Can you love your children more than God does?

[Skandelon]

Thanks for that, but I disagree with MacArthur strongly in this regard. He has no scriptural support for his position, it seems a watered down message to make something he wishes to believe.

Actually if you read the article you will see that he cites many passages and many other sources as well, including Calvin himself. He also refers to "a host of Reformed stalwarts, including Thomas Boston, John Brown, Andrew Fuller, W. G. T. Shedd, R. L. Dabney, B. B. Warfield, John Murray, R. B. Kuiper, and many others."

Like I said, I'm not sure you could call what you are advocating true "Calvinism," since Calvin himself didn't teach it.

We have to ask "What is love". Is not love seeking the good of the other? Does God seek the good of the reprobate? Or is He allowing them to "Store up wrath"?

Oh, I agree with that point, which is why I'm no longer a Calvinist, but my point was just to show that is not what Calvin (nor many orthodox Calvinists) taught. That conflict within the Calvinist ranks highlights the tension in dealing with the clearly revealed truth of scripture (which teaches God's love for all) and the clear implications of the Calvinistic dogma regarding God's treatment of the non-elect.

 

[Calv1]

Actually if you read the article you will see that he cites many passages and many other sources as well, including Calvin himself. He also refers to "a host of Reformed stalwarts, including Thomas Boston, John Brown, Andrew Fuller, W. G. T. Shedd, R. L. Dabney, B. B. Warfield, John Murray, R. B. Kuiper, and many others."

Calv: You are simply wrong, and badly wrong. The only verse he used was the rain falling on the wicked, etc. You can always find Calvinists who have different takes on things, IE Covenant Theology versus Dispensationism.

Like I said, I'm not sure you could call what you are advocating true "Calvinism," since Calvin himself didn't teach it.

Calv1: Let me get this straight, I have to agree with 100% of what John Calvin believed to call myself as a point of reference Calvinist? This is silly.

Oh, I agree with that point, which is why I'm no longer a Calvinist, but my point was just to show that is not what Calvin (nor many orthodox Calvinists) taught. That conflict within the Calvinist ranks highlights the tension in dealing with the clearly revealed truth of scripture (which teaches God's love for all) and the clear implications of the Calvinistic dogma regarding God's treatment of the non-elect.

Calv1: There is no internal tension, but rather a revival. People are in this information age going back to the truth.

 

[Skandelon]

am not a hyper-Calvinist, I reject that, and you shouldn't suggest it. If you really understood Calvinism you'd never ask me that.

Actually, I suggested that Phil Johnson and John MacArthur would teach that you are tending toward hyperism, as I clearly explained and referenced above. Since, Calvin himself would disagree with your teaching on this point, I don't believe pointing that out is an misrepresenting or a misunderstanding of "Calvinism," but instead a point of clarity by which the reader would be properly informed of your misrepresentation of Calvin's actual belief.

Anyways, I'm dead tired, goodnight.

Me too. See ya later! :sleeping_2:

 

[Calv1]

Actually, I suggested that Phil Johnson and John MacArthur would teach that you are tending toward hyperism, as I clearly explained and referenced above.

Calv1; Try again. Remember, they would call you a heretic, so is there some point? Or are you just trying to label me? I'll answer for you, your trying to label me because you don't understand Calvinism. I can speak for myself, I don't need you to do it.

Since, Calvin himself would disagree with your teaching on this point, I don't believe pointing that out is an misrepresenting or a misunderstanding of "Calvinism," but instead a point of clarity by which the reader would be properly informed of your misrepresentation of Calvin's actual belief.

Calv1: Your obsession with what I believe is bizarre. You are doing exactly what Dr. Norman Geisler tried in his book, "Chosen but free", labeled anyone who disagreed with him a "Hyper-Calvinist". It would be nice if you answer my questions once in awhile instead of answering with a irrelevant question or try to label me. Where's the "Scary" icon.



Me too. See ya later! :sleeping_2:

Good night.

 

[Skandelon]

Calv: You are simply wrong, and badly wrong. The only verse he used was the rain falling on the wicked, etc

Brother, facts are facts and this one is not a debatable one. Just in the except I provided he also sited Deuteronomy 7:6-7; 1 John 4:8 and Matt. 5:45; not to mention the rest throughout the entire article in the link I provided. He also wrote an entire book on the subject of God's love that I recommend you to read. You should be more careful with your facts, but it is late, so maybe you are just tired? Get some sleep...

Calv1: Let me get this straight, I have to agree with 100% of what John Calvin believed to call myself as a point of reference Calvinist? This is silly

Good point. I'll concede that this issue alone isn't necessarily worthy of disregarding the generic soteriological reference point known today as "Calvinism," but in the face of being accused of not understanding Calvinism I do think such distinctions between those wearing that banner should be noted. And it's not I, but he, who first labeled you in the "hyper" camp...another point worthy of note.

There is no internal tension, but rather a revival. People are in this information age going back to the truth.

You just acknowledged the tension in your admission that you (along with many other "reformed" scholars) disagree with MacArthur and Calvin on this particular point. Again, that is just a fact that was being pointed out. We can disagree regarding the conclusion one may draw from that fact, but it doesn't change that fact.

