Featured The Millions Who Never Had a Choice

Too bad there is no poor grammar button.

 

God is limited in spreading the gospel because he depends on we Christians to spread the gospel. We know this from the words of Christ at the ascension, the Great Commissioni:

If all have not heard of Christ it is to our shame, not God's. Christians are his representatives, his ambassadors on earth.

That is why I answered as I did in another thread. Somehow God will make it just for them in somehow giving them a choice. Also, as I said in the other thread I do not know how God will accomplish this. But I believe God is perfectly just and will make a choice available to these folk.

Will all accept? No.
Why? Because not everyone who hears chooses to accept him.

Blessings.

 

"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!" (Matt 23:37)

Actually it is Calvinism which places limits on the precious atonement of Jesus Christ. Making Jesus' sacrifice un-sufficient to cover the whole world as the Scriptures declare...

"And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world". (1Jo 2:2)

The "impotent God" complaint is purely out of frustration and ignorance of Scripture. If it makes God impotent to give man a free will choice then Calvinist are forced to lay this charge on themselves as well, seeing how Calvinist will agree Adam was given a freewill choice. Unless of course you believe God made Adam choose sin.

 

The Calvinist on this board seems to have difficulty seeing the theological reality, implications and problems of their position.

 

"For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:" (Ro 1:20)

 

You have not been here long. There are some Calvinist on here who do quite well at hurling insults in about every response. I agree though it must be because they have no defense for their position.

 

I take the 'quite shockingly' statement as sarcasm, which can only mean this is his normal mode. People get into that mode, and only God can bring them out of it as they are blinded thinking they are in the right. It is what John referred to as 'walking in darkness' (1 John 1:6) and Paul called 'works of the flesh' (Galatians 5:19-21). Nothing the OP said was arrogant whatsoever, so the accusation is unfounded and untrue. It is a commentary on his heart from where the false accusation originated.

 

Really? Have you not read many of the constant personal attacks by Calvinist here? Icon and TC are top offenders. So I guess they are walking in darkness....

RevM wasn't quoting anything from the OP. It was a comment made afterwards.

 

Not all free will people believe it takes the gospel preached to convict a person of their sin's. Many believe the Spirit works alone in the conviction of a sinner. Also Rom 1:20 is heavily relied upon. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse.

 

What evidence do you have for the comment on Icon and TC as I would like to see it? Perhaps you are correct, and if they are what you said then Scriptures would apply to them just as it certainly applies to rm in this instance. Maybe you can send a pm if you wish, showing the accusations you've made of the two brothers? There must be ample evidence according to your accusation.

By the way, I was referring to what rm said in post #28, where he quoted the OP as in Original Poster so I use OP in two ways.

 

Really all you have to do is go to their pages and read their responses to different threads in the Calvinism debates. That's all I will do to send you some quotes. I will look up some of them if you want and PM you.

RM quoted post #27, not the OP.

 

OK, thanks. Again I am speaking of what rm said in post 28. Are you not getting it that I stated he didn't quote the 'Original Post' but the 'Original Poster' when he made slander? It's quite plain brother but you've missed it altogether.

 

You mean, brother, just how others are bickering, or how you are bickering here as well, and elsewhere in this thread? Or, are only others considered as 'childish' and 'fools'? In my opinion you're acting out of control here with your tongue via the keyboard. Get a grip and apply your own words to yourself.

Concerning your OP there is no good answer to come forth from the Arminian camp, and quite frankly the OP is question begging. I get it, you get it, their theology is amiss and inconsistent.

 

I do not know if you saw my earlier post today. I answered as well as I could at the moment. You are right about people clogging up the thread. It is a habit with some folk to throw in meaningless one-liners, to accuse, to insult without and regard for the topic. When I jointed the BB a number of years ago I thought that people would have thought-out, meaningful discussions. Does not happen much. Seems there are those here who have no realization that people can disagree and yet be rational and polite.

I am with you on stricter moderation. There are folk listed as moderators who have not appeared on the board for years. Seem to me they should be replaced with people who do come here often and who can discern rational discussion from insults and fog.

Anyway, scroll up to my earlier post today and maybe you and I can have a rational discussion. It wold be refreshing to do so.

Blessings.

p.s. I am curious to see the insults and one-liners this response will bring froth.

 

[QUOTE="Internet Theologian, post: 2183191, member: 12590" Concerning your OP there is no good answer to come forth from the Arminian camp, and quite frankly the OP is question begging. I get it, you get it, their theology is amiss and inconsistent.[/QUOTE]

Please enlighten us on what is amiss and inconsistent. Thanks.

 

Oh I get it now! Sorry, usually when someone types OP they are referring to the Original Post. Yes, I was missing that part.