Calvinism is a combination of Theological Fatalism and Determinism, or is it?

[Winman]

Please receive this post in the love I intend in it.

God's enemies would say the bible contradicts itself because of the following verses. How would you harmonize the fact that a holy God stirs up the nation of Assyria to do wickedly to Israel? No doubt; God will judge Assyria for what He stirred them up to do just as He will judge Satan for what He commanded him to do to Job; and Pilate for what he predetermined for him to do beforehand.

As one who agrees with many of the things that I have read from Calvin, I do not think I need to throw my common sense away. Rather, I see the bible verses displayed below to be in tension.

I submit to you that sorting out the nuanced distinctions of the sovereignty of God with the free will of man is going to take much more than common sense; for His ways are higher than our ways. Call the theological system what they may, but I still can't figure out how I work out my salvation with fear and trembling while God works in me the willing and doing of it at the same time. For me to say that God is 100% sovereign while I choose freely according to my nature is far from throwing away my common-sense. It is just plain old good bible-sense.

Here are those verses.

Isaiah 10:5-7
O Assyrian, the rod of mine anger,
and the staff in their hand is mine indignation.
6 I will send him against an hypocritical nation,
and against the people of my wrath will I give him a charge,
to take the spoil, and to take the prey,
and to tread them down like the mire of the streets.
7 Howbeit he meaneth not so,
neither doth his heart think so;
but it is in his heart to destroy
and cut off nations not a few.

And...

Leviticus 11:45
...be holy, for I am holy.

It is not a contradiction for God to allow an evil nation to come against Israel to bring about judgment against Israel and yet punish that nation for it's iniquity.

But it would be a contradiction to believe God brings evil against the innocent.

Jer 32:35 And they built the high places of Baal, which are in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to cause their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire unto Molech; which I commanded them not, neither came it into my mind, that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin.

The Jews were sacrificing their children to idols. Did God command this? NO. God did not determine or ordain this should happen, these Jews were acting freely. Did God allow this? Yes and no, he allowed it to happen momentarily, but he brought judgment against Israel for this sin.

Now go down to the Other Denominations threads and read the posts by Savedbymercy. He is a hyper-Calvinist who for months has been posting that God is the cause of evil. Now that is a contradiction.

Savedbymercy is simply a consistent Calvinist, he takes Calvinism where it logically leads. If one is truly consistent and logical, a Calvinist MUST believe God is the root and cause of all sin. Savedbymercy is a better Calvinist than you.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Stunning, so your response to a brothers coming to you in humility is to compare him to another & then have the brass to label both men by their perceived commitments to Calvinism...even going so far as to tag a guy a hyper-Calvinist & site that your freaking estimation that he is a better...what was your word....oh yes, a more consistent Calvinist. Seriously dude, you have completely lost it & you were totally disrespectful to both gentlemen.....you should apologize & you should be ashamed of your self.

 

[Winman]

Stunning, so your response to a brothers coming to you in humility is to compare him to another & then have the brass to label both men by their perceived commitments to Calvinism...even going so far as to tag a guy a hyper-Calvinist & site that your freaking estimation that he is a better...what was your word....oh yes, a more consistent Calvinist. Seriously dude, you have completely lost it & you were totally disrespectful to both gentlemen.....you should apologize & you should be ashamed of your self.

I have never met a humble Calvinist, including you. Calvinists are known for being arrogant. When Iconoclast writes in nearly every post that I and others have never come to the truth, that is an arrogant insult. He says that in practically every post he writes to non-Cals.

And if you don't recognize that Savedbymercy is a hyper-Calvinist, I do not know what to say to you. Maybe you have not read his posts. Here are just a few things he wrote;

Is God the Cause of sin and evil in the world ?
The answer to the question is absolutely Yes ! All things are made or created for God's good pleasure Rev 4:11

Sin is by decreed by God by beings that God made in order for them to be accountable and responsible for bringing in sin according to His Eternal Purpose !

Adam sinned and brought sin into the world because God wanted Him to, for Adam was created to serve in the Eternal redemptive Purpose of Christ Jesus ! Adam must sin and plunge the Elect into their need for Redemption !

This is just the beginning of many things he said blaming God for sin, read for yourself.

