Bobby talks to his Pastor about God.

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Actually, not yet. They prefer the psychic to come in but you never know!!

Palm readings? Or is it that LI lady Bravo your referencing? :tongue3::thumbs:

 

[DrJamesAch]

Van

I have been thinking about this pithy question, and frankly I am stumped. Not saying something means nothing was said, about anything even the sky color. Saying a person said the sky was blue, when he said it was not blue, does not change the color of the sky. Best I can do Ann.

This depends on how one understands perceptions, actual reality, and the laws of contradiction.

If I said that the sky is blue and then said that the sky is NEVER blue, that is an explicit contradiction.

If I said that the sky is blue, and then said sky is not blue, that is an apparent contradiction but it can be explained because of surrounding circumstances like the sky turns black at night time, or turns red during bad weather (Matt 16:2).

The only exception to the first analogy is for a person that is color blind or has a vision problem that confuses colors. THAT person can honestly say, "the sky is not blue" because he truly can not see the correct color of the sky. But the argument does not alter the truth about the sky, the problem isn't the sky, it's the physical ailment the person suffers from.

What the Calvinist does it load statements among explicit contradictions. The Calvinist view of the love of God is a perfect example where the Calvinists claim that God makes a "Bona Fide Offer" of salvation to the all sinners, and that God offers Himself in good faith.

CORE CALVINISM:

1. Only those elected can actually accept the offer of salvation
2. Not all are elect
3. Not all persons can actually accept the offer of salvation and be saved.

[Bona Fide Offer]

4. God makes a bona fide offer to all persons
5. A bona fide effort is an offer that can actually be accepted by the person to whom it is offered
6. All persons can actually accept the offer of salvation and be saved.

The bona fide offer MUST conclude that all persons can accept the offer, which leads to the conclusion that all persons can (not will) accept the offer and be saved. Number 6 is a blatant and explicit contradiction with Number 3.

This in turn forces Calvinists to explain terms ambigously by flip flopping between compatibalist and libertarian views of freedom.

John Calvin:

"There is the general call, by which God invites all equally to Himself through the outward preaching of the word-even to those to whom He holds it out as a savor of death and as the occasion of severer condemnation. The other kind of call is special which he designs for the most part to give to the believer alone..yet sometimes he also causes those whom he illumines only for a time to partake of it; and then he justly forsakes them on account of their ungratefulness and strikes them with even greater blindness" -Institutes 3.24.8

God COULD HAVE determined those under the general call to have responded, but yet does not so that He may punish them MORE SEVERELY. So the Calvinist here ascribes LIBERTARIAN FREEDOM to the reprobate sinner in his rejection of the gospel, and compatibalist freedom when attempting to demonstrate that those whom receive the special call can not resist the grace of God.

CALVINISM MAINTAINS CREDIBILITY BY BIFURCATING BETWEEN TERMS OF THE UNIVERSAL LOVE OF GOD THAT THEIR THEOLOGY DOES NOT SUPPORT.

As Calvinist DA Carson points out,

"When I have preached in Reformed circles, I have often been asked the question, 'do you feel free to tell unbelievers that God loves them?' ...OF COURSE I tell them that God loves them"

No Calvinist can be honest to their theology, and tell any unconverted sinner that God loves them with a straight face, and that is THE biggest problem with Calvinism is their total distorted view of the nature of God. The Calvinist explains the universal love of God in terms of "the rain falls on the just and the unjust" as if MATERIAL BLESSINGS compared to ETERNAL DAMNATION proves the love of God.

"Hey sinner, God sends rain on your land and he says whosoever will may come even though you must be elect to be saved. If you want to come you can, but you won't want to come because you're not elect".

As Walls points out in his analogy:

"A scientist holds an experiment for 30 years where he gives them money, the best food, the best living arrangements, and then at the end of those 30 years gives them a chemical that kills them. Did he REALLY love them?"

Calvinists deceitfully tell sinners God loves them in a manner that they will understand when the Calvinist does not truly believe that God loves them.

Calvinism vacillates between things that God COULD do, but does not define the character of God in terms of what God WOULD do. Instead of asking "How would a God of perfect love express His sovereignty?" the Calvinist asks, "How does a sovereign God love?"

