freely choose to abandon their faith and become apostates, and I will leave it to them to justify why they believe that, as that is not something I believe and it is also not something inherently germaine to Arminianism. I can't conscience it myself....but I do know this: It has nothing whatsoever to do with a "man generated walk"

Of the conditionality of certain statements in the Scriptures, yes. One cannot even explain what a "Conditional Statement" is to Icon, without him immediately bloviating about "vain-man-centered philosophy" and whatnot. As he appears to not care to distinguish between them, but rejects them out of hand. Mind you, he uses them, but he acts, and I think you do as well, as though they are not conditional statements, and rather consigns to them a mere ancillary meaning about an historical fact.