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=79146

Savedbymercy is simply a consistent Calvinist, he is taking the doctrine where it logically leads. Greektim has seen this himself. You other Calvinists are highly inconsistent, you speak out of both sides of your mouth.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

I have never met a humble Calvinist, including you. Calvinists are known for being arrogant. When Iconoclast writes in nearly every post that I and others have never come to the truth, that is an arrogant insult. He says that in practically every post he writes to non-Cals.

And if you don't recognize that Savedbymercy is a hyper-Calvinist, I do not know what to say to you. Maybe you have not read his posts. Here are just a few things he wrote;





This is just the beginning of many things he said blaming God for sin, read for yourself.

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=79146

Savedbymercy is simply a consistent Calvinist, he is taking the doctrine where it logically leads. Greektim has seen this himself. You other Calvinists are highly inconsistent, you speak out of both sides of your mouth.

First I am not a Calvinist. Two, it is apparent you would never concede anything....it is you who is the arrogant one. You should own that. Truly never expected you to own up though. I can & have admitted my arrogance & sometimes crudeness....but not you. You will always & forever justify away something, deflect with insults & walk away vindicated each & every time. Funny, then you call yourself Christian but you insult & then justify.

How dare you label fellow brothers in Christ....do you see on anyones statement of faith "I'm a Hyper-Calvinist" ? Simply reprehensible behavior on your part...as per usual.

You owe both these guys a sincere apology.....I hope its forthcoming.

 

[Winman]

First I am not a Calvinist. Two, it is apparent you would never concede anything....it is you who is the arrogant one. You should own that. Truly never expected you to own up though. I can & have admitted my arrogance & sometimes crudeness....but not you. You will always & forever justify away something, deflect with insults & walk away vindicated each & every time. Funny, then you call yourself Christian but you insult & then justify.

How dare you label fellow brothers in Christ....do you see on anyones statement of faith "I'm a Hyper-Calvinist" ? Simply reprehensible behavior on your part...as per usual.

You owe both these guys a sincere apology.....I hope its forthcoming.

When have you ever seen any Calvinist admit they are a hyper-Calvinist? Laughable.

You tell me, Savedbymercy directly says God is the CAUSE of sin. Is that a hyper-Calvinist?

And you call me arrogant, but what about fellows like Luke who constantly calls people ignorant, or Iconoclast who constantly says people have never come to a knowledge of truth? Do you ever correct them? NO, because you agree with them. You have a convenient double standard.

I am just tired of playing footsie with you guys. I don't pamper error.

A hyper-Calvinist is simply a consistent Calvinist, you others are just ashamed and embarrassed of your own doctrine. I said this over 3 years ago when I first came to BB, and I'm saying it now. Greektim has recently been thoughtful and seen that the logical conclusion of Calvinism is that God is the author of sin, maybe someday you will come to that realization. It is the truth. You gotta have guts to know the truth.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

When have you ever seen any Calvinist admit they are a hyper-Calvinist? Laughable.

You tell me, Savedbymercy directly says God is the CAUSE of sin. Is that a hyper-Calvinist?

And you call me arrogant, but what about fellows like Luke who constantly calls people ignorant, or Iconoclast who constantly says people have never come to a knowledge of truth? Do you ever correct them? NO, because you agree with them. You have a convenient double standard.

I am just tired of playing footsie with you guys. I don't pamper error.

A hyper-Calvinist is simply a consistent Calvinist, you others are just ashamed and embarrassed of your own doctrine. I said this over 3 years ago when I first came to BB, and I'm saying it now. Greektim has recently been thoughtful and seen that the logical conclusion of Calvinism is that God is the author of sin, maybe someday you will come to that realization. It is the truth. You gotta have guts to know the truth.

Merely a predictable response from you. Let me get this straight, you hold to a Semi- Pelagian Theological Position & you claim that Historic orthodox Salvation By Grace Theology is NOT scriptural....that Original Sin is fictitious. Then you cant see why you get an argument?
That is laughable!

And your final commentary is you gotta have guts to support Pelagian Theology..... Personally I wouldnt define it as guts, but if you enjoy urinating in the wind, be my guest. Just dont wonder why your all wet & you smell bad.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

A hyper-Calvinist is simply a consistent Calvinist, you others are just ashamed and embarrassed of your own doctrine.

And BTW, I will say it again..... Hyper-Calvinism is not my doctrine, nor is Calvinism, nor is Arminianism, Nor is Paleganism. I do hold to Salvation by grace/ Doctrines of Grace doctrines but they DO NOT lead to your conclusion.... nor should I buy into that horse manure argument.