 

[Skandelon]

Calv1; Try again.

Try what again? To establish that Calvin, and many respected orthodox Calvinistic scholars disagree with you on a particular point up for discussion? No need, it was accomplished.

Remember, they would call you a heretic

I don't believe MacArthur believes all non-Calvinists are heretics. Obviously, he disagrees with us, but I don't believe he has used that terminology. Can you site your reference?

so is there some point?

Yes, to show that you're view regarding God's love is not held by many within the ranks of Calvinism, including Calvin himself. And to hopefully expose you to those teachings so as to convince you to see the error of your position and its tending toward "hyperism" as defined by MacArthur and Johnson. That was my point which was clearly and succinctly laid out and yet to be rebutted.

Or are you just trying to label me?

Label you? I don't know you. You are labeling yourself with each and every post.

I'll answer for you, your trying to label me because you don't understand Calvinism. I can speak for myself, I don't need you to do it

What specifically have I said that misrepresents Calvinism and thus proves my lack of understanding? Generic and unfounded accusations profit no one in a discussion. You should have support for such things. I've shown that Calvin himself and many respected Calvinists disagree with your view on this particular point (a point you seemed to be surprised by no less), yet somehow you conclude that I'm the one who doesn't understand Calvinism? Interesting perspective.

Calv1: Your obsession with what I believe is bizarre

It is bizarre to seek the understanding of what your opponent believes in a debate?

It would be nice if you answer my questions once in awhile instead of answering with a irrelevant question or try to label me.

What question have you asked that has gone unanswered? I'd be glad to address it.

Where's the "Scary" icon.

Before you move on to using icons you really need to work on the quote feature. It is hard to reply to you when you leave everything in one quote box. You need a

before and after the box the one at the end has a / before the word quote. I've sent you a PM on this.

Good night and rest well brother!

 

[Calv1]

Brother, facts are facts and this one is not a debatable one. Just in the except I provided he also sited Deuteronomy 7:6-7; 1 John 4:8 and Matt. 5:45; not to mention the rest throughout the entire article in the link I provided. He also wrote an entire book on the subject of God's love that I recommend you to read. You should be more careful with your facts, but it is late, so maybe you are just tired? Get some sleep...

Calv1: This is getting tedious. Understand, I don't care what MacArthur thinks, get it? I don't care what book he wrote! Call me hyper then, or Biblical, or Reformed, I don't care, you happy? And I am deadly with my facts, you ever wish to debate for real you'll see. I am terrified to make a mistake, are you?

Good point. I'll concede that this issue alone isn't necessarily worthy of disregarding the generic soteriological reference point known today as "Calvinism," but in the face of being accused of not understanding Calvinism I do think such distinctions between those wearing that banner should be noted. And it's not I, but he, who first labeled you in the "hyper" camp...another point worthy of note.

Calv1: You are just being a nit picker. You won't read a wonderful post I put up, but you'll spend all night trying to label me.

You just acknowledged the tension in your admission that you (along with many other "reformed" scholars) disagree with MacArthur and Calvin on this particular point. Again, that is just a fact that was being pointed out. We can disagree regarding the conclusion one may draw from that fact, but it doesn't change that fact.

Calv1: I'm through with this, this is not debate, it's nit picking and trying to find fault. Just because there are differences doesn't mean there is tension, you should be careful with your words. My great friend and I agree on almost everything, but he's a hardcore dispensationlist, I'm CT, and there is no "Tension". I thought these forums were about principles and not personalities?

 

[Robert Snow]

Calv1: There is no internal tension, but rather a revival. People are in this information age going back to the truth.

This turning toward Calvinism is more akin to "falling away from the truth" than it is to any revival. To have revival we must come closer to the Gospel, not go farther away from it!

 

[Calv1]

This turning toward Calvinism is more akin to "falling away from the truth" than it is to any revival. To have revival we must come closer to the Gospel, not go farther away from it!

Compelling statement, why don't you back it up with scripture? Can you?

Synergism, what you believe, in no different in substance than than Roman Church, JW, Molinism, Islam, or Mormonism, for synergism is all about man as the final arbitor of what will happen.

Only true Reformed Theology is unique in the world, in that it teachs the bible, that is God is God and we are not.

 

[Calv1]

This turning toward Calvinism is more akin to "falling away from the truth" than it is to any revival. To have revival we must come closer to the Gospel, not go farther away from it!

Yea, after the reformation from the synergistic Roman Church, we got back quick to the truth of scripture, but sadly it has slowly but surely come back.

With the information age people can now see, and watch, and study both sides of the debate, and find that the bible teaches monogesim throughout.

It's clear you hold to the synergistic tradition how would you answer Romans 9? Have you studied it?

 

[jaigner]

This is one of the most bizarre questions ever posed, but that, of course, is not really the fault of the OP, since he/she wasn't the one to suggest it in the first place.

God IS love. None of us can say that.

And I've never met a parent that, as much as they may love their kids (or say they do), has loved them perfectly.

 

[webdog]

This is one of the most bizarre questions ever posed, but that, of course, is not really the fault of the OP, since he/she wasn't the one to suggest it in the first place.

