Calvinism needs to add words to scripture

[Ben1445]

There really is no point in replying to you, though it would be easy to respond in just the same folish, ignorant and insulting fashion. It is clear that you and @Ben1445 have no intention of having an intelligent and courteous discussion on the matter. I'm out of here.

On the contrary, you are too easily offended and not interested in courteous conversation.

 

[Ben1445]

There is life outside the internet.

 

[Ben1445]

People going to hell has nothing to do with God’s choice and everything to do with man’s choice.
It is people going to heaven that is the gift resulting from God’s choice.

So people can choose not to go to hell but God will leave some of them out of heaven??

 

[Ben1445]

No answers to my simple questions...

"our" = ____________

"the Whole World" = _______________

Yes, He does. The Bible as Inspired by The Holy Spirit Means just what it says, when He says, "all men".

The question then is "What does it say?", by also discerning what it can't possibly be saying.


Here is your word "All" used in the Bible in exactly the manner in which it is intended elsewhere, with regard to Eternal Salvation, as we see "All" given the qualifier, "All that the Father Giveth Me".

Who else is it at all plausible that Jesus would Save, than "All" of them that the Father Gave Jesus?

And absolutely not "All" men without exception, or everyone would be Saved.

Even those like Cain, who has been in Hell over 6,000 years(?)

"All" means "All" of the individual individuals that God Gave to Jesus to Pay their sin debt and Save their souls.

It doesn't say anything about God Drawing anyone except those He Gave to Jesus Christ to Accomplish Salvation for them.

I quote from Gill primarily based on his approach being sober, Spiritually, (and exhausting most objections, one at a time) compared to the over estimations of their own capabilities like those of Spurgeon who fancies his abilities to enable him to say;

as if the Divine Holy Spirit is going to Inspire the blasphemous, anti-Christ, heretical, God-hating, Spiritual Adultery of suggesting that Jesus died for "all men" WITHOUT EXCEPTION, when at the least, that would mean that EVERYONE WOULD BE SAVED AND GO TO HEAVEN, or worse, that GOD IS A FAILURE FOR SENDING JESUS TO DIE BECAUSE SOME SINNERS OUT OF "ALL MEN" JESUS SUPPOSEDLY DIED FOR WHERE NOT SAVED AND REMAINED LOST AND WENT TO HELL.

That's not the One and Only, True and Living God of the Bible.

It takes a small man and half-baked Christian wanna-be to 'brag that their God and assumed Savior weren't able to accomplish what they 'Willed', even with the Help of the All-Powerful God the Holy Spirit.'

That is inexcusable, irresponsible ignorance, for someone to ever think, or speak, in public or private.

That's Satan Worship, to claim "all men" there equates to "every man and women ever born".


No need to worry your pretty little face about any man-made philosophy conjured up by the flesh, since no man will come unto Jesus, just like Jesus said when He told them, "you will not come unto Me that you might have Life."

It is as utterly impossible for a scenario where a person could come to Christ who the Father didn't first Irresistibly Draw
and the only thing any lost soul thinking they are playing church is going to be told is that they are to Depart from Him, as we see in Matthew 7:21;
"Not every one that saith unto Me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the Kingdom of Heaven;
but he that doeth the Will of My Father which is in Heaven.

22; "Many will say to Me in that Day, Lord, Lord, have we not Prophesied in thy Name?
and in thy Name have cast out devils? and in thy Name done many wonderful works?

23; "And then Will I Profess unto them, I never Knew you: Depart from Me, ye that work iniquity" AND THEY had not been included in the Atonement, BECAUSE THEY NEVER BOWED TO THE LORDSHIP OF JESUS CHRIST UNTIL THE DAY OF JUDGMENT AND WERE SIMPLY RELIGIOUSLY LOST, LIKE MILLIONS OF OTHERS WHO HAVE BELIEVED THE DEMONIC LIES OF THEIR 'PREISTS' AND 'PASTORS' AND FALSE 'BIBLE TEACHERS'.

