Search results

Of course God has sovereign entitlement to have mercy upon whom He has mercy and none should question His sovereign authority. That is not what I'm pointing to as the contradiction at all - I'm referring to God's nature being inconsistent. Can God desire against His own preceding counsel? This...

I'm sure there are many differences in doctrinal interpretations between the calvinists and the others - but I do not term each one a contradiction. It is a contradiction only if it is internally inconsistent with what the calvinists themselves hold as seen in Scriptures, not when others find it...

I hold to the penal view myself. I just don't causatively associate penal view with the wrath of God needing to be appeased. It comes down to semantics probably. When you use the words "appeasement" of "God's wrath" - it implies that God is set in a direction opposed to us in wrath until Christ...

I believe the same. I just don't see it as an "Instead..". Which is why I'm confused over what the exact difference is between our positions... But that is contained in your beliefs above when you say men must still die to the flesh, right? Rom 3:31, Gal 3:13, Rom 6:23 etc. do talk about God...

Well quite obviously it is, even if it was just my own view :) I'm asking how does this contradict your position? What is keeping you from adopting this yourself? Because all you stated is already covered by what I stated and then some more, right?

Given Rom 3:26, why can't God still be the object of Christ's atoning work via upholding His righteousness in His favoring the sinner Himself, instead of via appeasement? This continues to keep the central focus on God while still requiring a change in man but without implying God's attitude...

Definitely cannot read your mind. You seemed to say there was confusion in the usage of the word 'saved' and that you considered the notion of a person who's saved and then perishes as nonsense. I quoted Jude 1:5 which says just that explicitly. You obviously don't hold Scriptures to be nonsense...

1. Shouldn't we present the Gospel without any guile or deceit? When addressing a crowd you're preaching to, does "our" refer to the "we + you" or just the "we"? Why intentionally lead them to believe the former while actually meaning the latter? 2. This is self-evident - that one cannot...

But God doesn't lack such perfect knowledge. When any preacher worth his salt preaches the Gospel, He essentially is passing on God's command - appealing, on behalf of God, a message ratified by God. In effect, God Himself is making a promise to the listener that if he repented and believed in...

I don't see such a black and white differential in God's dealing with the elect and non-elect in Scriptures. I too believe only the elect are saved and that God has purposed specifically only for the elect to be used as vessels of honor in whom He Himself would operate and use as His...

By differentiating between the Limited Atonement and the Universal Offer of Redemption at the cross. 1. Atonement must factor in and include all the believers' sins, even those committed in the future from when Jesus died on the cross, yes? 2. If Atonement factors in the future till the end of...

Don't you find this problematic at all, even in the slightest? Let's break it down to actually get to conclusions - 1. If you can't tell people Jesus's sacrifice on the cross is an offer to them, particularly and specifically, for redemption so they repent and live - then from Rom 5:8, you...

Jud 1:5 I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once knew this, how that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not. Shouldn't we instead qualify with more precision what one is being saved from and what one is being saved...

Then by definition I wouldn't categorize such a doctrine as indisputable. Do you think one Christian could hold Jesus as God to be an indisputable truth while another can hold it as disputable?

I don't think that was what was being implied there. I read it as simply us having to discern between what is indisputable biblical revelation vs what we ourselves infer from such truths through our subjective human reasoning. Using your language, one should die on the sword on upholding say...

These have been raised against calvinism, right? Contradictions have been pointed out in calvinism and each time this is done by a person holding to a different belief system, calvinists point out a contradiction in that other belief system and go "but what about that?". Not having alternatives...

Ask yourself, why is that? Because calvinism cannot deny the truth of God's individual predestination of the elect to salvation and arminianism cannot deny the truth of God conditionally desiring the non-elect to repent and live. The problem arises in an illogical parallelism drawn by both...

If I've missed out on anything in the summary, it wasn't intentional. If any of the points above warrant re-discussing, I can try linking to posts that already have covered ground and discussion can proceed from there, adding to that here.

Points raised against Double Predestination: 1. How are Hebrews 6, 10, 2Pet 2 falling away from repentance and truth with no more sacrifice or renewal possible explained? No conclusive responses yet. 2. What of the contradiction seen in God desiring the non-elect to repent and live which is...

Other related points discussed: 1. Defining Mercy and Grace - Does God extend grace to the non-elect. Yes, conditionally, given His supernatural work in the non-elect in Heb 3,6,10, 2Pet2 and king Saul 1Sam 10. 2. Defining heart, spirit, mind etc. - no conclusions. This would require a separate...