Featured Bobby talks to his Pastor about God.

Why do you think not all receive reconciliation means all receive reconciliation? Are you trying to manufacture a charge of universalism, or is it you simply misread the quote?

 

Calvinists post according to their playbook, start with an insult.

Make generalized assertions and charges, without any support.

I was addressing the false charge I had taken Romans 5:8 out of context.

Misrepresentation by implication, pretty slick, because in actuality, the forgoing is totally true. Except by implication it suggest that it does not represent the view presented in the OP.

First, I happened to be born into a Christian home with believing parents. I was taken to Sunday school and learned the Bible story and that Jesus loved me from an early age. When I was a teen, I was presented with the example of a man who treated others with compassion and love, rather than malice and holier than thou judgment. I wanted to have that "love of Christ" in my heart, and so after two days of prayer and meditation, I came forward after a service.

Yet another misrepresentation, I did not say or suggest 1 John 2:2 teaches universalism. But Calvinists love to make that charge over and over and over.

You have added "all kinds" into the text to change the whole world, meaning all of fallen mankind, to mean some of fallen mankind. LOL

True and not in dispute. Again by including it, you imply your opponent holds another view.

Did I say we come to saving faith by our own power? Nope, so yet another false and manufactured charge. Does not the Holy Spirit bring the gospel to the world through scripture and born again believers as witnesses? Of course He chose us for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth, 2 Thessalonians 2:13.

You mean where I said this: "we should be filled with joy because no matter our circumstance Christ died for us, making salvation available, and providing salvation to all who receive the reconciliation through faith in Christ."

Let me number the points for your edification and understanding:

1) When we hear the gospel, including Christ died for us, we should be filled with joy. So great a salvation, so wretched the person being saved.

2) Christ laying down His life as a ransom for all provides the opportunity for salvation for all who believe. But it is God who either credits our faith as righteousness, or not. Christ's death provides salvation for everyone who receives the reconciliation, all those God chooses, and sets apart in Christ based on crediting their faith as righteousness.

 

http://www.baptistboard.com/graemlins/smilewinkgrin.gif

You have got to be kidding! No, that is just the way my shirt is hanging.

 

Shall we number some scriptures Calvinism rewrites:

Romans 8:33 Instead of who can bring a charge against God's elect, it is rewritten to say, who can bring a charge against those God has saved. Strike one.

God desires all men to be saved (1 Timothy 2:4) becomes God desires some men to be saved. Strike two

Christ gave His life as a ransom for all (1 Timothy 2:6) becomes, Christ gave His life as a ransom for some. Strike three.

Calvinism must rewrite 2 Thessalonians 2:13, claiming the verse does not say what it says.

So what do they have left, why tell opponents they need to stop posting and read their bible. That is all they have, LOL.

 

Are the elect chosen for salvation before creation, or after they have lived without mercy, 1 Peter 2:9-10.

When are people who are dead in their sins made alive, before they are put in Christ, or are they made alive together with Christ, Ephesians 2:5.

Bottom line, Christ died for sinners before they were individually elected for salvation, while they were ungodly and by nature children of wrath. Instead of saying Calvinism gets the cart before the horse, here we must say Calvinism gets a team of Clydesdale's hitched behind the beer wagon.

 

Hi Inspector, many times I cry foul because some Calvinist has misrepresented the view I expressed. And yes I think part of the problem is they have these "off the shelf" arguments, aimed at Arminianism, and they post them as if they were addressing my views.

Others, however, may know my position and misrepresent it to portray me as advocating something unscriptural. The old, "so you are saying... and then some ungodly position is presented." I would have to be a mind reader to know....

All of it is simply diversion from the doctrines of Calvinism which are clearly inconsistent with scripture.

In all candor, I am susceptible of making similar mistakes. As everyone knows, I took what I thought
was a piece written by an atheist, and parodied it, providing biblical answers instead of atheistic answers. However, when Rippon suggested the source was not atheistic, I re-looked at the matter and did indeed conclude it was written by a Calvinistic leaning fellow who apparently believes non-Cals believe in "another gospel."
But our difference, is when we make a mistake, we simply admit it and try to prevent a recurrence, hopefully growing less errant.

 

I have been thinking about this pithy question, and frankly I am stumped. Not saying something means nothing was said, about anything even the sky color. Saying a person said the sky was blue, when he said it was not blue, does not change the color of the sky. Best I can do Ann.