God IS love. None of us can say that.

And I've never met a parent that, as much as they may love their kids (or say they do), has loved them perfectly.

Why is it bizarre? We've seen on this very thread a calvinist who believes God hates the reprobate! When God addresses love with us He tells us to love our enemies and be perfect as He is (concerning love). If we are indwelt with the Spirit we most definitely can love and know love...even the wicked give good gifts to their children which is also love.

 

[webdog]

Good night.

Skan has been quite patient and respectful in his replies to you. Regardless if you agree you can at least show him the same courtesy. You are coming across as quite hostile and rude...not a good combo.

He had also asked for you to use the quote function properly, which you still continue to ignore. It does not reflect on you well.

 

[StefanM]

And I've never met a parent that, as much as they may love their kids (or say they do), has loved them perfectly.

The questions is not whether a parent has loved a child perfectly but whether or not God loves all perfectly.

If one is reprobate in a Calvinist system, does God really love that person? After all, can it be considered love if the one thing that truly matters (salvation) is withheld? That's what started the wheels turning in my head.

No one would claim that they love their child more than God does, if the child is saved.

 

[Skandelon]

Calv1: This is getting tedious. Understand, I don't care what MacArthur thinks, get it? I don't care what book he wrote

I understand why you might say that now, but earlier when I asked if you respected him you replied, "Yes, and I agree with him much of the time."

I asked you this because I felt that you would take instruction from him more readily than from me regarding this point of contention. Clearly, you are not willing to hear this from anyone and don't care what an older, respected, more educated brother in the Lord might share with you about a particular subject. I don't mind if you disagree with the man, but state arguments and reasoning for you conclusions rather than just dismissing him and me as "not caring what others think."

Call me hyper then, or Biblical, or Reformed, I don't care, you happy?

Yes, I am happy. It is a beautiful day outside and my family is healthy and I'm worshipping with my brethren this evening at church. Very happy, thanks for asking. I'll call you "Calv1" for now because I'm not sure you are done labeling yourself just yet.

And I am deadly with my facts, you ever wish to debate for real you'll see. I am terrified to make a mistake, are you

By "deadly" do you mean like "dead to facts," as in you born totally unable to respond to them when they are given? (<---kiddin)

Since you are a self-proclaimed Arminian apologist and "deadly with facts" then may I recommend not saying things like MacArthur has no biblical support for his views, because that is clearly contrary to the facts.

Calv1: You are just being a nit picker. You won't read a wonderful post I put up, but you'll spend all night trying to label me.

I'm sure all your posts are quite wonderful and I'd love to respond to any of them you would like to direct me to. Right now however, I'm having a discussion with you about several points you made about God's love (or lack thereof). I can understand why you wouldn't want to discuss that point any further though, since even those you respect in your own "Calvinistic" system have written large volumes of work debunking it. It's ok, we can move on.

Calv1: I'm through with this, this is not debate, it's nit picking and trying to find fault.

What you call "nit picking" I call an important fact. If I believed something that even most respected Arminians apposed, wouldn't you point it out? For example if I believed God really doesn't know man's choices (Open Theism), wouldn't you say something about that?

And, by the way, finding "fault" is a necessary aspect of debate. I'm not intending to hurt your feelings. Just point out the facts and point out where I believe you err.

Just because there are differences doesn't mean there is tension, you should be careful with your words.

Tension defined: "a situation or condition of hostility, suspense, or uneasiness"

Now, when I read MacArthur's reply to Pinks teaching I since at least a bit of "uneasiness" and some might even say "hostility." To label someone "hyper" as MacArthur and Johnson do is a disagreement that has caused some clear hostility among the ranks (just as witnessed here). Again, just the facts. I think my word was well chosen, I believe it could have been much more harsh than the word "tension" and still have been accurate.

My great friend and I agree on almost everything, but he's a hardcore dispensationlist, I'm CT, and there is no "Tension".

Well, then maybe you can give Pink and MacArthur a lesson on this matter, because I sense tension between them on this point.

I thought these forums were about principles and not personalities?

When have I attacked you personally Calv1? I have addressed your arguments/principles concisely, patiently and thoroughly. It is you who have stated you don't care what others think and accused me of being "tedious", "nit-picky" and only desiring to "label you."

Have a great day!

 

[Robert Snow]

Yea, after the reformation from the synergistic Roman Church, we got back quick to the truth of scripture, but sadly it has slowly but surely come back.

With the information age people can now see, and watch, and study both sides of the debate, and find that the bible teaches monogesim throughout.

It's clear you hold to the synergistic tradition how would you answer Romans 9? Have you studied it?

Ah, Romans 9 again. No, in my 40+ years of being a Christian, I have never read this chapter. What an ignorant thing to ask.

It does no good for me to list scripture after scripture, you won't believe it.

Just focus on Jn. 3:16. Or maybe Jn. 12:32. Then there's 2 Pet. 3:9.

I am working a lot of hours, so I don't have time to play your foolish games.

Anyone who believes that God doesn't desire all men to come to know Him is probably beyond help.

If it makes you happy to believe Calvinism is true, go for it. I have better sense!