 

[Winman]

Merely a predictable response from you. Let me get this straight, you hold to a Semi- Pelagian Theological Position & you claim that Historic orthodox Salvation By Grace Theology is NOT scriptural....that Original Sin is fictitious. Then you cant see why you get an argument?
That is laughable!

And your final commentary is you gotta have guts to support Pelagian Theology..... Personally I wouldnt define it as guts, but if you enjoy urinating in the wind, be my guest. Just dont wonder why your all wet & you smell bad.

You are changing the subject now, an attempt to deflect. The truth is, Icon wrote his insulting comment first, and you said nothing. When I responded, you got offended. That is a double standard and hypocritical.

Perhaps I am a Pelagian, I do not know for certain because I do not know what Pelagius believed, and neither do you. All you know of Pelagius is what his critics have written, which may be true, or perhaps not.

I personally do not care what Pelagius believed, I derive what I believe from reading the scriptures. I have posted scripture to support all my views, and as I believe it was HoS that said not one of you has been able to refute my position from scripture.

While I do not hold to Original Sin, I absolutely believe that all men as soon as they mature and understand right from wrong will willingly and knowingly choose to sin, and that no man can be saved from his sins unless he trusts in Jesus Christ alone. So you misrepresent me, a common practice of Calvinists here. When you cannot win a debate honestly, you and others resort to dishonest practices. Happens ALL the time here. You know very well that I believe a person can only be saved by trusting in Jesus.

But even accusing me of being a Pelagian is an example of the false arguments Calvnists use against anyone who disagrees with them. Instead of addressing the issues, you attempt to smear a person by association. Just more proof of how dishonest Calvnism truly is. Honest folks don's resort to tactics like this. And of course you have no shame.

 

[Sevenzedek]

When have you ever seen any Calvinist admit they are a hyper-Calvinist? Laughable.

You tell me, Savedbymercy directly says God is the CAUSE of sin. Is that a hyper-Calvinist?

And you call me arrogant, but what about fellows like Luke who constantly calls people ignorant, or Iconoclast who constantly says people have never come to a knowledge of truth? Do you ever correct them? NO, because you agree with them. You have a convenient double standard.

I am just tired of playing footsie with you guys. I don't pamper error.

A hyper-Calvinist is simply a consistent Calvinist, you others are just ashamed and embarrassed of your own doctrine. I said this over 3 years ago when I first came to BB, and I'm saying it now. Greektim has recently been thoughtful and seen that the logical conclusion of Calvinism is that God is the author of sin, maybe someday you will come to that realization. It is the truth. You gotta have guts to know the truth.

I am willing to overlook your comments. However, I would not recommend them as being very Christ-like.

I am not to try to defend anyone else's comments. But I will say these things. If God CHOOSES to allow someone to sin, he still has made a choice. There is not much difference between "allowing" sin and "choosing to allow" sin. This fact doesn't say much about motives. It is possible that God allows sin (and therefore chooses to allow it) with the motive that he be glorified. In fact, he did as much with Jesus our savior. But scripture makes it more explicit in Isaiah that it was not merely God "allowing" him to be bruised, but "willed" it.

Therefore, to contend that God wills evil is go along with what the scriptures represent about God. At the same time, he is not the author if sin. The situation with Jesus is not an isolated instance.

There is another way to look at the issues concerning Calvinism. All I am doing is trying to fit the pieces of the bible together. In my mind, glossing over instances in the bible where God's choice to will evil by saying he merely allows it does little to reconcile the strong language the bible uses. In fact, it rather appears to misrepresent God on the matter of his sovereignty.

I represented such instances to you. And your characterization of myself and others does little to contribute to the conversation. If godly men who oppose your view tell you there is another way of seeing the God of the bible, at least try to understand why they say so. These are matters very difficult to understand. And there are nuances of biblical distinction that contribute to my understanding and I would like to be of service to you.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

You are changing the subject now, an attempt to deflect. The truth is, Icon wrote his insulting comment first, and you said nothing. When I responded, you got offended. That is a double standard and hypocritical.

Perhaps I am a Pelagian, I do not know for certain because I do not know what Pelagius believed, and neither do you. All you know of Pelagius is what his critics have written, which may be true, or perhaps not.

I personally do not care what Pelagius believed, I derive what I believe from reading the scriptures. I have posted scripture to support all my views, and as I believe it was HoS that said not one of you has been able to refute my position from scripture.

