Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Your so-called proofs are pretty lame. Let me show you.
Who called them proofs. They weren't. They were assertions. They have long been proved wrong elsewhere. I made no attempt to prove your points wrong here. I simply made an assertion. One problem in this discussion is that you people don't understand the difference between an assertion and proof, or between a position and argumentation for the position. You state something (such as you did) and then assume it is true. Then you read what someone writes (such you did to me) and assume it is something it is not. Either way, you are not making arguments for a position.
Bad argumentation. You assert Calvin was in error, without first asserting what Calvin believed or taught, and without second showing it to be actual error. See my point above about confusing assertions with proof.
Several more errors. First, you again assert Calvin's error without proof. See above for the problems you have created. Second, you say God is therefore aloof. Yet you have offered no proof of that. You simply made an assertion. (Remember that is what you charged me with in the beginning. Do really intend to do it yourself?)
Again, just a truckload of problems (Seeing a pattern here??). First you again assert Calvin's error without proof. Second, you talk about God's covenantal relationships without defining what you are talking about. Third, you ask another bad question. Where is there any one who "would believe" but wasn't chosen? You are asserting that a group of people exists. Please demonstrate the existence of these people. Your assertion that they exist is not the same as proof that they exist (the same old pattern that you have fallen into).
AGain, same old problem. You assert my response was lame. YEt it clearly wasn't. I made no attempt to argue anything or prove anything. I made an assertion.
Yet without truth. The posts of Bob remind me of 2 Peter where Peter describes some teachers as being clouds without water. If there was ever an apt description of Bob's posts here, it is clouds without water. They are long and involved, but rarely based on any legitimate exegesis or thought. They are merely the musings of a mind unwilling to accept the words of Scritpure.
I agree. I had no intention of defending Calvinism in that post.
This is simply false. Calvinism is very easily defended from Scripture if you are willing to listen to it. Most people have their own conceptions and thus are not willing to listen to Scripture. Truth be told, your mind is so made up that even if there was proof in Scripture you would reject it. You are interested in preserving your position.
Let's hear it then! Why would you waste these several past posts speaking only in vague generalities? The three accusations unanswered must theologically end Calvin's small error.
[/qb]Because I was responding in a very specific way to a very specific post.
These three accusations are not "unanswered." They have been answered many many times, both here and elsewhere.
Not if you are thinking. I was not addressing things biblically. I was addressing the fallacy of your approach. You approached the topic wrongly. You made false assertions based on illegitimate premises. This is like complaining that I didn't use Scripture to answer a claim that God is a little green genie who lives in a rusty pop can. It is so flawed on its face that it doesn't need a scriptural answer.
Again, several problems. First "forgiveness and pardon aren't extended freely to the entire world." The offer is extended. The forgiveness and pardon are extended only to those who believe. Second, your understanding of 1 John 2:2 may not properly deal with teh meaning of propitiation there. If Jesus "atoned for sins" then he paid for them. The atonement is not a pile of possibility, but an act of certainty. It is an actual payment, not a pile from which payment might be made. So, under this understanding, if Jesus atoned for the sins of the entire world then all men are saved. That is universalism.
This leads to universalism. If God does not count sins against people, then there is no basis on which to send them to hell. They go to heaven. If he did that for all men without exception, then no one goes to hell; all go to heaven. Is that what you believe?
No one disputes that. That is not at issue.
To use your own argument against you, why did he say many? He could have said "all" but chose not to. Should we assume that Christ didn't die for all since he used a different word? (You see how illegitimate that form of argumentation is??)
Many Calvinists don't disagree with this. Some would argue that the "all" refers to "all without distinction" and base it on the context where "all men" are broken down into categories. But many Calvinists believe this verse is talking about the sufficiency of Christ's death. There is no conflict here.
Who disagrees with free grace? There is no other kind. Calvinists believe in free grace, and the Scriptures you have cited above don't disagree with calvinism in the least.
???? What makes you think Calvinism disagrees with any of that? We believe God offers a universal atonement. We do not believe that God is the author of sin. We believe man has a free will to choose for Christ or not.
Calvinism doesn't teach that God is capricious.
What does "immanently" related to us mean? That doesn't make much sense. The word "immanent" has not much to do with relating.
Actually, the U is about hte easiest link because it is explicitly declared in Scripture. The others are the result of theological correlation.
Calvinism doesn't teach that God is capricious.</font>[/QUOTE]See! Your words hold to Bible, but the doctrine of pre-determinism contradicts your words. If God picks before the foundation of the world, then this is an arbitrary choice. Capricious is a fitting adjective for this determinism. I can't help it that the natural outworkings of Calvin's error doesn't sit right with you.
Keep in mind that in your understanding, this is contradictory. That doesn't make it so. If you believe what Calvinism believse about "pre determinism," then you would see that it doesn't contradict my words. You are using your own definitions which is illegitimate.
I haven't really defended Calvinism. (Didn't I already explain that? Are you really not reading that closely?)
You have yet to bring up one actual error. You have brought up several assertions, which you leave unproven. You have brought up many misrepresentation, which count for nothing since no one believes what you are refuting anyway. Again, you are confusing assertions with argumentation and proof. The fact that you say something doesn't make it true.
Lloyd, Lloyd, Lloyd ... You surely didn't think this would fly did you? I quoted your references and agreed with many of them. In fact, I interacted with those verses (which you completely ignored, and for obvious reasons ... I showed that you were incorrect on some points and you don't want to admit that).
But Eph 1 uses "in Christ" or the referrent 11 times in 11 verses to show that we are not elected capriciously. God is clearly showing that our election is "in Christ." From before the foundation of the world, God has chosen Christ to be the center piece of redemption. Whosoever will may enter in. Calvinism botches Eph 1 really bad. It picks only the few words here and there that seem to support determinism ignoring the whole flavor of the context "in Christ."