Gill is undoubtedly biased in the matter. I read his material often. I don’t value his Calvinism.

 

[Ben1445]

the offer of the gospel is universal and genuine.

Many is the Calvinist who has claimed and scolded me for saying that the gospel is offered, let alone universal.

But I whole heartedly agree with you. Your Calvinism is not the version I take issue with.
I have said before, though it will be overlooked by the majority of Calvinists, that there is a great deal of truth in the emphasis that Calvinism teaches. But a great deal of truth is not enough to sanitize what is and leads to hyper Calvinism. Many claim they are not hyper, but they teach the same thing that makes a hyper a hyper.

But I appreciate your perspective. It is the best Calvinist position here.

 

[Ben1445]

I hope that gives some further food for thought, and I hope you will, in your search for answers not get hyper-Calvinists mixed up with more moderate types.

I think the moderate types are mixing themselves in with the hyper types. They say that if you throw a rock in a pack of dogs, the one that yelps is the one that you hit. I specifically go after the hyper Calvinist beliefs and the “moderates” are the ones most often offended. From my point of view, they are labeling themselves by owning the hyper beliefs.

You almost have to read a lot of sermons from Calvinists to really understand this.

I have and do. And at times I hear very clearly the logical fallacies of hyper Calvinists.
And I sit and listen to them preach in person when I have the opportunity to visit my friend’s churches. I am not isolated.

 

[atpollard]

So people can choose not to go to hell but God will leave some of them out of heaven??

James 1:13-15 [NKJV]
Let no one say when he is tempted, "I am tempted by God"; for God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does He Himself tempt anyone. But each one is tempted when he is drawn away by his own desires and enticed. Then, when desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, brings forth death.

Is James 1 True or false?
Who is responsible for "temptation"?
Who is responsible for "sin"?
Who is responsible for "death"?
God or man?


John 3:18-20 [NKJV]
"He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed."

Is John 3 True or false?
Why are people "condemned already"?
Who chose to "love darkness"?
Who is responsible for "evil deeds"? (see James 1:13-15 above)
Who "does not come" to whom?
God or man?


Romans 1:18-32 [NKJV]
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown [it] to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible [attributes] are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify [Him] as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man--and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.
Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.
And even as they did not like to retain God in [their] knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting; being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; [they are] whisperers, backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving, unmerciful; who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them.

Is Romans 1 True or false?
Has God shown the truth to men?
Are men without excuse?
Do men refuse to glorify God?
Does God simply "give men up" to follow the desires of their human hearts?

Who is truly responsible for damnation? God or man?

As I stated ...

People going to hell has nothing to do with God’s choice and everything to do with man’s choice.
It is people going to heaven that is the gift resulting from God’s choice.

Would you care to discuss it?

 

[DaveXR650]

But a great deal of truth is not enough to sanitize what is and leads to hyper Calvinism. Many claim they are not hyper, but they teach the same thing that makes a hyper a hyper.

That something leads to something else and that something else is wrong is unfortunately, a universal truth with the human race. I think what happens is that for instance, if you preach a free and open gospel and invite everyone you will inevitably have some feel that their "decision" for Christ saves them and any attempt at holy living is legalism. So then you correct them by saying, as the Puritan Calvinists did, that "any sin persisted in will result in damnation". That's a true statement, but without detailed explanation of how that works and why it's true, it will lead to charges of inconsistency or contradiction, especially when reviewed 500 years later, by people who think everything was supposed to be predetermined.

And so it is with a dozen other doctrines. We are going to be disappointed with viewing theological confessions as precise blueprints for doctrine because they were designed more to establish boundaries and fellowships, not to be the teaching template.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Well if you want to discuss it with Scripture, I’ll say that you didn’t supply any either in spite of your complaint. So we are both guilty of it.

I supplied Scripture in the very post you have referenced, post #87. I also supplied Scripture in my posts #16, 19, 26, 29, 40, 51 & 75.