While I do not hold to Original Sin, I absolutely believe that all men as soon as they mature and understand right from wrong will willingly and knowingly choose to sin, and that no man can be saved from his sins unless he trusts in Jesus Christ alone. So you misrepresent me, a common practice of Calvinists here. When you cannot win a debate honestly, you and others resort to dishonest practices. Happens ALL the time here. You know very well that I believe a person can only be saved by trusting in Jesus.

But even accusing me of being a Pelagian is an example of the false arguments Calvnists use against anyone who disagrees with them. Instead of addressing the issues, you attempt to smear a person by association. Just more proof of how dishonest Calvnism truly is. Honest folks don's resort to tactics like this. And of course you have no shame.

You have attempted to convolute this whole conversation in an effort to show absolutely no wrongdoing on your part....No not you! However it is glaringly evident that you havent a solid leg to stand on....so once again you owe both those brothers an apology. Now I will let you have the last word.

 

[Van]

Pig in a poke sales pitch

Please receive this post in the love I intend in it.

I submit to you that sorting out the nuanced distinctions of the sovereignty of God with the free will of man is going to take much more than common sense; for His ways are higher than our ways. Call the theological system what they may, but I still can't figure out how I work out my salvation with fear and trembling while God works in me the willing and doing of it at the same time. For me to say that God is 100% sovereign while I choose freely according to my nature is far from throwing away my common-sense. It is just plain old good bible-sense.

God is sovereign, but that does not equate with God compelling whatsoever comes to pass. In His sovereignty, He call allow others to make choices for or against His desires.

No need to seek refuge in "God's ways are higher than we can comprehend" to justify the absurdity of Calvinism. A simple straightforward explanation is available, just accept what scripture says rather than rewrite it to say the opposite of what it says.

If God predestines all things, whatsoever comes to pass, then God is the author of sin. And very unjust to punish us for doing what He compelled us to do. Therefore why not accept that God causes or allows whatsoever comes to pass. Pretty simple really.

Rather than saying God compels folks to be reconciled, why not go with scripture which says God begs or pleads for the lost to be reconciled to God. No need to rewrite scripture or redefine the word choice to mean non-choice. Just trust in the truth.

Lets take one verse, the one that says we make plans but God directs our feet. (Proverbs 16:9) If we did not autonomously make plans then the verse would make no sense. We can operate at odds with God or we can operate in a way pleasing to God. (Proverbs 16:7) If total spiritual inability were true, this verse would be wrong. Note it is better to go with God, indicating we have a choice in the matter. Calvinism must rewrite the whole bible to make it fit with the absurd assertions of men.

Bottom line the gospel is so simply a child can understand it, so men are just muddying the waters with assertions the gospel is beyond understanding.

 

[Winman]

I am willing to overlook your comments. However, I would not recommend them as being very Christ-like.

Like I said, I am tired of playing footsie with Calvinists. Others may choose to do this, not me. The scriptures say we are to "contend" for the truth.

I am not to try to defend anyone else's comments. But I will say these things. If God CHOOSES to allow someone to sin, he still has made a choice. There is not much difference between "allowing" sin and "choosing to allow" sin. This fact doesn't say much about motives. It is possible that God allows sin (and therefore chooses to allow it) with the motive that he be glorified. In fact, he did as much with Jesus our savior. But scripture makes it more explicit in Isaiah that it was not merely God "allowing" him to be bruised, but "willed" it.

God's greatest attribute is HOLINESS. God is Holy, he cannot do evil. The scriptures say God does not even tempt a man to sin, much less CAUSE a man to sin.

It is true that God was willing that Jesus should die. But this was not evil, it was to save us from our sins. He did not impose this on Jesus, Jesus said he could have called on his Father and he would have sent 12 legions of angels to deliver him. So, Jesus also willingly GAVE HIMSELF to die for us.

Jhn 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

God did not murder Jesus, he willingly offered him to save us. But Jesus had to also willingly offer himself. This is where your doctrine is WAY OFF.

It is like a soldier who leaps on a hand grenade to save his fellow soldiers, or the firemen who died on 9/11 when they rushed into the burning twin towers to save folks. They willingly GAVE their lives to save others.

Therefore, to contend that God wills evil is go along with what the scriptures represent about God. At the same time, he is not the author if sin. The situation with Jesus is not an isolated instance.

