The hidden dangers of Calvinism

God said He would destroy S & G if there were not 10 righteous people found. Only Lot and his wife were found to be righteous (less than 10). The others in the city that were destroyed were not righteous, i.e., not "elect".

Jesus said these non righteous, non elect people could have...no, would have repented. Calvinism teaches only the elect can truly repent. The non righteous, non elect of Sodom could have repented.

 

I don't pretend to have all the answers about Matthew 11:20 ff. I don't know howto interpret the verse you quoted about Sodom in v.25. Nor do I know why Jesus thanked the Father for hiding the truth from one group of people and revealing it to another, and that the Father considered it good to do so.

This seems to suggest that "these things" hidden in v. 25, refer back to Tyre, Sideon and Sodom. And, I dont know why Jesus said they would have repented had they heard of the mighty works, yet did not give them that opportunity.

 

I don't get that from that passage at all that He chose not to reveal Himself to them. Romans 1 states clearly that He is revealed to all men, and all men either accept or reject the Truth. What we do see from that passage is Christ saying that a group of people who are NOT elect, who were not chosen for salvation before the beginning of the world like calvinism teaches, could have repented!

 

And what would that be?

 

Read carefully: "If" and "would." The works were not there, and therefore they did not repent.

The bigger question is this: If God wants all men to be saved, why didn't he do these miracles in Tyre and Sidon so that they would repent?

 

All you have done is attempt to explain what calvinism teaches vs what the Bible teaches about salvation.

No, only calvinism agrees with that point as I also agree with the Bible.

Both statements are true.

man's wisdom is compiled up into a testimony where salvation is concerned. It agrees with Scripture and is the most powerful tool in the Christian's hand to tell others about Christ.:godisgood:

You seem to imply a two-hearted belief system: one is the Gospel to every creature so men might be saved / the very essence of the will of God. The other is what we have witnessed is the ideal of calvinism that God chose only to save those he created for the purpose of saving and all others never had the chance to have their will broken. These "saved / created to be saved" is what you refer to as the "elect". The Bible NEVER refers to anyone as elect until they are addressed as being part of the Body/ the Church/ saved.

Jacob was called, Israel chosen. Jacob was the subplanter, after interaction of the Spirit he became the Chosen of the Lord/ the Son of Promise.

The Bible is very clear in this precept. Calvinism teaches against this very precept.

Calvinism fogs the understanding and leaves men at the mercy of the "scholars"

FOUL! Another danger of calvinism exposed!

Yes, it does teach that, but then goes on to say only the elect can get saved.

Writing out the will of man in any decision about salvation and serving the Lord isn't a far stretch of the imagination.

No, I said that any saved man has the evidence before him that all Scripture is in harmony, yet calvinism is NOT in harmony with all Scripture!

The problem here is twice now you have alluded to a supposition as if I have broken BB rules.

If you cannot do any better than make accusations from the convoluting of what I say then it might be best you stay out of the kitchen.

OK, which is it now? Sounds like you're stabbing in the dark for a slimey morsel that just isn't there!

 

Simply because they killed all the prophets sent unto them and God had enough of their wickedness and destroyed them!

God had witnesses in all cities of Sodoma and Gomorrah, yet their wickednesses brought on the judgement of God.

All those had their chance, yet they refused to repent.

Repenetence is necessary for election, yet those who refuse cannot be elect until they DO repent! These did not and passed God's deadline.:godisgood:

 

MB said,

Exactly what I've been telling calvinists for years!:thumbsup:

 

According to the passage, Jesus said Tyre and Sidon would have repented had they seen the same mighty works of Chorazin and Bethsaida. That's the great mystery to me. If that's the case, why did not Jesus go there, or send somoe of his disciples? I simply don't know the answers.

What I do see here is that Jesus made a connection between the mighty works and repentance. Paul made a similar connection in Romans 10, when he asked, how shall they call on him of whom they've not heard, and how can they hear without a preacher?

I wish I knew why no one went to Tyre and Sidon so they would repent; and I don't know why God sent no prophet to Sodom to warn them. The result was the same--they died in their sins.

 

Vs? What Calvinism teaches about salvation is what the Bible teaches.

No, they're not.

Really? Man's testimony is the most powerful tool? Too bad Paul didn't know that. He said the gospel was the power of God unto salvation to everyone who believes. He said nothing about your testimony (or mine) being the most powerful.

You seem not to read very well. I have implied nothing of the sort. The Bible teaches that all men are sinners deserving of hell, and willfully going there. The Bible teaches that God chooses some to save them. The Bible (not me) calls them the elect.

Well, 2 Tim 2:10 is a plain and direct refutation of this. There we see elect who are not yet saved.

Nonsense.

Can you show any non-elect person getting saved?

Really? Can you show me a passage of Scripture that Calvinism is out of harmony with? (I hope so, because I have asked before and no one ever seems to be able to give one).

I simply read what you said.

I believe you do not understand either the Scriptures or Calvinism.

 

hmmmm ... you got verses for this? Because it sounds to me like God admitted he didn't do everything he could have to secure their repentance.

You got a verse for this to? Can you show us one place in Scripture where election is predicated on repentance

 

Calvinists and most non-Calvinists agree that all the elect from eternity will be saved in time. And none of those who are not elect will be saved.

Thus, both sides will hold that those saved in the Nineveh revival were those whom God had chosen. We'll disagree about the ground of the election, but agree on the objects.

Where did you come up with the view that the people of Nineveh were non-elect but were saved in spite of it?

 

If they both teach exactly the same things then one of the two is not necessary.