No.
My understanding of Calvinism is that they couldn’t be turned away because they were never called, never regenerated, never elected or chosen, never been given the opportunity to reject a God that they never were given the opportunity to come to. According to Calvinism they couldn’t believe in Christ because they are not elected to.

Well in that case you don't understand Calvinism. Calvinists, including Calvin himself, have always called upon, and pleaded with, sinners to repent and trust in Christ And if they do, they will be saved - no question about it. I have referenced the text below so often that I'm sick of it, but maybe you have missed it, so here you are again.
John 6:37. "All that the Father gives Me will come to Me....." Here is your Particular Pedemption. God has given to the Lord Jesus a vast number of people (Rev. 7:9) to redeem, which He has done (John 17:2, 6, 24). He will not lose even one of them (John 6:39; 10:27-28).
".....And the one who comes to Me I will by no means cast out." And yet, anyone, anyone at all, may come to Him and will most certainly not be refused. There can be no mistake because John places it all in one verse and then repeats himself just two verses later (John 6:39-40). I understand that this may mess with your prejudices, but that is your problem, not mine.

And ‘this is why your conference speaker must publicly justify his decision to evangelize. Because in spite of teaching that salvation is limited to those who God chose, he now offers a wide invitation which is right for him to do. I commend him for it. But I don’t understand how a Calvinist can justify living in both worlds at the same time. I gathered, in spite of his own declaration, that he doesn’t really understand it either.

Geoff Thomas understands the Bible and Calvinism (which are the same thing) very well, having preached it for 60+ years. He is in a line of great Baptist preachers stretching back to Knollys, Keach, Bunyan, Judson and a host of others. God has saved hundreds of people through his ministry. I have explained it to you above. If you don't understand it, go to Proverbs 3:5 and James 1:5.

On the contrary, you are too easily offended and not interested in courteous conversation.

I am very interested in courteous conversation, but I haven't found it on this thread. I don't think I am easily offended, but I find it too easy to let myself down by replying in kind to those who are abusive towards doctrines which I consider to be the very word of God..

 

[Ben1445]

James 1:13-15 [NKJV]
Let no one say when he is tempted, "I am tempted by God"; for God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does He Himself tempt anyone. But each one is tempted when he is drawn away by his own desires and enticed. Then, when desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, brings forth death.

Is James 1 True or false?

This is a leading question that makes your side of the argument seem to be right because you asked it first. I won’t give you any points for it. You already know the answer. You are not the only one who may claim to believe the Bible.

Who is responsible for "temptation"?

I can read as well as you. And that is not the first time I read it.
God does not.
This verse says when a man is tempted. It doesn’t say who tempts him. It says who does not.

Who is responsible for "sin"?

The one in whom iniquity is found.

Who is responsible for "death"?

God

Matthew 10:28
And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

God or man?

I gather that you know most of these answers but I’m not sure that you know all of them.

Happy to help you out.

John 3:18-20 [NKJV]
"He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed."

Is John 3 True or false?

Same as above. A poor gotcha question.

Why are people "condemned already"?

They are born in unbelief. Not because they are sinners. Jesus paid for all sins. But their unbelief keeps them from God.
God already came to man. We can get past this part. Jesus died for the sins of the whole world. That was God coming to man first.

Who chose to "love darkness"?

Men. (I’m so glad I can help you with your reading comprehension)

Who is responsible for "evil deeds"? (see James 1:13-15 above)

Men

Who "does not come" to whom?
God or man?

Both come to both.
God comes to man.
Man comes to God by Jesus Christ.
John 14:6
Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

Jesus did say that, did He not?
Man comes to the Father.

Now I ask you, is John 14:6 true or not.

Romans 1:18-32 [NKJV]
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown [it] to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible [attributes] are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify [Him] as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man--and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.
Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.
And even as they did not like to retain God in [their] knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting; being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; [they are] whisperers, backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving, unmerciful; who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them.

