Any Calvinist willing to walk through Romans 11 with me?

[Skandelon]

You didn't address the issue of God holding out His hands to the Jews. Show me Calvin saying God didn't really want these people (non-elect) to come to Him. Show me Calvin saying that God is disingenuous when He calls on the non-elect to come to Him.

That is your accusation. I didn't see that in the commentary you quoted.

peace to youraying:

Yes, my comment about God's seemingly being "disingenuous" were MY personal views on the implications of Calvinism, not that Calvinists themselves believe that God is "disingenuous." They would never actually use that terminology. They would say such passages were "anthropomorphic" (giving God human like characteristics)...that God doesn't really long for something or patiently wait for something, or regret something in the way scripture sometimes describes, but that these are just expressions to help the reader understand something that is beyond our full comprehension.

In my view God genuinely desires that all of his creatures be saved (see also Ezk. 18:31, 32; 33:10, 11; 1 Pet. 3:9; 1 Tim. 2:3). If they are not saved, it is due to their own refusal of God's gracious gift, and not because God has unconditionally determined from all eternity to damn them (or pass them by) (Hosea 11:1-2; Jer. 13:15-17; Rom. 10:21; Heb. 3:7-13).

Some Calvinists deal with these passages by describing God has having 2 wills. They maintain that God does not find pleasure in the the eternal death of the wicked...that is HE doesn't "desire" it, but he has still sovereignly willed it to come to pass.

In my opinion, Calvinism depicts a God who stretches his hands out to the perishing while refusing to give them the grace they need to be saved. He can say that he takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked, while secretly desiring and guaranteeing their eternal death. I was pointing out the inherent facade of this position.

Now, so you know this accusation I have brought up against the Reformed doctrine is not new, you can see John Wesley's words for yourself. I think he summed up the problem well,

Our blessed Lord does indisputably command and invite "all men everywhere to repent" [Acts 17:30]. He calleth all. He sends his ambassadors in his name, "to preach the gospel to every creature" [Mark 16:15]. He himself "preached deliverance to the captives" [Luke 4:18] without any hint of restriction or limitation. But now, in what manner do you represent him while he is employed in this work? You suppose him to be standing at the prison doors, having the keys thereof in his hands, and to be continually inviting the prisoners to come forth, commanding them to accept of that invitation, urging every motive which can possibly induce them to comply with that command; adding the most precious promises, if they obey; the most dreadful threatenings, if they obey not. And all this time you suppose him to be unalterably determined in himself never to open the doors for him, even while he is crying, "Come ye, come ye, from that evil place. For why will ye die, O house of Israel?" [cf. Ezek. 18:31]. "Why" (might one of them reply), "because we cannot help it. We cannot help ourselves, and thou wilt not help us. It is not in our power to break the gates of brass [cf. Ps. 107:16], and it is not thy pleasure to open them. Why will we die? We must die, because it is not thy will to save us." Alas, my brethren, what kind of sincerity is this which you ascribe to God our Saviour? [Excerpt from Predestination Calmly Considered; Readings in the History of Christian Theology, Volume 2, pg. 97]

 

[canadyjd]

Yes, my comment about God's seemingly being "disingenuous" were MY personal views on the implications of Calvinism, not that Calvinists themselves believe that God is "disingenuous."...

...In my opinion, Calvinism depicts a God who stretches his hands out to the perishing while refusing to give them the grace they need to be saved. He can say that he takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked, while secretly desiring and guaranteeing their eternal death....

I appreciate that you admit you are only giving your opinions.

Obviously, then, you have no calvinist source that agrees with your opinion of their beliefs.

There is no agreement, then, on what the "calvinist" believes. It is impossible, therefore, to debate. You are debating your own opinion of what the calvinist believes, not what they actually believe.

You are debating yourself. Undoubtably, therefore, you will always prevail in your own mind.

As I said several times. This discussion has run its course. I see no reason to continue.

I appreciate the civil discussion.

peace to youraying:

 

[Skandelon]

I appreciate that you admit you are only giving your opinions.

