So Sad

Logical fallacy: Ad Hominem

Your past disagreements were based in your ignorance. All I simply did was point out your ignorances to you. So, then, I become the "bad guy" for pointing out that you, on several occasions, had absolutely no earthly idea what you were talking about.

It's not that you're mentally incompetent. In fact, I have no doubt in my mind that you are quite capable in so many ways. But, in the points that you've addressed to me lately, you are simply ignorant. Now, if that's a sore spot for you, I couldn't care less, and your ignorance isn't my fault. In our recent Hebrew discussion your ignorance was demonstrated for you and everyone else to see. It really is too bad that rather than learn from someone who might know more than you, you turn to attack me for your ignorance and shortcomings.

I'm not some plumber that has theology as a hobby. I have a Master's Degree in this stuff.

As for the rest of your silly, meandering nonsense.... It really isn't worth a reply since it is quite apparent that you are selectively editing what I actually said and taking it out of context.

I will say, however, as a corrective to your use of the English language...

"Than" is a comparative; "then" is temporal. Now you know.

The Archangel

 

So... what makes you think someone doesn't deserve Hell? Is God's judgment not right in all cases and at all times? Is there injustice with God?

And, rather than rejoicing that God intervened in your eternal destiny by setting His love upon you, why don't you just break your arm patting yourself on the back saying "I've chosen wisely; I'm so much smarter than those who won't believe?" (please note the sarcasm by which I ask an honest question)

I honestly think you haven't been listening to the answers given to you. You aren't articulating our position correctly, and that makes me think you're still shadow-boxing against the caricature of Calvinism offered by some slanderous people.

I think you're free to reject the soteriology of Calvinism. However, I'm not convinced that's what you're doing here. You're rejecting Calvinistic soteriology based on a priori concepts on which you seem to be ineducable. So you started this thread in insincerity or you haven't been listening--and I'm not saying that because you don't agree with our position.

The Archangel

 

Deserve - "do something or have or show qualities worthy of (reward or punishment)."

Does a child in the womb deserve hell?

 

But, that wasn't the original question, now was it? Unless I'm mistaken, you never phrased the question in terms of an infant child...

My answer to that question is irrelevant until you answer the question:

"Do persons in hell not deserve hell?"

The Archangel

 

It is absolutely relevant, is a child not a person?

 

You're dodging the question: Do people in hell not deserve to be in hell?

I'll remind you, that is, essentially, your conclusion. The question of an infant who dies, etc. was never presented as the point of the Calvinist's sadness. So, the question about anyone deserving hell stands and must be answered before the other topic is approached.

The Archangel

 

If they freely rejected God's light to them they deserve to be in hell.

Now, does a unborn child deserve hell?

 

Ah.. So, in your understanding, people aren't in hell for their sin but for the rejection of "God's light"?

We'll leave the other question for a moment...

The Archangel

 

Rejection ...isn't that a grevious sin? Isn't that the sin of unbelief?

 

Yes, and here's why. Not one person who ever lived...including babies that died in the womb, ever deserved the right to call heaven their eternal resting place. There's not going to be one there who didn't have to go through the shed blood of Jesus Christ. Any and all that get there, get there solely by the grace of God.

 

Exactly :thumbsup:

It is the only sin that is not forgiven at the cross.

 

I mostly agree here, but the question was the "deserved" part, "deserved" denotes a cause verses effect due to behavior. The unborn have not had a sin by choice yet.

 

So, then, your view of the atonement must be limited in some fashion. This is to say that Jesus didn't die for every sin--if unbelief remains unforgiven.

The Archangel

 

Yes, that is what Jesus said., I will go with Jesus :thumbsup:

 

So then... how is it determined whose sin of unbelief is atoned for and whose sin of unbelief isn't?

The Archangel

 

Jn5:24 - "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life"

 

I did nothing of the kind. I simply said that for a person such as yourself preaching even occasionally is repugnant. You are sick to twist my very plain words.

Let it be known that IJ is up to no good as more of his same immaturity is evidenced below.

Lies and hate. Is that all you have for me IJ? That doesn't preach well.