Calvinism views God in primary terms of sovereignty. However, sovereignty implies Kingship, and God was not ruling over anyone before He created anything. But before God created anything and was therefore sovereign over, there was love among the 3 persons of the Trinity. The nature of a perfect loving God can not WANT and DESIRE the damnation of sinners for eternity. God COULD HAVE made the "effectual" call to ALL, but according to Calvinism, He didn't WANT to and that is a fundamental gross caricature of the very nature of God.

 

[annsni]

We're from Florida...."Yacht clubs" are a Connecticut thing, I think.

We've stayed at the Marathon Yacht Club, Braedenton Yacht Club and the Naples Yacht Club so it's a Florida thing too.

 

[Van]

]Interesting how I don't see proof of YOUR statements here. Just your assertion that it was wrong - and yet no support for what you are saying.

If a person makes an avalanche of charges, as Iconoclast did, without evidence, to then find fault with simply denying those manufactured and false slanders is without merit.

So Christ died for all. Why do people go to hell?

Why did you not quote the response from the OP. Why simply ask question and not provide answers supported from scripture.

Here is the answer from the OP,

"Bobby, as I explained already, Christ dying for everyone provides the means of salvation for everyone, but in order to receive the reconciliation, we must trust in and be devoted to Christ, and then God keeps His covenant of love and has mercy on us."

Next, inexplicably, Ann posts this which simply and once more ignores the answers provided in the OP.

Yes, praise God that Christ died while we were still sinners and was our propitiation. But if He was the propitiation for the whole world, why do people go to hell?

Hi Ann, what did the OP say? Why now have you asked two questions, both answered in the OP. What is the purpose of your post? To suggest God did not so love the world. That Christ did not become the propitiation not only for us, but also for the whole world. It is hard to answer a question when you do not address the prior answer to the same question.

Does, not all people receive the reconciliation ring a bell?

Note the punctuation. It does not say, "Does'nt "all people receive the reconciliation ring a bell?"

Here is how Ann responded:

If all people receive reconciliation, why do they go to hell?

Dumbfounded, I respond:

Why do you think not all receive reconciliation means all receive reconciliation? Are you trying to manufacture a charge of universalism, or is it you simply misread the quote?

The response was to move the comma and add a quotation mark, from "does, not all people receive the reconciliation....", to "does not, "all people receive the reconciliation...."

 

[annsni]

Here is the answer from the OP,

Next, inexplicably, Ann posts this which simply and once more ignores the answers provided in the OP.



Note the punctuation. It does not say, "Does'nt "all people receive the reconciliation ring a bell?"

Here is how Ann responded:

Dumbfounded, I respond:


The response was to move the comma and add a quotation mark, from "does, not all people receive the reconciliation....", to "does not, "all people receive the reconciliation...."

Which is how I read your statement. Your punctuation in "does, not all people receive the reconciliation" is incorrect so I had to figure out what you were saying. So I figured wrong. I apologized. You won't accept it?

 

[Winman]

Does not saying the sky is blue mean it's blue?

This question shows how important inflection in language is, and because it can be difficult to express inflection in written language that misunderstanding and errors can occur.

This question could be understood to ask;

#1 Isn't it true, that saying the sky is blue means it is blue?

Or,

#2 If you do not say the sky is blue, does that mean it is blue?

To get #1 you must put stress or inflection on the word "saying".

Does not SAYING the sky is blue mean it's blue?

To get #2 you must put stress or inflection on the word "not"

Does NOT saying the sky is blue mean it's blue?

This shows how two people reading the same sentence can come to completely different understandings. One puts stress or inflection on one word, while another reader puts stress or inflection on another word. Sometimes this happens by accident, but often by being taught or conditioned.

 

[annsni]

This question shows how important inflection in language is, and because it can be difficult to express inflection in written language that misunderstanding and errors can occur.

This question could be understood to ask;

#1 Isn't it true, that saying the sky is blue means it is blue?

Or,

#2 If you do not say the sky is blue, does that mean it is blue?

To get #1 you must put stress or inflection on the word "saying".

Does not SAYING the sky is blue mean it's blue?

To get #2 you must put stress or inflection on the word "not"

Does NOT saying the sky is blue mean it's blue?