Obviously, then, you have no calvinist source that agrees with your opinion of their beliefs.

There is no agreement, then, on what the "calvinist" believes. It is impossible, therefore, to debate. You are debating your own opinion of what the calvinist believes, not what they actually believe.

You are debating yourself. Undoubtably, therefore, you will always prevail in your own mind.

You are not understanding. A Calvinist would never SAY that God is being "disingenuous" but they would say those other things that I wrote when I was presenting the Calvinistic perspective. I showed you several quotes to prove that, remember? You asked about showing you Calvinists that believe God hardened the non-elect and I provided 2 quotes and Winman provided another, remember?

I'm not just debating my own opinions, as you put it, I'm debating the actual claims of Calvinism by presenting MY OPINIONS about those actual claims. We are ALL just giving our opinions here, unless we provide a quote or reference from someone else. Do you understand now?

 

[canadyjd]

You are not understanding. A Calvinist would never SAY that God is being "disingenuous" but they would say those other things that I wrote when I was presenting the Calvinistic perspective. I showed you several quotes to prove that, remember?

They would not say those things and you have not quoted any that say those things.

What you posted from Calvin demonstrates the will of God in electing some to salvation and the will of God in punishing the wicked. I saw nothing that indicates Calvin believed God didn't really want people to come to Him and believe Him and follow Him.

You asked about showing you Calvinists that believe God hardened the non-elect and I provided 2 quotes and Winman provided another, remember?

I remember asking you to show me Calvinists that believe God didn't really want people to come to Him when He held out His hands to them but rather, secretly desires their eternal damnation.

You haven't done that, and yet, you keep making the accusation as if you have proved it to be true.

As you like to say.... very revealing.:smilewinkgrin:

We are ALL just giving our opinions here, unless we provide a quote or reference from someone else. Do you understand now?

Which is why I have spent so much time attempting to direct you to the context of the passages in discussion. In the end, neither your opinion or mine mean anything. The only thing that matters is what God has revealed in His Word.

peace to youraying:

 

[Skandelon]

They would not say those things and you have not quoted any that say those things.

Which "things" are you talking about? The "anthropomorphic" stuff? The 2 wills of God stuff? The part about God hardening the elect? (which I did show you quotes for because you specifically asked about that)

What you posted from Calvin demonstrates the will of God in electing some to salvation and the will of God in punishing the wicked. I saw nothing that indicates Calvin believed God didn't really want people to come to Him and believe Him and follow Him. I remember asking you to show me Calvinists that believe God didn't really want people to come to Him when He held out His hands to them but rather, secretly desires their eternal damnation

.You need to go back and re-read through the posts. You stated, "I have never read anyone holding to reformed theology that believes people are hardened because they are not elected to salvation." And I quoted that exact phrase and then provided the quote from Calvin and the Geneva study bible, and then Winman provided a quote from Piper.

You haven't done that, and yet, you keep making the accusation as if you have proved it to be true.

You are asking if there are any Calvinists who specifically say, "God doesn't really want the non-elect to come to salvation?" I think I explained to you that some Calvinists explain this by showing God has 2 wills, remember? Do you deny that is true? Do you need me to provide you quotes from Calvinists about the 2 wills of God?

Or do you remember my explanation about the anthropomorphic language? Are you denying that is really what some Calvinists teach? Again, do you need quotes from them about this too?

As you like to say.... very revealing.:smilewinkgrin:

I think the only thing that has been revealed in our discussion is your lack of understanding about the issues of this debate from either perspective. :smilewinkgrin:

 

[Skandelon]

I remember asking you to show me Calvinists that believe God didn't really want people to come to Him when He held out His hands to them but rather, secretly desires their eternal damnation.

As Piper demonstrates and as we have seen many times on this very forum some Calvinists attempt to dismiss the idea that God even desires for the non-elect to be saved...