Is Romans 1 True or false?
Has God shown the truth to men?
Are men without excuse?
Do men refuse to glorify God?
Does God simply "give men up" to follow the desires of their human hearts?

Who is truly responsible for damnation? God or man?

As I stated ...


Would you care to discuss it?

Your method of discussing is intellectually dishonest.
Is the Bible true? Yes. Of course it is.
Is the Calvinist interpretation of the Bible true? I don’t believe so.

Your Quotations are Scripture do not show what you implied, that man can live without sin and God not send him to heaven or hell (or give him eternal life in this world if you are a JW or a preterist?)
Your conclusions are not valid. They are not based on good questions and good application of Scripture.


I have had enough of your condescending tone. I answered what I had the patience for. There are only so many times I have patience to answer the same questions that make no progress.
If you would care to have a bit more civil tone with your discussion, I would be happy to discuss it as I have time.
My question to you is are you able to have a real conversation or are you just trying to show up the other guy?

 

[Ben1445]

That something leads to something else and that something else is wrong is unfortunately, a universal truth with the human race.

Agreed.

I think what happens is that for instance, if you preach a free and open gospel and invite everyone you will inevitably have some feel that their "decision" for Christ saves them and any attempt at holy living is legalism.

This is an assumption. For a Calvinist to assume that “free will” preaching believes that their decision saves them is the first fallacy. The second is that any preaching this way don’t preach against sin and call holy living legalism.
So I don’t like your assumptions about me. I also have found that I don’t like your assumptions about what you think I assume about Calvinists. I do appreciate your perception of the problems that I have with Calvinism. You are far more aware of what I have said than most who reply here. (As far as I can tell by responses.)

So then you correct them by saying, as the Puritan Calvinists did, that "any sin persisted in will result in damnation". That's a true statement, but without detailed explanation of how that works and why it's true, it will lead to charges of inconsistency or contradiction, especially when reviewed 500 years later, by people who think everything was supposed to be predetermined.

I don’t follow you here. Probably because I didn’t follow you in the first place, this second half doesn’t make sense to me.

And so it is with a dozen other doctrines. We are going to be disappointed with viewing theological confessions as precise blueprints for doctrine because they were designed more to establish boundaries and fellowships, not to be the teaching template.

 

[Ben1445]

I supplied Scripture in the very post you have referenced, post #87. I also supplied Scripture in my posts #16, 19, 26, 29, 40, 51 & 75.

Thank you. I also supply Scripture but I am not willing to go read through every post to point it out if you are not willing to read it when I post it.

Well in that case you don't understand Calvinism. Calvinists, including Calvin himself, have always called upon, and pleaded with, sinners to repent and trust in Christ

I don’t understand why you can’t understand which version of Calvinism I have a problem with. You are defending it. I can only assume it is your version also.

And if they do, they will be saved - no question about it. I have referenced the text below so often that I'm sick of it, but maybe you have missed it, so here you are again.
John 6:37. "All that the Father gives Me will come to Me....." Here is your Particular Pedemption. God has given to the Lord Jesus a vast number of people (Rev. 7:9) to redeem, which He has done (John 17:2, 6, 24). He will not lose even one of them (John 6:39; 10:27-28).
".....And the one who comes to Me I will by no means cast out." And yet, anyone, anyone at all, may come to Him and will most certainly not be refused. There can be no mistake because John places it all in one verse and then repeats himself just two verses later (John 6:39-40). I understand that this may mess with your prejudices, but that is your problem, not mine.

I have not missed it.
Calvinism dances around words and says “all may not come and none will be refused. So if they come they won’t be refused because God selected them before creation. But if they don’t come, God never called them. And God never refused them because they didn’t come. And they didn’t come because God refused to call them.”

These are word games that are deceptive.

Geoff Thomas understands the Bible and Calvinism

Me too.

(which are the same thing)

And they are not.

very well, having preached it for 60+ years. He is in a line of great Baptist preachers stretching back to Knollys, Keach, Bunyan, Judson and a host of others.

