Featured To the Calvinists here: what part of Non cal theology Bothers you the Most?

These verses do not teach that .This is another falsehood. Many are going to perish,according to plan..

In 2pet 3...not one of those it is speaking of will perish.

Another strawman on romans 8...you cannot deal with the content,,,you are trying to baffle us, with avoiding what it says....and then showing once again no knowledge of what cal's teach.

 

Van

Fiddlesticks:laugh::laugh:
:type:Your lack of understanding of propitiation,and ransom...is the only shuck and jive going on...

 

You say I have no knowledge of what Calvinists teach, but yet you disagree when I say that 2 Peter 3:9 says that God is not willing that any should perish. That proves that you understand that I understand that the Calvinist do not believe that this verse means God does not punish sinners according to plan.

I stated that Calvinists believe that God does not save all. Is that incorrect? If that is correct, then it's not a straw man argument. I have correctly stated that Calvinists believe that sinners are determined to perish.

In refuting that, I have sited 2 Peter 3:9 and Ezekiel. Your disagreeing with how I view the verse, does not make my stating of the Calvinist position a straw man argument. Not to be offensive here, but I believe you and a few others should take a few moments to look up some philosophy sources on what the proper definition of a straw man argument really is because it is being consistently misused. [Now before you go saying that I am recommending philosophy, keep in mind that "straw man" is not a Biblical term, but is in fact, a term in philosophy among the category of fallacious arguments]

Now this verse only says what you say it doesn't say if you read a presuppostional stance into the text. But what does 2 Peter 3:9 actually say?

"The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance."

Now does this verse only mean that God is not willing that ONLY THE ELECT should not perish? That would be impossible because in the very next clause it says "but that all should come to repentance". So the end of the verse is about those who have not came to repentance which means that the subject of this verse are those who are not saved.

And what then does it say about those who have not come to repentance? That the Lord is NOT WILLING (by determination or plan) that ANY should perish"

Now what does Ezekiel 33:11 say?

" 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?"

Furthermore, if God eternally decreed the damnation of sinners to hell, THEN WHY WAS HELL ONLY ORIGINALLY CREATED FOR THE DEVIL AND HIS ANGELS??

"Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels" Matt 25:41

Notice that in Isaiah 5:14 Hell hath ENLARGED itself. Hell did not previously have the capacity for lost sinners because that's not who it was made for. Hell had to be enlarged to include judgment on sinners. If hell was for sinners "According to plan", then the Bible would have made it clear that hell was prepared for the devil, his angels, and sinners.

The Calvinist will claim that God made an eternal decree that sinners will be damned, and site verses like "God knows how to deliver the ungodly and reserve the unjust for punishment" but keep in mind that an "eternal decree" is not eternal IF IT WAS MADE IN TIME. The judgment of sinners in hell is not only devoid of any mention in the Bible of being "decreed" but the evidence shows that the door that opened to reserve even Satan in hell was made AFTER CREATION, WITHIN THE CONCEPT OF TIME, and therefore can not possibly be an "eternal" decree.

"For I know the thoughts that I think toward you, saith the LORD, thoughts of peace, and not of evil, to give you an expected end". Was God talking to ONLY the elect? Of course not, ALL ISRAEL was called God's elect (Isaiah 45:4) and they rejected Him:

"Hear, O heavens, and give ear, O earth: for the Lord hath spoken, I have nourished and brought up children, and they have rebelled against me." Isaiah 1:2

"He came unto his own and his own RECEIVED HIM NOT" John 1:11.

Since you just summarily wrote off my explanation of Romans 8, I won't comment further on it because the explanation is valid.

The plain reading of the Bible proves that God never desired nor intended ANYONE to perish. If perish is used in contrast to those who repent, then perish means hell.

Now when we look at the word "ANY" in 2 Peter 3:9, here is how the word tis (enclitic indefinite pronoun) is used elsewhere:

"Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee" Matt 5:23. Does this mean that if your brother has only SOME things against you, or ANYTHING against you?

"And when he was come to the other side into the country of the Gergesenes, there met him two possessed with devils, coming out of the tombs, exceeding fierce, so that no man might pass by that way." Matt 8:28. Does this mean that only SOME MEN were prevented from passing through, or ANY MAN was prevented from passing through?

And tis is in contrast with pas used 714 times in the Bible to describe "all", 140 "all things", 117 "every", 41 "all men".

In the instances where tis is used to describe "certain ones" it is still used as an indefinite pronoun. In 2 Peter 3:9 the "any" that should perish is compared to the "all" that God wants to come to repentance. The text is clear that God is NOT WILLING that the any should perish. That completely annihilates any view that God DETERMINED that sinners end up in hell, while only some end up in heaven.

