Featured Fictionalized Non-Calvinist Sermon Snip

Like Winman would say if be were here, Calvinists say the exact opposite of what Scripture says
With many other words he warned them; and he pleaded with them, "Save yourselves from this corrupt generation." Acts 2:40

 

Yes, of course. I was referring to God calling us, and not to some wizard, charming serpents down an aisle.

 

So God is now the author of confusion? I have to call garbage as it is impossible to take the weight and message of 66 books alone to arrive at calvinism. You even admitted not being able to reconcile one passage that lead to your change. I remember you saying that. That's hardly study without bias, it is proof texting.

The irony is EVERYONE is justified and indwelt not believing your doctrine. Coincidence? Hardly. When one puts away pride and wanting to be in what feels like a spiritually superior "club", one will run from that doctrine.

Why does God determine His " elect" to all start off as non Cal's? He desires all of His new creations to believe falsehood right from the start?

At any rate your answer is found in John 3:18...but you already knew that.

 

... oh, quit whining, he saw the light and went to it, praise the Lord.

 

Nobody's whining. I don't mind answering questions if they are sincere, but will call out hogwash when I see it.

At any rate you appear to be doing the whining about me. Go back under your bridge.

 

No attitude at all. I will still call trolling what it is.

 

Look at it like this Brother Webdog. When we're saved, we're babes. We don't understand anything much at all. All we know is what we're taught. It takes God to help us grow in grace and knowledge of the truth. I had a desire to know if what I believed would hold up to the scriptures. That is all I'm saying...

 

So its Gods desire that His new creations start off with incorrect doctrine? The babes in Christ reference has nothing to do with doctrine, BTW, but in living our lives according to the Spirit and not the flesh. You see, this is the very context you decided to discard to believe your new doctrine. It is a doctrine built on prooftexting, not solid ground. If your desire is to see if your doctrine holds up to Scripture you need context.

 

1 Cor. 2:14...we were fleshly and knew only what we were taught and accepted it. That's why JW's, Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus, suicide bombers run rampant all over the earth. They've been taught that their whole lives.

 

Again a fail in using context as the letter written to the church in Corinth was written to believers who were fleshly unlike the non believers above. This is is the point where you can either accept this biblical truth or make it fit your doctrine.

 

Look, you may have them, but I don't have the answer to every single solitary verse in the bible. That's why I said about Matt. 23:37 in the manner I did. Was that Christ crying out as a man? I don't know. But I do know that He laid down His life for the sheep, being their good Shepherd. I know He prayed not for the world, but for those the Father gave Him. Is everybody that will ever be born a sheep and morph into a goat when they die lost?

 

...actually it was intended as a poke in fun, guess it didn't come across that way in the cyber realm.

 

While Jesus died for the world his earthly ministry was to the Nation of Israel. That was a national election. Not a general election. This is where reformed folks get confused in Romans. Failure to make a distinction between the two leads to all kinds of trouble doctrinally.

 

His OP was presented as an "Arminian" or non-Cal sermon. Thus my response: I have never heard that in any church or preacher where I have been. The same would go for the response. I mentioned that we preach what the gospel is, not what the gospel isn't. In all my years of preaching and teaching, no one has ever responded to the gospel in that way. Conviction of the Holy Spirit doesn't result in questions posed in a Cal/Arm forum.

These may be fair and debatable questions for you. But do they relate to the scenario posed in the OP?
1. Would the typical non-Cal preach that way? No.
2. Would the typical non-Cal audience respond in that way? No.

 

I don't have all the answers, but I do know proof texting when I see it... And above is chalk full of it. It's amazing, when I approached the Scripture with an open mind...and employed proper hermeneutics...the doctrine just crumbled for me. We both now claim the Holy Spirit showed us the truth, yet we are now on opposite sides of the spectrum. Not a problem given free will, but a huge problem if determinism is true as God predestined one of us to believe a lie.

 

Jesus wept over them knowing they remained in rebellion despite God himself preaching to them.
God does not take pleasure in the death of the wicked....but they WOULD not.

 

I believe it was far greater than that.
He wept over the city of Jerusalem.
But on the other hand:

Matthew 11:20 Then he began to denounce the cities in which most of his mighty works had been done, because they didn't repent.

Instead of weeping he denounced cities such as Capernaum, Chorazin, and Bethsaida. In all these cities the inhabitants were Jews. They had all heard Christ. They had all seen His miracles.
The one He wept over; the others he denounced.

I believe he wept because in his divine omniscience (as he also used with Nathan), He saw the future destruction, the human tragedy that was just on the horizon. Some of them would pay a hefty spiritual price, being the leaders of those who would put Christ to death.
The majority would be cruelly slaughtered by the Roman army, and why?
Because they refused him!

 

:thumbs:

:thumbs::applause::thumbsup: