Search results

He said, "The Hyper-Calvinists will argue that God has no desire whatsoever that all men be saved." But, you are correct that he goes on to explain what he believes the difference in that statement and the statement regarding God not desiring to save the reprobate as it relates to...

P4T, with all due respect brother, you keep diverting the topic to needless quibbling. I just read through the thread and Ben was clearly saying that if their is a love of God for reprobates that it must be "full of darkness." Which I take to mean that this kind of "love" only leads to a life...

On this point, I can understand the need to draw a distinction in God's common love and his salvific love unique to the elect. I'm fine with that, but this encompasses more than that. It also covers the genuine expressed desire of God for the salvation of all people.

I conceded the difference in our soteriological views on election from the beginning brother. We are talking about God love (or what you might label "common grace") AND his desire for all to be saved. MacArthur affirms these biblical truths as do mainstream and historical Calvinists... (see...

I didn't think you were, which is why I made the "maverick" jest. :) I want you, Icon, and others to understand that the view your are exposing is really more in line with what some might call "Hyper-Calvinism." Here is an article written by respected Reformed author John Hendryx, titled "The...

I refuse to quibble with you again brother. I am OBVIOUSLY saying that this is common ground in the mainstream views of Calvinism and Arminianism, but not always here on the BB and thus I'm asking if it can be. Enough said, let's discuss the subject of the thread now, thanks.

As Piper's article explains, both Arminians and Calvinists must answer this question, but the answer is different. To deny the love and desire of God for all to be saved is only an attempt to avoid the complexity of this unavoidable question.

Allow me to also quote this from the article in the OP: "Those same truths, reflecting a biblical balance, have been vigorously defended by a host of Reformed stalwarts, including Thomas Boston, John Brown, Andrew Fuller, W. G. T. Shedd, R. L. Dabney, B. B. Warfield, John Murray, R. B. Kuiper...

Your statements either suggests: 1. These men don't really believe what I claim they believe (yet the link is provided for you to view the context for yourself) Or 2. These men may believe that, but you are not bound to them. (in which case, I never said you were, I only mentioned them to...

I think we were both thinking of the same type of Liberal. :laugh:

That's fine as long as you acknowledge this views stands in contrast to those quoted in the OP including Calvin himself, not to mention the texts of scripture that have gone unanswered.

Actually, I know it to be common ground for most mainstream Calvinists, but not necessarily all those who post here on the BB. I thought I made that point clear? As Piper says, "...God wills not to save all, even though he is willing to save all, because there is something else that he wills...

That is fine, so long you are aware that your view is not the view of most mainstream Calvinists. Knowing you, I doubt that will matter much. You've always been somewhat of a maverick. :) I say that as a compliment, not in derision. I put this post here for those who might care what other...

That is the way I took it. Thanks for clearing that up. :thumbs:

Too often here on the BB I hear Calvinistic believers argue against the view that God indeed does love all people and desires for all to be saved. I created this thread to refer back to each time this point is brought up so as to show this is not the view of scripture or even many classical...

The type of "liberal" I just can't understand are the ones who: 1. ...will violently protest the choice of people to kill animals and will protect the eggs of rare owls or eagles at all cost, but with the same passion fight to allow women to kill their unborn babies under the guise of...

Guys, I can't speak for Winman, but the context of our discussion had nothing to do with Satan blinding Calvinists. We were just talking about God using Satan to blind people in general. I think you maybe reading something into his post that is not intended.

I agree, I'm just wondering why a Calvinist would believe this considering everyone is born totally blind from birth.

So now any view about a particular passage that differs from your interpretation is dismissed as a "rabbit trail" and changing subjects? :confused: I think our conversation has run its course. Have a great day.

How is it a "different subject" when that is what we have been discussing? You are using the passages which speak of Paul being set apart from birth as proof that all saved people are likewise hand selected in the same manner and I'm asking you to show me where in the passage it makes that...