Are you teaching successionism or that salvation or preaching has anything to do with heritage?
Surely I would have thought that th old covenant hating Calvinists would reject any form of religion passed down from any but Christ. And unless he studied under Bunyan, or these others, they are of no more advantage to him than they are to me.
And the amount of time that you spend reinforcing an error makes no correction to the error.
I don’t view any of these as having any extra merit in the case. He is flesh and blood like you and I.

God has saved hundreds of people through his ministry. I have explained it to you above. If you don't understand it, go to Proverbs 3:5 and James 1:5.

Trust in the Lord and ask Him for wisdom to understand the merits of Geoff Thomas??
I commended him for his invitation and evangelism. Since you seem to have missed that here it is again.
But I disagree with his teaching in the places I mentioned. I pointed out where I see his own balking at the issues that he is teaching.

I am very interested in courteous conversation, but I haven't found it on this thread. I don't think I am easily offended, but I find it too easy to let myself down by replying in kind to those who are abusive towards doctrines which I consider to be the very word of God..

I have stated several places where I apparently disagree with what you believe.
Instead of discussing the topic, I have heard that you are tired of talking about it. That you don’t think I listen. But I have listened. You have not persuaded. If your idea of courteous conversation is that I just agree with you, you are not interested in conversation at all.
So by your own admission, you are snapping at me when I appear to abuse your beliefs. This is not Christian behavior at all. The Saviour was much more long suffering and I would ask that if you cannot refrain from attacking people when your beliefs are attacked, that you refrain from the conversation entirely.
I have not ever intended any personal attacks. If you take them to yourself, I am sorry for you and to you and would hope that in the future we may have better communication and be slow to offense. I wish you well.

 

[DaveXR650]

This is an assumption. For a Calvinist to assume that “free will” preaching believes that their decision saves them is the first fallacy. The second is that any preaching this way don’t preach against sin and call holy living legalism.

Here is what I said:

if you preach a free and open gospel and invite everyone you will inevitably have some feel that their "decision" for Christ saves them and any attempt at holy living is legalism.

You miss quoted me as well as misunderstood. I was trying to give an example of how we are all prone to error. I was not trying to make any point other than the point that the gospel presented properly and accompanied by an invitation to come to Christ (which is proper and done by both Calvinists and non-Calvinists) can still lead to the error of people thinking it was their decision that saved them and that holy living is not important. I once attended a church that did not believe Christian living was very important, was opposed to the Lordship of Christ being taught, thought it was legalistic to put a high priority on following Christ - but yet thought your "decision" for Christ was so important that one adult Sunday school class I was in kept a big chart where everyone's "spiritual birthday" (the day they made a decision for Christ) was listed, all the while actively opposing anyone who asked if maybe we should examine our lives and conduct rather than trying to figure out our spiritual birthday.

That by the way, is what drew me to Calvinism. Not the metaphysics of the deterministic philosophy behind the Calvinistic theology. I have always been ambivalent to that and believe that whether it is true, partially true, or complete baloney, what matters is that you come to Christ by faith, and by "faith" I mean the heart's embracing and trusting in the way of life and salvation by Jesus Christ, proposed unto it as the effect of the infinite wisdom, love, grace and goodness of God; and as that which is suited unto all the wants and whole design of guilty convinced sinners. Some might recognize that my definition of faith is plagiarized from John Owen, and from that you can see I think where it might sometimes be possible for a "decision" to be made by someone who has no idea of the true meaning of saving faith. Anyway, I probably wasn't very clear in my illustration but it was in my mind as much about Calvinist preachers as free willers.

 

[DaveXR650]

I also have found that I don’t like your assumptions about what you think I assume about Calvinists.

I do notice that you still have not come out and answered the question posed earlier about whether it is possible for a person to want to come to Christ and then be refused because it turns out Christ's atonement did not include him. This shows me that there will be no effort made to find any common ground if you can't even agree that the most common misconception about Calvinism may not be true. I don't think it's an assumption if it is what you clearly do think, after repeatedly being asked.

