Are You A Calvinist?

Admit I'm wrong about what? [/quote]

Let me count the ways ...

You are wrong about what you said in post #90.There you said :"does God have the option of choosing someone after they die?Are you limiting God?" Supposedly (in your mind) one would "limit God" if they said God does not choose someone after death. For one to answer in the negative you would disagree.For you to disagree would put you at odds with the testimony of Scripture.

 

And there we have it. Let it be seen here that webdog didn't do anything wrong again. There is nothing wrong with asking a hypthetical question even if the Bible is clear and the hypthetical question has no logic based on the facts known to be true in the Bible. As it turns out...It was me that was wrong. I didn't read the thread. But Wait...but I did read the thread and have been reading it all along. But...I'm sure its something else I did..cuz Web wasn't wrong. My bad sir.

 

Since the Bible describes God's choosing as "before the foundation of the world," clearly God chooses before people reject him. However, here you are entering into the realm of the lapsarian decrees.

Again, the Bible states that God chooses before the foundation of the world and thus, no, God cannot choose someone after he dies because the choice was made long before he ever lived.

Both of these are areas that Scripture clearly speaks to. Why are you asking these questions?

God can always do whatever he wishes. I am not sure why that would be questioned.

 

Of course He doesn't. But how do explain that Jesus "wanted" them to believe, yet they wouldn't? According to all I have read of Calvinists on the BB, if God had wanted it, it would have happened. That's why they have a problem with this verse:

2Pe 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning [His] promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.

Why do I have to deal with that question? God commands all men everywhere to repent. If they don't, that is between them and God. It is not for me to know.

 

I don't think Calvinists have any problem with that verse. THere are several different ways to explain it, and I encourage you to search the archives to see how it has been handled. I think the point is similar to Ezekiel where it says that God does not delight in the death of the wicked.

One of the things that is commonly missed in indicated by your post. That is a failure to recognize that there are two wills in God ... he moral will and his decreed will. The Bible plainly states that whatever God wills comes to pass, and no one can thwart it. That is an undeniable truth of Scripture. So if God "willed" everyone to be saved in that sense, everyone would be saved. Yet it is clear that God has not "willed" that. Yet he is willing for all men to come to repentance. Again, there are several explanations, including the distinction between "all men without distinction" and "all men without exception," a distinction you should become familiar with if you are not already.

Because it is the crux of the issue. No one denies that some are willing and some are not. The question is why.

I agree, but in the context of the conversation regarding Calvinism vs. Arminianism, we really have to deepen our understanding.

 

I am sure I have addressed this verse on the BB before. And I would say no Calvinist has a problem with the verse. Look at who 2 Peter and 1 Peter is addressed to. God is longsuffering toward us. According to Scripture itself, who is the "us" Peter is referring to in 2 Peter 3:9?

RB

 

It can and does happen Marcia. But let it be said that is has happened (I am not certain if it has on the BB) that some Calvinists have gone to the extreme to believe that non-calvinists are not saved.

But it is true that Arminianism was treated as a heresy by most of the Reformers...if I am not mistaken.

RB

PS. It doesn't make one bit a difference to me if someone thinks I am a heretic because I am a Calvinist.

 

Well Larry, we understand Calvinism maybe better than you would like to give credit for. We know you are heading right for the calvinist doctrines on predestination. I personally suspect you bring this subject up on a tread over what peoples positions are in order to persuade unsuspecting lurckers, but that aside, hince my earlier comment of you thinking about settling this within a "nut shell." And, although you act as if you can settle this matter right here, right now, by bringing up the issue in this tread, I want you to know that we are waaaay ahead of your tactics which I would now consider rather fraudulent in your avoidance of my earlier statement here:

Yes this addresses the Calvinist perspective on predestination which is where I foreknew you were heading because of understanding Calvinism. So when you said said this:

I just took it for what it was worth; a ploy which includes a commonly evident nature on your behalf to be condesending with statements towward others that they don't understand. Which is really a tactic that is geared for you to run circles with, IMO, of couse, I said it!
Now giving you the benefit of the doubt in that you truly did not understand that my earlier response was directly in tune to where you were headed with your strawman premise lets go over it again, you said:

Ya see, from the above it is obvious that I did know you were heading toward predestination. Which is why I began with:

Again it was Verrry obvious you were heading toward predestination:

In a nut shell Larry I am on to your sceme of running circle while throwing out condescending remarks in the process, which are often took as insults as evidenced by the many complaints here and otherwise, but it is you that may not of understood this.
That said, debate is debate but we should try to have a better outlook that just running circles. Personally, I don't think it would be that difficult to pin you down on the many disagreed on subjects, and do this without letting you get to me, but frankly, the time it would take to pin down a wiggly tactic such as yours is just plainly a waste of my time.
The below is nothing more than a cheap shot along with the first quote of yours in this post:

I think you hide behind this tactic a bit too often.

 

Okay, I'll go ahead and repeat a suggestion I made some time back. Since all of this has been said before (some of it even twice), I propose that the webmaster make a filter so that any time somebody mentions Calvinism, immediately all of the arguments for both sides are reposted, then the thread is locked.

Let God arise and his enemies be scattered.

 

Swwwiiiisssshhhhh, and Benjamin scores three points from behind the center court line.:applause:

 

Perhaps it just how we define the terms. Heresy and heretic are emotionally charged terms. If someone said, "I believe Arminians is a false teaching." it would likely be more accepted. Perhaps not..

RB

 

Benjamin.The things you have said about Pastor Larry are just plain wrong.Here are some of your words directed to him.

Tactics
Fraudulent
Ploy
Condescending
Scheme of running circles
Cheap shot

I just wanted you to beware of your form of communication.

 

You should add "wiggly tactic" sounds better with the adjective. :laugh:

Perhaps there will be some wrascilly wabbit manuevers as well.

 

That's a silly suggestion.

 

If you have been reading the thread all along, you would have seen my question was hypothetical. Instead, me thinks James likes to troll the BB without adding anything of substance, as has been the pattern the last couple of years.

Get a clue James.

 

...which were all spot on.