An "Ax to Grind!"

Reynolds,

God has given the Spirit to believers in order that we can welcome truth.
I do not have to assume anything. Just need to accurately believe scripture, and reject philosophy and speculation.

I know those portions of revealed truth, that are revealed for believers.There is always more to learn, but the truth does not change.

I declare the right scriptures most of the time.....I am open to scriptural correction

I do claim disagreement with the scriptures as these men have, is indeed blasphemous, ignorant, and immoral...correct
if you think my scriptures are wrong, try and offer biblical correction...you have not done so...

I do not remember posting that i was Reynolds...could you stick to what is posted.

.
Not inspired like the Apostles, but inspired when i see profane traditionalists postings to oppose the blatant error.

I posted this fact to you in this thread...so why make such an empty claim?

I have a better idea...try and just be yourself, but learn to use scripture when you post to offer what you believe, and what you disagree with.

 

Reynolds, I've never heard of this Hankins but considering the argument, which sounds fairly common concerning judgment and wrath between C&A, I highly expect that knowing and actually acknowledging the context in which it was said would save Icon and SG from putting on the drama act about it. But maybe I can help them out...

WHY, I'd be glad to comment, Icon, since you don't seem to be able to recognize the origins or direct of this common argument:

IOWs, This is asking Calvinist why God doesn’t have the Omnipotence (“power”) to create creatures apart from determining all things including evil (“immorality”) and would give them no choice to repent as if He could do nothing else? --- It's a satirical question Icon of course He can and does do something else.

IOWs, Just look at all the problems with Calvinists insisting that God decreed evil upon some (most) people (others must think they are pretty special to be pre-selected) while withholding human volition to do otherwise, as in the genuine ability to respond in repentance, and then to judge them for their non-response doesn’t seem too glorious as it also denies the truth of the divine attributes of Omnibenevolence.

IOWs, the typical Calvinist ranting that it is God’s decree to mean He determines evil with no alternative is a seriously messed up false doctrine.

Now, I hope that helps you calm down Icon.

 

Benjamin....thanks for trying to help...but It looks like you misread the quote...read it again and notice he is saying or accusing God of being immoral for not saving everybody....see it;

"God’s refusal to determine the repentance of sinners

when it is within his power to do so

can be called nothing other than immoral.

 

No, Icon, I'm afraid it is you that is misreading it. He is accusing the Calvinist' doctrines of having the logical conclusion of making God immoral and not having the power to do otherwise. But, that's okay, I understand that you don't like logical conclusions too much...

 

No my friend.... first off he has no right to speak of God's refusal as if he's over God and can dictate to God what he must do. His second line is that when it's within his power to do so so he's suggesting that God lacked wisdom or perfect knowledge which we know is an impossibility and the statement is immediately rebellious and foolish. He then finishes off the ridiculous logic as you would call it by saying God in any way is being immoral.....very profane.

 

Again, it is his suggestion that Calvinism speaks for God in the sense of His refusal...it is satirical speak.
I've checked him out and the man speaks boldly against Calvinism and what he said in your quote falls in line in how he speaks of the Doctrines of Calvinism. For example:

“Calvinism suffers from massive exegetical, theological and philosophical problems that translate into massive problems of faith and practice. “

“:Calvinism impugns the character of God, it makes nonsense of the Biblical assertions that God loves everyone, that Christ died for the sins of everyone and that anyone could be saved.”

“It obliterates any concept of the well-meant offer of the Gospel, it offers no answer to the problem of evil except that God is the cause.”

“It offers either soft-headed incoherence or cold-hearted coherence.”


I'm actually starting to like the guy!

 

I knew you would like this guy because he also opposes truth so he's like the kindred spirit to you and RM.Reynolds and all these others who want to blame God.
Sincerity is not the problem.

 

Far from "proven".

 

We have posted scripture many times in this discussion. You know the scriptures. I know the scriptures. We disagree on their interpretation. Your saying that you are correct does not make you correct.

 

Fair enough Reynolds. ..
Which scripture did you post than you thought for sure was error?
Or did you post thinking you were correct?

 

"God’s refusal to determine the repentance of sinners when it is within his power to do so can be called nothing other than immoral. Damning certain people by withholding something freely given to others is not glorious. It is indeed a horrible decree." Eric Hankins, PhD Pastor First Baptist Fairhope Fairhope, AL

This has Romans 9:20 written all over it. If God saves one person, then He has to try to save them all. First off, God has never 'tried' to do anything. He either does it or he does not. Now, what about them that died, are dying now, and will die never hearing the glorious gospel of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ? How could they have repented and believed upon Him they never knew existed? That's the point Apostle Paul made in Romans 10:14.

"How then will they call on Him in whom they have not believed?"
Even those who have heard the gospel and know about the Lord Jesus Christ will never call upon Him as long they do not believe in Him.

"How will they believe in Him whom they have not heard?"
The ppl who died in remote areas that died never hearing the gospel, never had a bible in their presence, how could they have repented and believed the gospel[Mark 1:15] when they had never heard it?

"And how will they hear without a preacher?"
This shows that 'means regeneration' is the only way ppl are saved. The means is the gospel as it is presented to the lost by a preacher, missionary, teacher, lay person, &c.


So, according to the likes of Dr. Flowers and Dr. Hankins, God was/is immoral if He doesn't get a missionary fast enough to them before these ppl died, are dying now, and will die in the future. Ppl, who are rightly condemned sinners, and God is immoral for not giving them a fair shake. They have a wrong view of fairness. Fairness is God casting every blasted one of us into hell without ever sending His son. It was in His mercy He sent His Son to die a covenant death for a MULTITUDE of rebellious, wicked, God-hating sinners. And ppl have the nerve to say that God would be immoral if He does not measure up to their view of Him.

 

Synergists, contrary to their claims, are guilty of forcing a condition upon God. Synergists do not understand mercy and, therefore, have a skewed view of grace. God is under no obligation to save anyone. God does not have to explain why He saves some and does not save others. The Synergist view of fairness and equity is not found in the Bible. The unreached tribal person on a remote island someplace is no more deserving of hearing the gospel than the high-powered business executive in New York City. God always acts in accordance with His own will and does not seek the approval of those creatures He has created.

 

We can't even agree on John 3:16-17.

 

Again, the ignorance accusation.

 

No, I am sorry, it is not. We have been where you are at right now. We know your argument(s) well. We used to use them when we were where you are at right now.