The sad reality is that many will end up in hell, but the Bible is clear that that was never God's DESIRE, INTENTION or WILL.

 

Hi Jon!

 

This is a pretty good post, and I rather enjoyed it. However, as you may have noticed, I bolded a section I want to address. We have never interacted, so I want to tell you upfront, I am not a Calvinist, though I greatly respect my Calvinistic Brethern. TBS, I want to address this that I bolded. I agree that God created hell for Satan and his angels. But the main idea is that God has a desire to punish sin, and when He punishes sin, He also punishes the sinner. IOW, sin won't go unpunished by Him.

So, He being omniscient, knew what mankind would do before He ever created Lucifer/Satan. So, eventhough God created hell for Satan and his angels, He knew that sinful mankind would go there, too. He didn't come to this revelation years after creating Lucifer, but knew about it beforehand.

 

You are right about God's justice, but the issue here is whether God desired and determined the damnation of sinners. God knowing something beforehand is totally different then God decreeing something beforehand which is what the comment is about. The Calvinist position is that God determined the damnation of sinners before time even began, but the fact that hell was prepared initially for Satan, and LATER included sinners shows that it was not decreed from eternity. What God's justice demands, does not mean that's what He desires.

 

IMO, God would not predetermine someone to do something that violates His very essence, love. He knew what mankind would do, and for whatever reason, he allowed it to come to pass. He stood beside it, and not behind it, imo.

I agree! :thumbs:

I understand what you're saying here, but I have to disagree with it to a certain degree. God, being omniscient, knew that man would sin before Lucifer was ever on the scene. God knew that man would fall through the influence of Satan being the serpent in the Garden. So, He created hell for sinners, and not just Lucifer and his angels. If He originally created hell just for them, and later on added sinful man to be cast there, then He's not omniscient. Sinful man was included in this, imo.

Agree.

 

Tree leaves were created by and for Christ and His Cross.

 

What a weak and impotent god that he would need to 'improvise'. Utterly ridiculous. Now we have a glaring example of what and who you think God is.

improvise; To perform with little or no preparation.

 

Someone show me that hell was prepared solely for Satan and his minions. Hell was created to punish the wicked. Dead sinners are wicked in His sight, and therefore, punished accordingly.

 

Why did you read the word "need" into what Dr. James said? He didn't say that....he said "God improvised". How do you get the idea that he "needed" to improvise?

Now, see, that little twist right there is an ACTUAL "straw-man".

 

Oft times you bring something to the table. However at this point you're clueless and bring an insubstantial argument. You defend with bias due to sharing a similar weak theology, one of which makes a caricature of the true and living God.

The word 'need' doesn't have to be in his statement as it is implied and fits within the context. See?

In addition, my usage of the word is a natural reaction to the statement 'God improvised.'

In conclusion you two have a god that needs to improvise.

We get it, and my indictment stands.

- Blessings

 

What is apparent in statements that you refer to is that they see a 'reactionary god.'

'Uh oh, didn't think about that! Shucks, here, let me improvise.' - god

- Blessings

 

All things were created through him and for him.

 

Wow you are a real moron. I bet if you told a Marine that to his face that "improvise" means "to prepare with little or no preparation" you'd get your teeth knocked out.

Improvise can also mean ": to make or fabricate out of what is conveniently on hand <improvise a meal "

Now this is a classic example of a straw man argument where you purposely take a meaning out of context, apply an alternative meaning that does not fit the context, simply because I have aggressively challenged what you believe, and you are too thin-skinned to handle it. Grow up and be a man.

 

For the record I highly doubt any man would get a chance to knock my teeth out. But thanks for the slanderous remarks and for being consistent in showing your walk and mannerisms contrary to the instructions within the NT.

God isn't a marine nor a mere man. Now we get more of a glimpse into your feelings of the Godhead. Tell us more.

 

Wait, I take that back.

Tell us less.

 

It is only implied because you implied it.

If it was a natural reaction, then why did you need to look up the definition? The fact that you went out of your way to seek a definition proves that the reaction was not natural, or you would have been able to post the definition without looking it up.

You can't even be consistent about being a jerk.

 

What an ego. It is hilarious to see you consistently vilify others and act like you are some spiritual giant.

And from the cowardice antics you show on here, I can see why nobody would get any chances, in the same way you run from arguments, you would run from the object that was ordained to remove your mandible.

And, do listen to your buddy Redneck, and assemble your "tag team". This should be interesting. A bunch of so-called Christians ganging up to harass someone on a forum LOL. BRING IT!