How can you say God wills or desires evil? Anyone who reads the scriptures knows God hates evil. Nevertheless, God is a God of love, he does not force himself on anyone. He allows all men free will so that they can willingly choose to love or hate him. This free will that allows men the ability to love God by necessity must provide that men also be able to reject God and hate him, it cannot be avoided.

You say God could make us so we could not sin. I disagree, then we would be no more than slaves. Slavery is not love, and God is love. You didn't take your wife as a slave did you? NO, you took your wife because she WILLINGLY loved you.

There is another way to look at the issues concerning Calvinism. All I am doing is trying to fit the pieces of the bible together. In my mind, glossing over instances in the bible where God's choice to will evil by saying he merely allows it does little to reconcile the strong language the bible uses. In fact, it rather appears to misrepresent God on the matter of his sovereignty.

No, you are trying to reconcile the man-made doctrines of Calvinism with scripture, and it does not work. That is why you have "tension" because you have CONTRADICTION.

I represented such instances to you. And your characterization of myself and others does little to contribute to the conversation. If godly men who oppose your view tell you there is another way of seeing the God of the bible, at least try to understand why they say so. These are matters very difficult to understand. And there are nuances of biblical distinction that contribute to my understanding and I would like to be of service to you.

You are fairly new here, I have been debating with Calvnists here almost daily for over 3 years. You do not know my views or arguments. Why don't you sit back and learn a little before you comment? I think you will discover I offer valid scripture to support my views and to refute yours.

 

[Winman]

You have attempted to convolute this whole conversation in an effort to show absolutely no wrongdoing on your part....No not you! However it is glaringly evident that you havent a solid leg to stand on....so once again you owe both those brothers an apology. Now I will let you have the last word.

I will not apologize to anyone who promotes the false doctrines of Calvinism. I don't need to get along with you or have fellowship with you. I believe it utterly false and non-scriptural and will always oppose it. If that offends you, too bad.

Pro 27:6 Faithful are the wounds of a friend; but the kisses of an enemy are deceitful.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

I will not apologize to anyone who promotes the false doctrines of Calvinism. I don't need to get along with you or have fellowship with you. I believe it utterly false and non-scriptural and will always oppose it. If that offends you, too bad.

Pro 27:6 Faithful are the wounds of a friend; but the kisses of an enemy are deceitful.

ROFL...... I REST MY CASE!:laugh:

 

[Sevenzedek]

...But it would be a contradiction to believe God brings evil against the innocent...

God willed evil against innocent Jesus.

...The Jews were sacrificing their children to idols... Did God allow this? Yes and no, he allowed it to happen momentarily, but he brought judgment against Israel for this sin.

Your response of "Yes and no" does open the door for a discussion of God's will of command and God's will of decree. Yes, God chose to allow the Assyrians to do evil according to his will of decree. No, God did not choose to allow the Assyrians to do evil according to his will of command which says that they should not steal and kill for profit.

The scriptures prove that God wills in his decrees those things he forbids in his commands. All I am saying is that the scriptures I am presenting really do show that God is sovereign in the way I am describing.

Back to the original post; how is this biblical understanding of God's sovereignty not fatalism? Fatalism holds that your actions do not matter because they are already predetermined. But saying that God knows the end from the beginning and has predetermined such does not prove fatalism's false premise. Fatalism's false premise is that your actions do not matter when they actually do matter. They matter because predetermined the means—i.e. everything that has ever happened.

The bible says that you must obey God. But the bible also says tha you will in no wise obey him unless the Father draws you. Trying to figure out the precise way these two truths square with one another is a fruitless exercise because the bible doesn't tell us. All we have are bold statements about God's absolute sovereignty over man's actions and his requirement that man obey him.

 

[OldRegular]

Two points:

1. It is impossible to reduce what Scripture tells us about the nature of God into a "sound byte", or slogan, or even a name such as Calvinism. That this is true is shown by the title of this thread and the frequent use of Calvinism as a pejorative.

2. It is frequently the case and is routinely demonstrated on this Baptist Board that many are willing to concede that God is indeed Sovereign until He is confronted with the "free will" of man!

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Two points:

1. It is impossible to reduce what Scripture tells us about the nature of God into a "sound byte", or slogan, or even a name such as Calvinism. That this is true is shown by the title of this thread and the frequent use of Calvinism as a pejorative.

2. It is frequently the case and is routinely demonstrated on this Baptist Board that many are willing to concede that God is indeed Sovereign until He is confronted with the "free will" of man!

