Calvinism needs to be Redefined

Hello KJ & icthus.

We know God can save whoever He wants man! That is not the point. The point is you deny God acts in peoples wills, why is it you now agree that God takes liberties with peoples wills? It is a contradiction you have. You cannot attack and hold our views. Only Calvinists can do that.

That's more consistant but then you lose the question don't you?
If there is an age of responsibilty, and for such there is no scriptural warrant, then the child becoming an adult and sinning is the reason God blames us but you lose the question!
"Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?" Romans 9:19.
What's the problem with Paul don't he know as much as you do? God blames us because we chose to sin. Why does Paul ask such stupid questions? But he tells you the question you must ask if you have the correct doctrine. God tells you the question you are to ask. why does God still blame us? Then He rebukes you for talking back! Believe that! Expect that rebuke. When your doctrine is correct then that question cannot be avoided. It points to the correct doctrine. A fail safe.

Not sheep dogs shepherds.

That is translated by a Calvinist as, "I only go so far with scripture! HaHa! Woof.

And just what does that mean? And I wonder what David was on when he uttered this truth?
PS 51:5 Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.
And you were.

The wages of sin is death. Babies die. Ergo: You shall love the Lord your God with all your being is not being done by the fetus as it should be but the fetus is dead in it's sins and transgressions and that is how God created us.

Trying to prove a non-scripture thing is like describing nothing. Isaiah 8:20 To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, they have no light of dawn.
That statement of yours has no light of dawn unless you can scripture and verse it.
Yet another group making it into Heaven without their will and a personal relationship with Christ? If you keep expanding like this you will soon be a universalist. You are almost there with all kids and all brain dead? going free. Largeses with the Lord's bounty! You are very free with your salvation. Has everyboby been told? Yes or no?
What about those who never get the chance to accept Christ?
Those who haven't been told?


john.

 

Johnp, you said: "We know God can save whoever He wants man! That is not the point. The point is you deny God acts in peoples wills, why is it you now agree that God takes liberties with peoples wills? It is a contradiction you have. We know God can save whoever He wants man! That is not the point. The point is you deny God acts in peoples wills, why is it you now agree that God takes liberties with peoples wills? It is a contradiction you have. You cannot attack and hold our views. Only Calvinists can do that.


I am not going to debate this too much anymore therefore I am not answering everything in your post. I will respond to this though.

You need to pay better attention. I myself have never said God does not act in people's wills. Quite the contrary...the Holy Spirit convicts them of sin...against their will. They weren't asking for that to happen. But when it does THEN men freely decide to repent or not to repent. There...no contradiction.

"You cannot attack and hold our views. Only Calvinists can do that." Only Calvinists can attack and hold their views?

I can do what I want. Calvinists enjoy "rather foolishly" attacking what they THINK we believe. Therefore I can attack what you believe. But I'm not going to bother...it is an exercise in futility.

 

It is clear that on this particular topic, more than any other perhaps, I have been non-dogmatic. I have plainly said that these are theological conclusions that are not cut and dried. I have plainly said that others with legitimate basis come to different conclusions.

As do I. But this sounds pretty Calvinistic. When you say "No one who is meant to be in hell will be in heaven," it calls for the question of who is the subject of "meant" ... Who is doing the "meaning"?

I quoted Roman 3:23, not 5:23. But as always, a Calvinist allows the word to be determined by context. You yourself have now shown at least two places where you don't believe that "all" means "all." That means that you are no different than the charge you make against Calvinists. You attach a meaning of "all" based on the desired outcome. The question is, which meaning is legitimate? I think your method is perfectly acceptable ... even clearly necessary. No one believes that "all" means "all men without exception." The Bible is too clear on that issue. But you guys claim that whenever you need to in order to support your doctrine. And Calvinists deny that when they need to to support their doctrine. The bottom line is that we must be very rigorous in our study so that we use the proper definition in the passage at hand, whatever passage that may be.

I do allow it to mean "all." The word "will" there is the word "thelo" which usually talks of a desire of the emotions, not a deliberate volition (which typically uses boulamai, a different verb). God is not desiring that men perish and go to hell. He does not delight in teh death of hte wicked.

An argumentative problem here. For something to be "typical," it must be done many times. It has yet to be proven to be one once, much less many times which is required to be "typical." Second, it is a bad argumentative technique to assert something perjorative such as this without proof. If you are going to make this assertion, then provide evidence of it. So far, every time you have tried, we have refuted it by showing our interpretation is justified from Scripture.

 

Larry, I'm not getting involved in your debate with this person. I just want to point out that Calvinists use the word "typical" alot as well, about Arminians. If they don't use the word, they have the attitude. They do consistently tend to assume that we deny God's sovereignty, etc. when in all honesty we see God using His sovereingty in a different way.

 

I agree. No one should misuse the word. But remember, "typical" is often used to describe what many or most do, in order to avoid a categorical blanket statement. For instance, if we say "typically, the home team wears white jerseys," that means "usually, they do, but there are exceptions, the atypical." If we make a categorical statement such as "The home team wears white," we would be incorrect. They do not always wear white.

In this discussion, it is appropriate to use "typical" in that manner. It is inappropriate to use it as Icthus did, to describe that is not typical inasmuch as it is not even true, for the most part. I will agree that some Calvinists misuse Scripture, apply wrong definitions, etc. But typically, they don't (no pun intended). Watch the intramural discussions even among the arminians who disagree with each other on what certain passages mean. Neither side is monolithic so a word like "typical" has its benefits. But we must use it properly.

 

like the pun

agree with almost everything you said. except for the pun part. lol

The home team wearing white was a good analogy...I totally understood what you meant. Thanks. I'm a huge sports fan.