This is an extremely important thing to get fleshed out here. You see, I don't mind if you were to say that based on your reasoning you don't see how it would be possible for the atonement to be "limited" absolutely, and yet the invitation to come to Christ actually be open to everyone who hears the gospel. That would be a theological difference in understanding that reasonable people could discuss. No, instead you would rather stick to a slanderous and outrageous logical conclusion because that feeds your preconceived dislike for Calvinistic theology. So there is no sense in continuing these discussions unless we can get past these accusations.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Thank you. I also supply Scripture but I am not willing to go read through every post to point it out if you are not willing to read it when I post it.

Well there is no Scripture in your post #112 - not a word of it except what I provided and you quoted me without answering. You have not given your understanding of John 6:37 or any other text.

 

[atpollard]

Same as above. A poor gotcha question.

Not intended as a "gotcha" (which is pointless in a discussion), but more of a rhetorical question intended to convey "Do you believe what is written or need to make it say something else to match your theology?")

[This is actually a fair question, since everyone engages in the practice to some degree ... we Doctrine of Grace fans tend to get tricky with the words "all" and "world" in certain verses, so it is not unreasonable to ask if you take the presented verse at face value.

 

[atpollard]

James 1:13-15 [NKJV]
Let no one say when he is tempted, "I am tempted by God"; for God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does He Himself tempt anyone. But each one is tempted when he is drawn away by his own desires and enticed. Then, when desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, brings forth death.

Who is responsible for "death"?

God

Matthew 10:28
And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

Note that my "not a gotcha" was applicable here.

James stated "But each one is tempted when he is drawn away by his own desires and enticed. Then, when desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, brings forth death." drawing a line from OUR OWN DESIRES - through SIN - to DEATH.
Yet, when I ask if you accept this at face value, and MAN is responsible for his own DEATH, you "get tricky" and employ scripture pong to prove that James does not mean what he said and GOD is responsible.

Allow me to answer my own questions:

Is James 1 True or false? [James 1 is to be understood as given.]
Who is responsible for "temptation"? [Man is responsible ... "each one is tempted when he is drawn away by his own desires"]
Who is responsible for "sin"? [Man is responsible ... "when (man's) desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin"]
Who is responsible for "death"? [Man is responsible ... "and (man's) sin, when it is full-grown, brings forth death"]
God or man? [From James 1 and the answers above, Man is responsible for "temptation" that leads to "sin" that leads to "death" so Man is responsible and God is not responsible for "temptation/sin/death"]

 

[Ben1445]

Here is what I said:

You miss quoted me as well as misunderstood. I was trying to give an example of how we are all prone to error. I was not trying to make any point other than the point that the gospel presented properly and accompanied by an invitation to come to Christ (which is proper and done by both Calvinists and non-Calvinists) can still lead to the error of people thinking it was their decision that saved them and that holy living is not important. I once attended a church that did not believe Christian living was very important, was opposed to the Lordship of Christ being taught, thought it was legalistic to put a high priority on following Christ - but yet thought your "decision" for Christ was so important that one adult Sunday school class I was in kept a big chart where everyone's "spiritual birthday" (the day they made a decision for Christ) was listed, all the while actively opposing anyone who asked if maybe we should examine our lives and conduct rather than trying to figure out our spiritual birthday.

That by the way, is what drew me to Calvinism. Not the metaphysics of the deterministic philosophy behind the Calvinistic theology. I have always been ambivalent to that and believe that whether it is true, partially true, or complete baloney, what matters is that you come to Christ by faith, and by "faith" I mean the heart's embracing and trusting in the way of life and salvation by Jesus Christ, proposed unto it as the effect of the infinite wisdom, love, grace and goodness of God; and as that which is suited unto all the wants and whole design of guilty convinced sinners. Some might recognize that my definition of faith is plagiarized from John Owen, and from that you can see I think where it might sometimes be possible for a "decision" to be made by someone who has no idea of the true meaning of saving faith. Anyway, I probably wasn't very clear in my illustration but it was in my mind as much about Calvinist preachers as free willers.