Limited free will

 

[Winman]

God willed evil against innocent Jesus.

I would disagree. God allowed the Jews and Romans to crucify Jesus, but he did not cause it. In fact, on at least two occasions the Jews attempted to kill Jesus, but Jesus escaped from them. Why? Because it was not the proper time, the Passover. God could not have caused these two occasions where the Jews attempted to kill Jesus, as God is not divided against himself.

Only when it was the proper time did God the Father and Jesus allow the Jews and Romans to take Jesus and crucify him. The Jews had desired to kill Jesus long before this time, God did not cause their hatred toward Jesus.

Your response of "Yes and no" does open the door for a discussion of God's will of command and God's will of decree. Yes, God chose to allow the Assyrians to do evil according to his will of decree. No, God did not choose to allow the Assyrians to do evil according to his will of command which says that they should not steal and kill for profit.

God could kill every one of us before we ever choose to sin, but I do not see the advantage in this, do you?

The scriptures prove that God wills in his decrees those things he forbids in his commands. All I am saying is that the scriptures I am presenting really do show that God is sovereign in the way I am describing.

Pure Calvinist contradiction. Are you actually thinking about what you are saying? Do you actually believe God secretly wills against what he has openly said he wills?

Mat 12:22 Then was brought unto him one possessed with a devil, blind, and dumb: and he healed him, insomuch that the blind and dumb both spake and saw.
23 And all the people were amazed, and said, Is not this the son of David?
24 But when the Pharisees heard it, they said, This fellow doth not cast out devils, but by Beelzebub the prince of the devils.
25 And Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand:
26 And if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself; how shall then his kingdom stand?
27 And if I by Beelzebub cast out devils, by whom do your children cast them out? therefore they shall be your judges.
28 But if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come unto you.

God did not will that this man be possessed by devils. Jesus clearly explained that if he cast out devils by the power of Satan, that would be Satan divided against himself. Jesus implies that even Satan is smart enough not to fight against himself. If God both caused a man to be possessed and cast a devil out, God would be divided and opposed to himself. This is what your doctrine actually teaches.

Back to the original post; how is this biblical understanding of God's sovereignty not fatalism? Fatalism holds that your actions do not matter because they are already predetermined. But saying that God knows the end from the beginning and has predetermined such does not prove fatalism's false premise. Fatalism's false premise is that your actions do not matter when they actually do matter. They matter because predetermined the means—i.e. everything that has ever happened.

Word games, nothing more. If God has determined every single thing you do, that is fatalism whether you call it by another name. I have already showed you scripture (Jer 32:35) where Jews were sacrificing their children, and God himself said he never commanded it, nor did it enter his mind.

The bible says that you must obey God. But the bible also says tha you will in no wise obey him unless the Father draws you. Trying to figure out the precise way these two truths square with one another is a fruitless exercise because the bible doesn't tell us. All we have are bold statements about God's absolute sovereignty over man's actions and his requirement that man obey him.

The scriptures say no such thing. The scriptures say no man comes to God unless God draws him, but the scriptures say if Jesus be lifted up he will draw all men to him. This does not mean every single man will be irresistibly dragged to Jesus, men have the ability to resist the Holy Spirit, even after being saved.

Everything you argue has been said a thousand times by other Calvinists here. You have been taught well.

 

[Sevenzedek]

I will not apologize to anyone who promotes the false doctrines of Calvinism. I don't need to get along with you or have fellowship with you. I believe it utterly false and non-scriptural and will always oppose it. If that offends you, too bad.

Pro 27:6 Faithful are the wounds of a friend; but the kisses of an enemy are deceitful.

I get the very distinct feeling that you are quite volatile toward me. I am willing to agree to disagree. But there is no point in having a conversation if you are not willing to HAVE the discussion. Books are more conducive to the venue in which you are trying to operate because it is a one-way statement. But this is a forum where conversations take place and try to understand eachother. I have extended Christian charity toward you and your statements. But the "tone" of your words to me have basically been "shut up and learn from me because I have been debating Calvinism for three years."

You may not care much about what I have to say. You may not think that you should be required to get along with me. You may think it too bad that I might be offended. But God cares about all these things. Look at how his children fight and bicker. What an disgraceful God we serve. God forbid!

The wounds of a friend are faithful. But I don't think you are very much my friend right now. And you would say that it is too bad that I am offended.

In love,

Jon

 

[Sevenzedek]

I will not be continuing the conversation.