2 Peter 3:9 and Ezekiel 33:11

[Winman]

You like Dr._ach miss the point of Peter.

He is not talking about salvation, he is talking about the return of Christ. That it will not take place until the chance for salvation is over - the last person chosen to be saved is saved.

I do wish that sometime a post by a non-cal person can actually be made without thinking that they have to make attempts at slamming the cals.

It gets old,
And frankly it really cheapens the post.

Once in a while - fine, but prove your point by Scriptures and leave the rest to those lesser in skill.

It still does not make sense. There is no need for God to "suffer" for a single second, as he could cause all the elect to be born at one time and simply regenerate them.

And if God chooses to make the elect be born at different times throughout history, then how is he suffering? He choose to make the elect be born at different times in history. Your view is plain SILLY.

You just don't get it, if God determines all things that come to pass, there is no need for him to suffer. Does God make himself suffer? Ridiculous to say the least.

And slamming Calvinism may get old, but it is FALSE DOCTRINE, and the scriptures say we are to contend for the truth.

Frankly, I get tired of all the falsehood you Calvinists spew out.

 

[Rippon]

It still does not make sense. There is no need for God to "suffer" for a single second, as he could cause all the elect to be born at one time and simply regenerate them.

And if God chooses to make the elect be born at different times throughout history, then how is he suffering? He choose to make the elect be born at different times in history. Your view is plain SILLY.

You just don't get it, if God determines all things that come to pass, there is no need for him to suffer. Does God make himself suffer? Ridiculous to say the least.

And slamming Calvinism may get old, but it is FALSE DOCTRINE, and the scriptures say we are to contend for the truth.

Frankly, I get tired of all the falsehood you Calvinists spew out.

All I have to say(in a paraphrased form) to you is what Paul said to his imagined antagonist:"Who do you think you are; you mere human? You are only a piece of clay that the potter can form any way He so desires.

 

[agedman]

It still does not make sense. There is no need for God to "suffer" for a single second, as he could cause all the elect to be born at one time and simply regenerate them.

And if God chooses to make the elect be born at different times throughout history, then how is he suffering? He choose to make the elect be born at different times in history. Your view is plain SILLY.

You just don't get it, if God determines all things that come to pass, there is no need for him to suffer. Does God make himself suffer? Ridiculous to say the least.

And slamming Calvinism may get old, but it is FALSE DOCTRINE, and the scriptures say we are to contend for the truth.

Frankly, I get tired of all the falsehood you Calvinists spew out.

Longsuffering - means that He is willing to put up with the silly and selfishness of humankind.

It doesn't mean God is suffering as in pain.

In this case suffering means patient.

About the Cal comments:

Your view that some systematic theological viewpoint in which you disagree is false is is in fact merely your opinion.

I have no problem with you contending for the truth.

I am encouraging you to combat untruth with the clear truth of Scriptures and Scriptural principles.

If you consider that a view spews "falsehood" attack the falsehood not the label.

Occasionally, you will find in my posts a label, but I do try to communicate without the assignment of a certain theological system. The exception are posts that are Palagianistic in doctrine. Thankfully there are very few of them to which I respond.

 

[Winman]

Longsuffering - means that He is willing to put up with the silly and selfishness of humankind.

I do not think willing is the right word, God tolerates and suffers men to sin. God is not willing for any man to sin.

It doesn't mean God is suffering as in pain.

Yes it does, back in Noah's day God was so grieved he decided to destroy men off the face of the earth.

In this case suffering means patient.

Yes, but it also means to suffer.

About the Cal comments:

Your view that some systematic theological viewpoint in which you disagree is false is is in fact merely your opinion.

I would say that someday you are going to discover that God disagrees with it also. Time will tell.

I have no problem with you contending for the truth.

As if you could stop me.

I am encouraging you to combat untruth with the clear truth of Scriptures and Scriptural principles.

What a laugh, I constantly show scripture to support my positions and to refute Calvinism. Most Calvinists quote creeds like the Westminster Confession of Faith.

If you consider that a view spews "falsehood" attack the falsehood not the label.

I do, I have shown numerous scriptures in this thread alone that all support faith preceding regeneration.

Occasionally, you will find in my posts a label, but I do try to communicate without the assignment of a certain theological system. The exception are posts that are Palagianistic in doctrine. Thankfully there are very few of them to which I respond.

I don't care if you call me a Pelagian. I personally do not know exactly what Pelagius believed, and I seriously doubt you do either.

I know what I believe and I am not afraid of being called a name. There is a difference between saying something is a falsehood and showing scripture that demonstrates it as I do, compared to calling a person a name like Pelagian, especially when I doubt you know a thing about the man.

The little I have read of Pelagius I see he was misrepresented. He absolutely believed man needed the grace of God to be saved as I also do.

 

[Winman]

All I have to say(in a paraphrased form) to you is what Paul said to his imagined antagonist:"Who do you think you are; you mere human? You are only a pice of clay that the potter can form any way He so desires.

Have you ever gone back in the OT to see what Paul was referencing? He was speaking of Jeremiah 18 where God is speaking of NATIONS, not individuals. God said that if he has spoken of a nation to tear it down, if they repent, he would repent of the evil he intended toward them.

God also said if he had spoken of a nation to build it up, if they sin against him, he would repent of the good he had intended toward them.

So, this absolutely refutes UNCONDITIONAL ELECTION. Paul is explaining in Romans 9 that Israel is being rejected for unbelief, while the Gentiles are being accepted because they are believing the gospel.

If you knew your scriptures you would know Paul is actually refuting Calvinism.

But you fellas don't know scripture, you know the man-made doctrine of Calvinism.

 

[Wherever You Go]

"Six blind men of samrkand, debated loud and long, though each was partly in the right, and all were in the wrong."

Rudyard Kipling