This shows how two people reading the same sentence can come to completely different understandings. One puts stress or inflection on one word, while another reader puts stress or inflection on another word. Sometimes this happens by accident, but often by being taught or conditioned.

Or the fact that "does not" can be shortened to "doesn't". When you put "doesn't" into the sentence in question, it says an entirely different thing.

 

[Winman]

Or the fact that "does not" can be shortened to "doesn't". When you put "doesn't" into the sentence in question, it says an entirely different thing.

Jerry Lewis understood the importance of inflection, his character the Nutty Professor was based on it. I would laugh my head off whenever he would speak in this movie, but at first I did not understand why he was so funny. Finally I realized that he masterfully put stress or inflection on all the wrong words. Genius!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FPlua9W7H6c

 

[Iconoclast]

Inspector Javert

I hate cats....any "REAL" man hates all cats, Icon, and you know this

correct

.....That being said, My wife DID take in such a beast, and it happens to be the case that that damnable CAT LOVES :love2: and adores ME!!! such that I can't discard the beast. It became "MY" cat....even though I hate the animal....that's how cats work.

yuch

Here's where you AREN'T so "SMART"
I NEVER SAID you weren't "SMART"....nor did I charge you with it. So, your feigned humility game is called:

You are over thinking this...

3 For I say, through the grace given unto me, to every man that is among you, not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think; but to think soberly, according as God hath dealt to every man the measure of faith.

If you knew them...you would have already employed their wisdom to rejoinder me.

I call your bluff. I don't believe that you are familiar with such persons.

You can believe what you want.What you read in historical works and other reading is not my concern....you are a steward of your time before God.
It is no bluff...that is not how I roll.lol

I am familiar with the writings of quite an ingenius Calvinist or two myself, and I STILL reject their conclusions.

I am not talking just of some writings...but I am saying to you I know these men as in speak or correspond with them a bit. That you reject these truths is another matter.:wavey:

I've read MANY a Calvinist rejoinder to any position I hold...and they haven't convinced me yet. I'm not ignorant of Calvinist Theology or Polemic Icon.........I've simply got an answer for ANYTHING they GOT!!!

I am sure you think you do...I am sure you do not however.

I don't believe you, and I call your bluff.

Why would you not believe me? You should know better by now.

I ask you officially, and publically to arrange a public internet debate betwixt myself and these geniuses whom you claim can "blow me out of the water". I don't think so. I think I can handle anything you got......

:laugh: Well it seems to me that you have your hands full with us lesser lights right here...lol. these men are writing books, systematic theologies, pastoring churches , visiting nursing homes, prison ministry ,etc.

Many of them do not like this format of getting down and dirty as we sometimes do. If there was a serious issue, I would prevail upon one or more of them but I would not have a clear conscience to drag them into what happens on here, until this BB gets cleaned up of much of the nonsense being posted. I respect them and their ministry too much to trouble them with things that we are already dealing with.
Frankly I would sort of be embarrassed at some of what is posted here,as I find it profane at times
:thumbsup:

 

[preacher4truth]

IJ says:

I ask you officially, and publically <sic> to arrange a public internet debate betwixt myself and these geniuses whom you claim can "blow me out of the water". I don't think so. I think I can handle anything you got......

HoS, you've already blown out of the water here on BB. None of your answers are answers, they're instead misunderstandings of Scripture.

 

[DrJamesAch]

IJ says:



HoS, you've already blown out of the water here on BB. None of your answers are answers, they're instead misunderstandings of Scripture.

Wow, never heard that one before. That's original. Someone should make a bumper sticker out of that

 

[Van]

Which is how I read your statement. Your punctuation in "does, not all people receive the reconciliation" is incorrect so I had to figure out what you were saying. So I figured wrong. I apologized. You won't accept it?

Sorry Ann, I either missed, i.e. did not read your post 100, or I misread it. Now you know why it is frustrating for someone to ignore a single post, let alone several of them, including the OP.

 

[saturneptune]

Wow, never heard that one before. That's original. Someone should make a bumper sticker out of that

I was wondering if that new icon was an old picture of Boy George?

 

[quantumfaith]

Wow, never heard that one before. That's original. Someone should make a bumper sticker out of that

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

 

[Rippon]

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

There you go again adding to your post count with frothiness.