Certainly a Calvinist believes that God loves even the non-elect. He just loves them differently. I love my own children different than the children of my friends, and I'd assume you do to.
I would have to say you don't follow the threads very closely then. There are several on here that disagree
INCLUDING DR. BOB who attributes telling sinners God loves them to Oral Roberts (now if THAT isn't an insult to a BAPTIST I don't know what is).
As a Greek student, you know very well that certain terms define a different type of affection shown as love. I may only
eros my wife, and
phileo my friends, but I
agape EVERYONE. Matthew 5:42-43 makes quite a disctinction between love and hate. When Jesus says "love your enemies" what word is He using? Now why would Jesus tell us to
agape our enemies if He Himself doesn't? You and most Calvinists use the "rain on the just" which has nothing do with evidence of a particular love for all, and is not equated with the very love that God told us to have toward those who are unsaved or "non elect" if you will. There is no evidence that God loves the sinner differently. The very fact that Calvinists point to "rain on the just and the unjust" actually proves the opposite-that He loves both EQUALLY. His love may be DEMONSTRATED more after a person is saved, but the status of person does not alter the QUALITY of God's love.
Nevertheless, you are taking your own thoughts and assumptions about a caricature of Calvinism and applying them universally to everyone who has a reformed soteriology. That's dishonest. And when we tell you about it, you try to convince us that you know better than we ourselves what we believe. That's just small, and quite repugnant.
No it isn't dishonest. Some Calvinists (like Pink and Dr. Bob) admit it, the others who don't (Packer) admit that they will tell others God doesn't love them, even though they don't believe that. Common sense tells you that if God COULD HAVE determined that all people freely worship Him, but only chose SOME, and then damned the rest, He did so because He WANTED TO, and if He wanted to, that is a clear indication that He does not love everybody. That's not a caricature, that's a simple rationale deduction from Calvinist stated beliefs.
And so now all Calvinists are racist because of the actions of one person?
Now who's building caricatures? Where did I say ALL Calvinists are racist because I pointed out the examples a bunch who have displayed it? Not only did I not say ALL Calvinists are racist, I even NAMED NAMES of those who are. I never broad-brushed Calvinists as a whole with that label. I applied it specifically to those who deserved it.
Oh...you mean like calling all Calvinists "determinists" or giving hearty approval to those that do? Even after we've said time and time again that we are not determinists by your fatalistic definition and that your definition of us as fatalistic was pejorative, defamatory, etc.?
Really Arch??? Really?? You equate someone's theological accusation of a BELIEF to a PERSONAL RACIST ATTACK?? Come on, I'd like to be able to give you more credit than that.
The Westminster Confession (and all the Confessions) and most Calvinists on here hold that "God from before eternity past hath determined ALL THINGS whatsoever cometh to pass" THAT'S DETERMINISM. When you claim that God controls and causes all things to happen simply because He foreknows that they will happen including storms, rape, murder, that is DETERMINISM. You may not like the implications but it is nevertheless and implication that can reasonably be deduced from stated beliefs by Calvinists, particularly when there creeds use "determine"
specifically.
When something so asinine is stated as "fact" and "proven" trying to refute it only lends credence to it--Pearls before swine; fools and their folly.
Here is a perfect example of someone who summarily brushes off someones research and pejoratively attacking that character of the person providing the information. You say "trying to refute it only lends credence to it" but yet you used it as an example of my attributing something false to Calvinism which is not a complete defense against what I wrote, but is nevertheless a defense.
Yes. Non-Cals are treated differently, and it is by a wide margin.
Could have save a lot of time and ink by starting with that.
It isn't that I don't care for your views, I don't. But, non-Calvinist theology in the vein of what is commonly referred to as "Arminianism" is still orthodox. Some of the people I admire most in the faith are not Calvinists and I long for the day when I am as "good" a Christian as they are.
And I have said the same about many Calvinists that I am friends with but those who erroneously accuse me of hating Calvinists dismiss that. My college textbook on systematic theology was by a Calvinist (Wayne Grudem). All of my counseling textbooks were by Calvinists (Jay Adams, Jim Newheiser). On my website, I spent several weeks organizing the KJV articles of Will Kinney and have
his site posted on my website and he is a die-hard Calvinist. Also on my website is a referral for those seeking counseling that is
linked to the IBCD who are distinctly Calvinist.
Thus the accusation that I "hate" Calvinists is absurd.
No, I'll tell you what I don't like...I don't like that you think poking your fingers in the eyes of those who disagree with you is your spiritual gift and your responsibility. Being a burr under the saddle of your opponents and being adversarial to everyone with whom you disagree or everyone who dares disagree with you is not the mark of a believer in Christ (and yet we all demonstrate, from time to time, those things that call into question our faith in Christ). And, for the record, I did not nor am I questioning your salvation.
I believe in earnestly contending for the faith that was once delivered unto the saints. I do not believe Calvinism has any Biblical or historical support in a large majority of it's doctrines, and believe it is a dangerous doctrine that assaults the character of God, hampers evangelism and discourages believers about assurance of salvation. Jesus said if any man will do his will he shall know of the doctrine, and to mark them which cause division contrary to the gospel we have been taught. That requires me to defend what I believe as well as expose and refute false doctrine. I don't enjoy arguing with people, I do it because it is an important role of any believer that is part of the body of Christ facing a world that is blown about with every wind of doctrine.
Certainly there are times when harsh words are all that are left. Even Jesus had very harsh words for the Pharisees. Paul used harsh words. But, harsh words spoken in love, do not bear the marks of your postings here. You always play the martyr and you are always the pariah. You seem to operate under the idea that it is your mission in life to pull splinters out of the eyes of others regardless of what may be in your own eyes.
And this is just as hypocritical as what you accuse me of. I have shown several cases where the those who oppose me have instigated the issues, and thus not only am I NOT a pariah, it would be erroneous of you to say that I am ALWAYS playing the martyr and ALWAYS the pariah. Did you not accuse me of such broad-brushing of ALL Calvinists on the matter of racism? But yet you feel comfortable in broad-brushing claims of being a pariah when I have clearly demonstrated the disparaging treatment of Non Calvinists on here, and have backed up everyone of my accusations with facts, and links where statements can be found. You seem to validate the harsh words spoken by those who oppose Non Calvinists, but call me a pariah if I fight back.
You seem to operate under the idea that it is your mission in life to pull splinters out of the eyes of others
Is that not what you are attempting to do right now?? I don't recall you being very cordial with Van when you attempted to correct his analysis of a Greek text. You accused him of possessing everything but a brain and he isn't the only one.
I am far from perfect, and have often admitted to some responses that could have been tailored better. But I will not give in to false humility either by simple admitting to conduct that I have not always been guilty of just so that I can demonstrate a balanced explanation of equal culpability. I did not come to this forum with a "chip on my shoulder" and certainly did not draw first blood. I will not be apologize for what I believe and will not receive accusations to those things that I am not guilty of.