I’m sorry if I misunderstood you. I had no intention of misquoting.
I think I understand you now. I do agree with you on this point. There are many people who trust a “decision” that is no decision at all. I say that because a decision implies a choice to make a change in where you place your faith. I grew up in a church where they baptized the same people every year and not quite as bad as your experience has been, cared little about actually being followers of Christ.

And this may be some of the disconnect between our conversations. I am not condoning free living as if there would be no obligation to do right and live right.

 

[Ben1445]

I do notice that you still have not come out and answered the question posed earlier about whether it is possible for a person to want to come to Christ and then be refused because it turns out Christ's atonement did not include him.

I didn’t think that I was ever not clear about that. I have said repeatedly that Christ atoned for all sin (this is where I end up disagreeing with most) and that the people who are not in Christ are those who, regardless of any decision, remain in unbelief. Consequently, it would follow that no one could come to Christ to whom Christ’s atonement does not apply because it applicable to all.

This shows me that there will be no effort made to find any common ground if you can't even agree that the most common misconception about Calvinism may not be true. I don't think it's an assumption if it is what you clearly do think, after repeatedly being asked.

I think that some of what are considered misconceptions are what I consider games with words. Such as “No one will come to Christ and find the atonement does not apply to him because if the atonement does not apply to them they will/can not come.”
I don’t appreciate all the insinuations that come with having these discussions.
While I agree with the first part of the statement, what often follows or is believed to be the case is the second half.
I’m quite sorry if that is not what you believe, but if you defend Calvinism, then I will assume that like most other Calvinists you would jump to the next half of the sentence.
I believe in limited atonement in so much as it is limited by unbelief.

This is an extremely important thing to get fleshed out here. You see, I don't mind if you were to say that based on your reasoning you don't see how it would be possible for the atonement to be "limited" absolutely, and yet the invitation to come to Christ actually be open to everyone who hears the gospel. That would be a theological difference in understanding that reasonable people could discuss. No, instead you would rather stick to a slanderous and outrageous logical conclusion because that feeds your preconceived dislike for Calvinistic theology. So there is no sense in continuing these discussions unless we can get past these accusations.

I believe that I have answered your questions. If you want clarification I am happy to provide it. You have not listened to me. I have good friends who are Calvinist preachers and I disagree with them on certain points. I listen to and enjoy their preaching.
If disagreeing with Calvinisms definition of limited atonement makes my conversation slanderous and outrageous, I don’t know what to say to you. I am interested in the discussion if we can continue.
Please let me know what slander and what accusations you would like me to address. Quote me, and we will get it sorted out.

 

[Ben1445]

Well there is no Scripture in your post #112 - not a word of it except what I provided and you quoted me without answering.

I gave several answers to several people and my time is limited. I don’t disagree that my answers may not be sufficient to finish a conversation or satisfy your ears. It is what I have time for. Please be patient with me.

You have not given your understanding of John 6:37 or any other text.

John 6:37
All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.


All things are put under Christ.
Psalms 8:6
Thou madest him to have dominion over the works of thy hands;
thou hast put all things under his feet:
1 Corinthians 15:27
For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him.
Ephesians 1:22
And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church,
Hebrews 2:8
Thou hast put all things in subjection under his feet. For in that he put all in subjection under him, he left nothing that is not put under him. But now we see not yet all things put under him.

While all things are put under Christ, all things are not yet under Him.
There is nothing that is not subject to Him. Even those who reject Him are under Him.

There is a semicolon here and not a colon. Were it a colon you would be right to make a reverse correlation. Given the sentence structure, you may not freely say that what the Father has given in the first half is strictly who is coming to Him in the second half.
But Jesus will be the final judge. When all that the Father has given Him does come to Him, He will cast out many. The those who come to Him will not be. But the all that the Father giveth is not limited to people, as indicated in the passages that speak of all the Father gives.