Those in hell for Arminianism and Calvinism

[BobinKy]

I don't believe the church was ever helped with your brand of Hyper-Calvinism. In fact, I feel this has been one problem the church has had to endure. I will fight against this error in every church I attend!

Amen!

...Bob

 

[Tom Butler]

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.

 

[The Archangel]

Please.... it is offensive to be lectured by someone who is brainwashed and cannot think for themselves. The DoG theories have far more difficulties than mine.

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

 

[Winman]

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

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.

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.

 

[jbh28]

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?

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

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.

Glad to know you are a better father than God.

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.

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

 

[Iconoclast]

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;

Chapter 3: Of God's Decree
1._____ God hath decreed in himself, from all eternity, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably, all things, whatsoever comes to pass; yet so as thereby is God neither the author of sin nor hath fellowship with any therein; nor is violence offered to the will of the creature, nor yet is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established; in which appears his wisdom in disposing all things, and power and faithfulness in accomplishing his decree.
( Isaiah 46:10; Ephesians 1:11; Hebrews 6:17; Romans 9:15, 18; James 1:13; 1 John 1:5; Acts 4:27, 28; John 19:11; Numbers 23:19; Ephesians 1:3-5 )
2._____ Although God knoweth whatsoever may or can come to pass, upon all supposed conditions, yet hath he not decreed anything, because he foresaw it as future, or as that which would come to pass upon such conditions.
( Acts 15:18; Romans 9:11, 13, 16, 18 )

3._____ By the decree of God, for the manifestation of his glory, some men and angels are predestinated, or foreordained to eternal life through Jesus Christ, to the praise of his glorious grace; others being left to act in their sin to their just condemnation, to the praise of his glorious justice.
( 1 Timothy 5:21; Matthew 25:34; Ephesians 1:5, 6; Romans 9:22, 23; Jude 4 )

4.______These angels and men thus predestinated and foreordained, are particularly and unchangeably designed, and their number so certain and definite, that it cannot be either increased or diminished.
( 2 Timothy 2:19; John 13:18 )

5._____ Those of mankind that are predestinated to life, God, before the foundation of the world was laid, according to his eternal and immutable purpose, and the secret counsel and good pleasure of his will, hath chosen in Christ unto everlasting glory, out of his mere free grace and love, without any other thing in the creature as a condition or cause moving him thereunto.
( Ephesians 1:4, 9, 11; Romans 8:30; 2 Timothy 1:9; 1 Thessalonians 5:9; Romans 9:13, 16; Ephesians 2:5, 12 )

6._____ As God hath appointed the elect unto glory, so he hath, by the eternal and most free purpose of his will, foreordained all the means thereunto; wherefore they who are elected, being fallen in Adam, are redeemed by Christ, are effectually called unto faith in Christ, by his Spirit working in due season, are justified, adopted, sanctified, and kept by his power through faith unto salvation; neither are any other redeemed by Christ, or effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified, and saved, but the elect only.
( 1 Peter 1:2; 2 Thessalonians 2:13; 1 Thessalonians 5:9, 10; Romans 8:30; 2 Thessalonians 2:13; 1 Peter 1:5; John 10:26; John 17:9; John 6:64 )

7._____ The doctrine of the high mystery of predestination is to be handled with special prudence and care, that men attending the will of God revealed in his Word, and yielding obedience thereunto, may, from the certainty of their effectual vocation, be assured of their eternal election; so shall this doctrine afford matter of praise, reverence, and admiration of God, and of humility, diligence, and abundant consolation to all that sincerely obey the gospel.
( 1 Thessalonians 1:4, 5; 2 Peter 1:10; Ephesians 1:6; Romans 11:33; Romans 11:5, 6, 20; Luke 10:20 )

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

 

[Winman]

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.

 

[Iconoclast]

How awesome is it that we are saved by the grace of God and not correct theology? Praise God there are many in heaven who believed different on earth. I am going to give two thoughts and would love feedback on how they make you feel or what they make you think.

1. Reformed Theology-God passed over some, left them in their sins, and because of not being elected, they will go to hell.

2. Arminianism-God gave all men the free will to accept Him (although God had to draw them to Jesus, but all do get drawn equally, because God does not show favortism), but he allowed those to be born who He knew would not accept Him, and they die and go to hell.

Both go to hell, but one goes because he was not chosen. Another goes to hell, because he did not accept Christ, but God still allowed him to be born knowing he would not accept God's son. Opinions? Thoughts?

Nicholas,
you said;

because of not being elected, they will go to hell.

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.

 

[Winman]

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 .

The scriptures are always truthful, that document is not.

 

[Iconoclast]

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:

 

[jbh28]

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.

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)

 

[Rippon]

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

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.

 

[Robert Snow]

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.

 

[Luke2427]

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.

 

[Luke2427]

I don't believe the church was ever helped with your brand of Hyper-Calvinism. In fact, I feel this has been one problem the church has had to endure. I will fight against this error in every church I attend!

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.

 

[Luke2427]

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.

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.

 

[Robert Snow]

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.

:sleep: :sleep:

 

[jbh28]

:sleep: :sleep:

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

 

[preacher4truth]

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.

 

[The Archangel]

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

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

But you cannot post without personal attacks.

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

To which you replied:

:sleep: :sleep:

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