"It is possible that careful exegesis of 1 Timothy 2:4 would lead us to believe that "God's willing all persons to be saved" does not refer to every individual person in the world, but rather to all sorts of persons, since the "all persons" in verse 1 may well mean groups like "kings and all in high positions" (v. 2). It is also possible that the "you" in 2 Peter 3:9 ("the Lord is longsuffering toward you, not wishing any to perish") refers not to every person in the world but to "you" professing Christians among whom, as Adolf Schlatter says, "are people who only through repentance can attain to the grace of God and to the promised inheritance." -Piper

This is what many Calvinist attempt to do with such passages which clearly shows God's desire for the salvation of all men... Piper does not take that approach however, as he goes on to explain:

"Nevertheless the case for this limitation on God's universal saving will has never been convincing to Arminians and likely will not become convincing, especially since Ezekiel 18:23, 32 and 33:11 are even less tolerant of restriction. Therefore as a hearty believer in unconditional, individual election I rejoice to affirm that God does not delight in the perishing of the impenitent, and that he has compassion on all people. My aim is to show that this is not double talk..."

"Affirming the will of God to save all, while also affirming the unconditional election of some, implies that there are at least "two wills" in God, or two ways of willing. It implies that God decrees one state of affairs while also willing and teaching that a different state of affairs should come to pass..."

"We must certainly distinguish between what God would like to see happen and what he actually does will to happen, and both of these things can be spoken of as God's will..."

Then HERE we have a blog where other Calvinists are critiquing Piper's explanations because it's not "reformed" enough in their view. One of them writes:

Piper’s two-will theory is a new contrivance since it is used to justify saying that God both desires and does not desire the same thing at the same time and in the same sense; i.e., the salvation of those He has decreed not to save – the reprobate.

As you can plainly see, my critique of Calvinism's claims are more than accurate if you are familiar enough with all the different nuances out there.

 

[Andy T.]

A quick thought on the 2 wills theology (of which I generally hold), even non-Cals have to believe in 2 wills of God, though in a different sense from Cals, of course. The non-Cal of course believes that God wills all men to be saved. But the non-Cal must also believe that there is another desire/will of God that trumps His desire to save all men - that is, God loves our libertarian free will (LFW) more than He desires all men to be saved, else we become the dreaded robots of Calvinism. So there are 2 wills in the non-Cal system - one trumps the other in what actually happens - i.e., God loves man's LFW more than He desires all to be saved - otherwise, He would save everyone since He has the power and right to do so, if He so willed...

 

[Winman]

Quote:
Originally Posted by winman
But Pharaoh had multiple chances to repent and obey God. Some scholars think the plagues took place over about a 6 month period. That is a long time to see incredible miracles and still not repent.

You replied:

Which underscores, if you will, the fact that unregenerate men will not come to the mercy seat at all, even if the world turns upside down. Look at the book of Revelation and the bowls and vials of plagues God pours down on the earth. Do men repent ?
They call on their religions and their idols.

No, you are carrying this too far. Because Pharaoh was super proud and obstinate doesn't mean all men are like this. I doubt you could find a man this rebellious anywhere. If any man saw these miraculous 10 plagues I am sure even the most hardened sinner would come around. And this is shown with Pharaoh's servants.

Notice that Pharaoh's servants were also hardened.

Exo 9:34 And when Pharaoh saw that the rain and the hail and the thunders were ceased, he sinned yet more, and hardened his heart, he and his servants.

Exo 10:1 And the LORD said unto Moses, Go in unto Pharaoh: for I have hardened his heart, and the heart of his servants, that I might shew these my signs before him:

But notice in chapter 10 after the plague of locusts (8th plague) that his servants repented.

Exo 10:7 And Pharaoh's servants said unto him, How long shall this man be a snare unto us? let the men go, that they may serve the LORD their God: knowest thou not yet that Egypt is destroyed?

His servants had had enough. You do not read of their heart's being hardened after this, only Pharaoh.

So, this is where you err, not every man is as rebellious and stubborn as Pharoah.

