-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
For Clarification...
- Thread starter CJC
- Start date
You have asked a question that often gets defined in different ways by different people. I will say that Calvinism in short believes God elects some to be saved and He elects some to not be saved. God "effectually" saves the elect with not option to choose. The choosing is imposed on the elect.
Arminianism believes that salvation is genuinely offered to everyone and that people have the freedom to choose to accept it or not. They also believe one can lose their salvation.
The latter is often a catch all label for Calvinists for anyone who does not believe as they do.
The truth is that you may fall into one category or the other or you may not identify with either.
This is not a black and white issue.
Nope. That is Hyper Calvinism.
I'm sorry but the idea that there is a general call and an effectual call is exactly the same thing.
The point was, and is, that you claim double predestination to be main line Calvinism. It isn't. In fact the Canons of Dordt go out of their way to deny double predestination.
The majority position would not be into a Double, but a single predestination as referring only to the elect in Christ.
Actually, most Calvinists hold that God predestined and choose out His elect among the lost directly, and permitted all the rest to go their way.
Same difference
Not really, as double predestined a lot different than single one is!
What some of you are calling singe predestination is effectually double. If God chooses to lust leave them to their own devices then He is predestined them. To say He "permitted all the rest to go their way" is the exact same thing. Unless there is a genuine offer of salvation rather than just a mythical general (disingenuous) call then they have in fact been predestined to hell. I find attempt to make a distinction lacks integrity.
Either one has been offered a genuine call to salvation or one is predestined to hell. There is no other option.
No. It's not.
No, He hasn't. Man is a sinner and condemned by his own choice. The election of God is decretal. And always positive. Always.
No, it is not.
There is. As we have told you time and time again.
I find the refusal to see the truth as lacking integrity.
A genuine offer is made. And all are already lost. God had nothing to do with it. You can't blame mankind's sin on God!
Yes it is. Choosing not to save them or leaving them to their sin. Same thing.
God chose to save those who were condemned in sin. The rest were already condemned.
If God is sinning by not choosing to save everyone, then He is sinning by choosing to only save believers. He could save them, but He chooses not to, so it is His fault they go to hell because He chose to only save those who believe.
It seems to me you have exactly the same problem. God could save all. He chose not to save all. It is His fault those He did not choose are in Hell.
I don't think so.
Again, show me ONE time in the bible that election or predestination is to a negative consequence. Just ONE.
I didn't say that nor imply it. Not sure where that came from.
I am pointing to the fact that your objection to election also applies to believing.
If God chooses to only save the elect, and passes over the non-elect, you say He predestined the non-elect to hell. The same holds true to belief. If God chooses to only save believers, and passes over non-believers, He, according to you, has predestined the non-believers to hell.
You can't have it both ways. Either God is able to save all and is free to chose according to the good pleasure of His will, or He is incapable of saving all.
Do not listen to RM...he does not understand it...
read this instead;
The 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith
Calvinism vs Arminianism – Comparison Chart | Grace Online Library
"Rm
Why does RM always get it wrong ?, let's look-
Here he tries to apply his own thinking to the issue, however he disregards years of study of the issue, he simply discounts it...saying
[is effectually double]...
Next he ignores the biblical use of the term predestined, as if there are multitudes who wanted to trust Jesus, but somehow they are not allowed
Why does RM always get it wrong ?, let's look-
.
Here he tries to apply his own thinking to the issue, however he disregards years of study of the issue, he simply discounts it...saying
[is effectually double]...
.
Next he ignores the biblical use of the term predestined, as if there are multitudes who wanted to trust Jesus, but somehow they are not allowed
No it is clearly different
this exists only in the mind of RM
And there you have it...Rm's blueprint for error.