Those in hell for Arminianism and Calvinism

Amen!

...Bob

 

I appreciate Winman's courage in advancing his view. And I appreciate his humility in agreeing that some of it is above his pay grade and beyond his understanding.

I don't understand it all, either, but the part I do understand, I disagree with.

Here's why. It's driven by God's immutability. God does not change.

He is also omniscient. Re-defining it as God's knowing everything that can be known doesn't change anything. I'm assuming that means that the minute something can be known, God knows it. But here's the problem. If God now knows something that up to this moment couldn't be known, then he knows something new. And that's a change in God.

If God has a new thought, acquires some new knowledge, then he is not immutable. In another thread, I quoted a wise pastor: "Did it ever occur to you that nothing ever occurs to God?"

Thus, I don't think His omniscience can be re-defined without affecting His immutability. And under Winman's definition, God has neither.

 

So...you're saying Calvinists are brainwashed. Yeah...that's not offensive--as if you are the only one who can think for himself. Sad in a narcissistic way.

The Archangel

 

I could be wrong, but I see problems with your view. For instance, what did God ask Adam in the garden?

Gen 3:11 And he said, Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?

Isn't that the strangest question for someone who knows everything? In fact, why would God ever ask any question?

Well you say, he wanted a confession. If so, he could have asked a better question than this. As the father of 8 children, I became a fairly skilled at questioning my kids. If I was very certain that I knew who wrote on the wall with crayons, I didn't ask them if they did it, because then I was providing them a way to lie. No, I would ask them WHY they did it. This convinced them that I knew they did it, and usually I would get a quick confession.

This kind of question would be more honest if God already knew the answer but only if free will exists. In the DoG view, any question would be dishonest because God would know the cause.

So, this presents a huge problem for your view.

But it works in my dual perspective view. Looking forward he would not know the answer and a question would be valid.

However, looking back from the end he would know the answer.

I could be wrong.

 

To get a response from Adam. It's not that God didn't know.

Glad to know you are a better father than God.

You could be wrong and you are. One problem is that you are putting God into time. What God knows from our future and our past is the same. God is outside of this time.

Hope this helps...http://carm.org/questions/about-doc...ng-and-he-knows-our-future-then-how-free-will

 

Winman,
We all need our brain washed by the word of God. If thinking for yourself
leaves you confused about the God of scripture.....that he has to wait for man, he has to go to plan B, he is not sure about what is going to happen next..... I would sign up for some serious brainwashing::laugh:
Far from giving a lecture,several posts have tried to urge you to reconsider your posts.....look up open view thiesm.....then look at the good verses offered.
Here is some help for you from the 1689;

I know this document was put together by wicked calvinists, nevertheless the scriptures offered speak truth .

 

God would be misrepresenting himself and basically being dishonest if he asked a question when he already knew the answer.

Like I said, if he knew Adam ate the fruit then the only valid question would be why, but only if free will exists. In the DoG view, no question is valid and is a misrepresentation.

I don't expect you to understand this.

 

Nicholas,
you said;

Men go to hell for sin that has not been paid for.Any sin not covered by the blood will damn a soul. God does not have to elect or save anyone,but in Love He elects a multitude to be saved by His mercy.
The second view does not understand: the fall,and has a defective view of God's wisdom.

 

The scriptures are always truthful, that document is not.

 

Really,
Then help us out here.
Go over the 1689 and thescriptures used and show from those verses which ones are not truthful.....go ahead and try.:thumbsup:

 

cause you teach false doctrine. You now say that God isn't omniscient. That he doesn't know everything. Sad, really sad. this has nothing to do with the arminiam/calvinism debate. It has to do with the character of God and you are limiting the character of God by saying that God doesn't know everything even though the Scriptures clearly say He does. (I John 3:20, Isaiah 46:10, Psalm 139:4)

 

Who are you O man to talk back to God?

WM,there are a host of questions the Lord asked in the Bible. It's just a matter for you to yield to the authority of God's Word.

Of couse God knows everything exhaustively. But he still asks qustions of people for His own purposes. It's usually to direct folks to the truth.

 

It's not yielding to it that is the problem for the Calvinist, it's understanding what God has said. Quit listening to Calvin and start looking at what the Word of God says, which is something Calvin evidently didn't understand.

 

No educated person would say such a thing about Calvin.

I am attending Liberty University which is no friend to Calvinism.

But EVEN Liberty, as opposed as they are to the DoG, know that Calvin was a brilliant theologian and teach as much.

Only someone reading fundamentalist websites or listening to uneducated preachers would say such things.

In order to say such a thing one must call Jonathan Edwards biblically illiterate.

Encyclopedia Britannica elected Edwards as the most brilliant theological and philosophical mind in American History.

I have NEVER heard one who came from a REPUTABLE seminary, be it EVER so Arminian, say that Calvin did not understand the Word of God.

They may disagree with his conclusions but no educated people would make such remarks.

And no one is listening to Calvin.

We just believe that Calvin discovered the truths of the Word of God on these matters.

It was Luther and Calvin who brought us BACK to the Bible.

 

Then you fight against William Carey and Charles Spurgeon and the Great Awakening and the Protestant Reformation and the majority of our Baptist forefathers and the Pilgrims and the majority of the Founders of this nation.

That is what you fight against so vehemently.

I am not a hyper calvinist.

But you cannot post without personal attacks.

As old as you are you are still mentally an immature little child.

 

That's silly.

You do it all the time.

Everybody does. It's how we teach.

"And my dear Watson, what does the evidence tell us?"

Sherlock knows the answer. He is teaching by asking a question to which he already knows the answer.

 

:sleep: :sleep:

 

Get some rest. I guess staying up for new years can make one tired the next day.

 

We have a guy who embraces all the doctrinal errors of the charismatics, but gives thumbs up to fighting against calvinism, who in turn denies being an arminian in public, but in private embraces it.

 

Again, we have a demonstration of that which is completely unhelpful.

Robert, I want to caution you...especially because Luke2427 posted this:

To which you replied:

Now, whether you meant to or not, you are proving him right. I don't think you want to do that.

Your post in response to his post is tantamount to a parent telling a child to "quit acting like a child" to which the child responds "I'M NOT, I'M NOT, I'M NOT, NOT, NOT, NOT, NNNNNNOOOOOOOOOTTTTTTTTT!," proving the parent's point perfectly.

Unfortunately you are demonstrating (whether you realize it or not) that you are either unable or unwilling to engage in a conversation in which you maintain the dignity of your maturity and refrain from personal attacks or, at least, postings of an "attackish" nature.

If you would bristle greatly at someone doing this to you (which we all know you do), then you have no business doing this to someone who is a brother in Christ. Again...Do unto others...

The Archangel