 

[Skandelon]

A quick thought on the 2 wills theology (of which I generally hold), even non-Cals have to believe in 2 wills of God, though in a different sense from Cals, of course. The non-Cal of course believes that God wills all men to be saved. But the non-Cal must also believe that there is another desire/will of God that trumps His desire to save all men - that is, God loves our libertarian free will (LFW) more than He desires all men to be saved, else we become the dreaded robots of Calvinism. So there are 2 wills in the non-Cal system - one trumps the other in what actually happens - i.e., God loves man's LFW more than He desires all to be saved - otherwise, He would save everyone since He has the power and right to do so, if He so willed...

Not really, there is only opposition to this "two will" theory when it appears that those two wills are in opposition to each other. God both desires and does not desire the same thing at the same time; i.e., the salvation of those He has decreed not to save.

We believe God's will is not in contradiction with itself, thus there is no need for a "two will" explanation. God desires all to freely come to repentance, period. Now, don't get me wrong, there are differing levels of "will" just as we have. For example, I may desire my daughter to obey me when I tell her to sit down at the dinner table when she would rather be playing. Now, obviously I have the ability to physically grab her and force her to sit, but that is not my desire. My desire is for HER to obey, not for me to "force" her to obey. On the other hand, if she were in the street unaware of the approaching car my desire would be to physically grab her and pull her out of the way. Those are two different desires, but they are not in contradiction with each other.

Now, if she was unable to willingly obey me because I put plugs in her ears and she couldn't even hear me when I told her to sit down and then I continued to beg her to sit on the one hand all the while not really wanting her to hear because I have her ears plugged, that would be a problem. I would be desiring her to obey while desiring her not to hear me so she could obey, which is clearly a contradiction.

 

[Winman]

Yes, what Calvinism denies is obedience through love. God wants us to love him of our own free will, not force.

The same with my children, I want them to obey me because they know and understand that when I give them instruction it is for their own good.

A perfect example is my oldest daughter, now 33. When she was around 17 we had a big argument once. She wanted to go out with this fellow and a few other friends for the evening. This fellow was not her boyfriend. I knew this young man and liked him very much except for one thing, he had a souped up car and drove like a maniac. He would often burn rubber and drive as much as 60 MPH down our residential street with many children. He was very reckless.

Well, I liked this kid, I really did, but there is no way I was going to let my daughter go out with him in that car. I had several very close friends get killed in auto accidents when I was young. I told my daughter if they took another car and someone else responsible drove she could go, but not with this fellow driving. I was not trying to prevent her from having fun with her friends, I was trying to prevent her getting killed or injured in an accident.

Of course, being a teen she was very upset. But later on she understood my reasoning.

What I am saying is God wants us to love and trust in him of our own free wills. Faith is a judgment. When you believe in God you are believing he is good and that his rules for us are in our own best interest. The person who does not believe in God feels the opposite. They think of God as a tyrant who wants to rob them of their fun and freedom. The scriptures say that if we do not believe God we make him a liar. So again, faith is a judgment.

Heb 11:11 Through faith also Sara herself received strength to conceive seed, and was delivered of a child when she was past age, because she judged him faithful who had promised.

Without faith it is impossible to please God. Believing in God is believing he is good.

Heb 11:6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

The non-Cal teaches that God will accept or reward anyone who diligently seeks him, the Calvinist teaches that if you are not elect, that God will not even afford you the opportunity to seek him. As Skandelon said, God would be punishing you for not hearing or listening to him after God himself had made you incapable of hearing or listening to him. Even men know this would be absolutely unjust. Such a God would not be good.

 

[Andy T.]

On the other hand, if she were in the street unaware of the approaching car my desire would be to physically grab her and pull her out of the way. Those are two different desires, but they are not in contradiction with each other.

This is a good analogy to explore from the non-Cal perspective. In the non-Cal system, we are all about to be hit by a bus (i.e., death and hell). God has the power to snatch us all from that impending doom, and He would do that, if that were His strongest desire. But that's not His strongest desire. His strongest desire is that we all come freely to avoid the bus. Therefore, he willingly sends some (many) people to hell, since his stronger desire is for them to come freely and not to force them. Thus, he loves LFW more than he loves saving everyone from hell.

 

[Winman]

This is a good analogy to explore from the non-Cal perspective. In the non-Cal system, we are all about to be hit by a bus (i.e., death and hell). God has the power to snatch us all from that impending doom, and He would do that, if that were His strongest desire. But that's not His strongest desire. His strongest desire is that we all come freely to avoid the bus. Therefore, he willingly sends some (many) people to hell, since his stronger desire is for them to come freely and not to force them. Thus, he loves LFW more than he loves saving everyone from hell.

But that analogy fails. You assume the person in the street has no ability to avoid the approaching car. But the non-Cal believes a person can hear, understand, and react to a warning from God.

If we shout to the person to get out of the street as a car is approaching, then they can hear, understand, and get out of the street.

And this is the tenor of the scriptures, that God "warns'' us.

Luke 3:7 Then said he to the multitude that came forth to be baptized of him, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?
8 Bring forth therefore fruits worthy of repentance, and begin not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, That God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.
9 And now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees: every tree therefore which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
10 And the people asked him, saying, What shall we do then?

We see here John the Baptist asking the people who warned them, then he gives some warnings of his own. And notice their response, they asked "What shall we do then?". They heard, they understood, and now they want to know what they should do.

The scriptures never even remotely hint that a person is incapable of hearing, understanding, and having the ability to obey God's word. In fact, they show the opposite, that God is often very angry at men because they will not obey him.

I don't know why there is even a debate on this, everybody knows it would be ridiculous for God to repeatedly call for men to repent if man were not able to do so. It makes no sense whatsoever.

 

[The Archangel]

On the other hand, if she were in the street unaware of the approaching car my desire would be to physically grab her and pull her out of the way. Those are two different desires, but they are not in contradiction with each other.

This is a good analogy to explore from the non-Cal perspective. In the non-Cal system, we are all about to be hit by a bus (i.e., death and hell). God has the power to snatch us all from that impending doom, and He would do that, if that were His strongest desire. But that's not His strongest desire. His strongest desire is that we all come freely to avoid the bus. Therefore, he willingly sends some (many) people to hell, since his stronger desire is for them to come freely and not to force them. Thus, he loves LFW more than he loves saving everyone from hell.

Both of these analogies fail because they place man in the "middle ground."

Salvation is not God saving us from running out into oncoming traffic and getting killed. Rather, salvation is God walking among the corpses of those already killed and bringing certain ones back to life.

Put another way, God is not jumping into the water to save us from drowning. God is plunging into the depths of the ocean and taking lifeless corpses of the already drowned and breathing life back into the dead.

Frankly, there is no "middle ground" in scripture. There is either life in Christ or death outside of Christ.

The Archangel

 

[Andy T.]

But that analogy fails. You assume the person in the street has no ability to avoid the approaching car. But the non-Cal believes a person can hear, understand, and react to a warning from God.

I understand that - that's why I prefaced my comment with "explore from a non-Cal perspective." But forget the analogy for now, because it's not that important. The non-Cal system believes that God desires men having the free will to choose heaven or hell more than he desires to actually save them. Otherwise, He would save them regardless if they wanted to or not.

 

[Andy T.]

Both of these analogies fail because they place man in the "middle ground."

Salvation is not God saving us from running out into oncoming traffic and getting killed. Rather, salvation is God walking among the corpses of those already killed and bringing certain ones back to life.

Put another way, God is not jumping into the water to save us from drowning. God is plunging into the depths of the ocean and taking lifeless corpses of the already drowned and breathing life back into the dead.

Frankly, there is no "middle ground" in scripture. There is either life in Christ or death outside of Christ.

The Archangel

I agree - I was exploring the analogy from a non-Cal perspective. See reply to Winman above.

 

[The Archangel]

I agree - I was exploring the analogy from a non-Cal perspective. See reply to Winman above.

Gotcha, Andy. I think your reply to Winman was well said.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

[Winman]

Salvation is not God saving us from running out into oncoming traffic and getting killed. Rather, salvation is God walking among the corpses of those already killed and bringing certain ones back to life.

Put another way, God is not jumping into the water to save us from drowning. God is plunging into the depths of the ocean and taking lifeless corpses of the already drowned and breathing life back into the dead.

Once again you show that yourself and many Calvinists do not understand what spiritual death is. It is a separation from God. It does not mean a lifeless corpse.

Would it make sense to tell a lifeless corpse to repent of their sins? Of course not, even a child would know that.

In Luke 16 we see the rich man who died and went to hell. He is nothing like a corpse, he can see, hear, speak, feel pain, repent and show concern for his lost brothers.

Luke 16:22 And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried;
23 And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.
24 And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.
25 But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented.
26 And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence.
27 Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father's house:
28 For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment.
29 Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.
30 And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent.
31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.

The reason you Calvinists get everything wrong is you don't know or understand scripture. And even when someone shows you, you refuse to listen or learn.

When Adam and Eve sinned they died spiritually, yet they could hear and understand God's voice and respond to him when he called.

Gen 3:8 And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden.
9 And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou?
10 And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself.
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?
12 And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat.
13 And the LORD God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat.

You can persist with your Calvinistic doctrine that the spiritually dead are like a corspe, but you are still in error.

 

[The Archangel]

Once again you show that yourself and many Calvinists do not understand what spiritual death is. It is a separation from God. It does not mean a lifeless corpse.

Would it make sense to tell a lifeless corpse to repent of their sins? Of course not, even a child would know that.

In Luke 16 we see the rich man who died and went to hell. He is nothing like a corpse, he can see, hear, speak, feel pain, repent and show concern for his lost brothers.

Luke 16:22 And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried;
23 And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.
24 And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.
25 But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented.
26 And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence.
27 Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father's house:
28 For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment.
29 Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.
30 And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent.
31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.

The reason you Calvinists get everything wrong is you don't know or understand scripture. And even when someone shows you, you refuse to listen or learn.

When Adam and Eve sinned they died spiritually, yet they could hear and understand God's voice and respond to him when he called.

Gen 3:8 And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden.
9 And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou?
10 And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself.
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?
12 And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat.
13 And the LORD God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat.

You can persist with your Calvinistic doctrine that the spiritually dead are like a corspe, but you are still in error.

Not to be ugly, but your hermeneutics are nightmarishly awful.

The reason you Calvinists get everything wrong is you don't know or understand scripture. And even when someone shows you, you refuse to listen or learn.

So, Calvinists as a whole do not understand scripture? Ummm...ya, I'm sure that's it. More likely it is that you are taking your own understanding of scripture--and the hermeneutical morass that is painfully present in your postings--and holding those "interpretations" as law, even though those "interpretations" go against the clear meaning of the text--even in the King's English, but especially in the Greek or Hebrew.

The sad thing present here is this: Even other Arminian types have tried to correct you about what Calvinists believe and they have also tried to correct your errant understanding of scripture. Yet, you've continued to bury your head in the sand and let the loving (and sometimes not-so-loving) correction fly over your head, preferring to persist in your own little world where the Bible says what Winman says it does rather than what it actually says. So, we have a situation where Winman (and his "interpretation" of the Bible) is a law unto himself--even in opposition to scripture itself.

Dangerous.

The Archangel

 

[Winman]

Not to be ugly, but your hermeneutics are nightmarishly awful.

Nonsense. I have showed you scripture once again to support my view, and it DOES support my view.

If the spiritually dead are not conscious, then what is the fear of hell? Can a corpse feel pain or know torment? No.

You are wrong and you know it. Getting you to admit it is quite another story. I will not hold my breath waiting for that.

 

[Rippon]

You are wrong and you know it. Getting you to admit it is quite another story. I will not hold my breath waiting for that.

The Winman is in de' Nile!