Dr. Danny Akin’s Article on Calvinism

[Loopie]

I think it is very important that we do look at the context of 1 Timothy 2:4. In verse 2, we see that when Paul says to make prayers on behalf of all men, he contextualizes this by specifying "for kings and all who are in authority." If Paul truly meant 'every single man, woman, and child' when he said the word 'all', then there would be no need to make mention of certain groups. It is certainly easy to see that the term 'all' refers to all KINDS of men, such as kings and those who are in authority.

This fits perfectly with the concept that God's Elect will include people from every tribe, tongue, people, and nation (reference Revelation 14:6).

I know that some anti-Calvinists argue that 'all' means 'all'. I would point out though that 'all' does not always mean 'every single man, woman, and child'. Is this how 'all' is used in the Old Testament?

1 Samuel 4:5 (NASB)
5 As the ark of the covenant of the LORD came into the camp, all Israel shouted with a great shout, so that the earth resounded.

So was every single man, woman, and child in Israel at the camp of the army?

1 Samuel 13:19-20 (NASB)
19 Now no blacksmith could be found in all the land of Israel, for the Philistines said, "Otherwise the Hebrews will make swords or spears."
20 So all Israel went down to the Philistines, each to sharpen his plowshare, his mattock, his axe, and his hoe.

So every single man, woman, and child went down to the Philistines? Clearly not.

1 Samuel 11:14-15 (NASB)
14 Then Samuel said to the people, "Come and let us go to Gilgal and renew the kingdom there."
15 So all the people went to Gilgal, and there they made Saul king before the LORD in Gilgal. There they also offered sacrifices of peace offerings before the LORD; and there Saul and all the men of Israel rejoiced greatly.

So every single man, woman, and child when to Gilgal and made Saul king? Was the rest of the land of Israel entirely empty of people? Or was 'all Israel' represented by elders and leaders?

In the end, if God truly desires every single man, woman, and child to be saved, then clearly God is being thwarted every day (he cannot accomplish what he desires). I know that many defend so-called 'free will', but the term 'free will' is never found in scripture, and the concept is actually derived from ancient Greek philosophy. The Bible teaches that man's will is an enslaved will, and certainly not 'free'. It is only by the grace of God that anyone is saved, and God is FREE to save whom he pleases. If you say that God is obligated to save someone, then clearly he himself is not free.

 

[12strings]

Loopie is giving different arguments than aged man, which I don't have time to reply to right now... but

Agedman, I read your post, and am still struck by the fact that you can say the following:

1. Jesus is God
2. Jesus (if it is Jesus in this verse) desires (present tense in 1 Tim.) all men to be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth.
3. Yet God does not Desire it.
4. (reminder: JESUS IS GOD!)


When you say:

God did not desire what Jesus in the Garden desired.

You are leaving out the necessary qualification that GOD THE FATHER did not desire what Jesus in the Garden desired. "GOD" did in fact desire it, since (I'll remind you again) JESUS IS GOD!

 

[Yeshua1]

Loopie is giving different arguments than aged man, which I don't have time to reply to right now... but

Agedman, I read your post, and am still struck by the fact that you can say the following:

1. Jesus is God
2. Jesus (if it is Jesus in this verse) desires (present tense in 1 Tim.) all men to be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth.
3. Yet God does not Desire it.
4. (reminder: JESUS IS GOD!)

God is ONE...

So always be in total agreement and would always be "like mind"

Same essense, GOD, in 3 persons, yet still maintain just one God...
Ibelieve that as the bible teaches it, I cannot fully expalin/understand it!

 

[LillyoftheValley]

I think it is very important that we do look at the context of 1 Timothy 2:4. In verse 2, we see that when Paul says to make prayers on behalf of all men, he contextualizes this by specifying "for kings and all who are in authority." If Paul truly meant 'every single man, woman, and child' when he said the word 'all', then there would be no need to make mention of certain groups. It is certainly easy to see that the term 'all' refers to all KINDS of men, such as kings and those who are in authority.

I would contend that if Paul meant only certain groups he would not have used the word 'all'
His reasoning for mentioning the certain groups seems to explained in the same verse.
1Ti 2:2 For kings, and [for] all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.

Paul then goes on to say that not only does God want those men saved, but also ALL others
.
1Ti 2:3 For this [is] good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;

1Ti 2:4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.

1Ti 2:5 For [there is] one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

1Ti 2:6 Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.

So did Jesus only ransom himself for all kinds of man (i.e. kings and those in authority)? My daughter just accepted Christ on Monday night and, between my husband and I, we will do everything in our power to keep her from being exposed to people who believe that 'all' doesn't really mean 'all' for quite some time.

 

[12strings]

I think it is very important that we do look at the context of 1 Timothy 2:4. In verse 2, we see that when Paul says to make prayers on behalf of all men, he contextualizes this by specifying "for kings and all who are in authority." If Paul truly meant 'every single man, woman, and child' when he said the word 'all', then there would be no need to make mention of certain groups. It is certainly easy to see that the term 'all' refers to all KINDS of men, such as kings and those who are in authority.

This fits perfectly with the concept that God's Elect will include people from every tribe, tongue, people, and nation (reference Revelation 14:6).

I know that some anti-Calvinists argue that 'all' means 'all'. I would point out though that 'all' does not always mean 'every single man, woman, and child'. Is this how 'all' is used in the Old Testament?

1 Samuel 4:5 (NASB)
5 As the ark of the covenant of the LORD came into the camp, all Israel shouted with a great shout, so that the earth resounded.

So was every single man, woman, and child in Israel at the camp of the army?

1 Samuel 13:19-20 (NASB)
19 Now no blacksmith could be found in all the land of Israel, for the Philistines said, "Otherwise the Hebrews will make swords or spears."
20 So all Israel went down to the Philistines, each to sharpen his plowshare, his mattock, his axe, and his hoe.

So every single man, woman, and child went down to the Philistines? Clearly not.

1 Samuel 11:14-15 (NASB)
14 Then Samuel said to the people, "Come and let us go to Gilgal and renew the kingdom there."
15 So all the people went to Gilgal, and there they made Saul king before the LORD in Gilgal. There they also offered sacrifices of peace offerings before the LORD; and there Saul and all the men of Israel rejoiced greatly.

So every single man, woman, and child when to Gilgal and made Saul king? Was the rest of the land of Israel entirely empty of people? Or was 'all Israel' represented by elders and leaders?

In the end, if God truly desires every single man, woman, and child to be saved, then clearly God is being thwarted every day (he cannot accomplish what he desires). I know that many defend so-called 'free will', but the term 'free will' is never found in scripture, and the concept is actually derived from ancient Greek philosophy. The Bible teaches that man's will is an enslaved will, and certainly not 'free'. It is only by the grace of God that anyone is saved, and God is FREE to save whom he pleases. If you say that God is obligated to save someone, then clearly he himself is not free.

You have proven that it is indeed possible for all to not mean literally "all" all the time (as in your OT examples)...but you have not come back to this verse to apply your logic. If you did, you would come up with the following rediculous conclusions:

1. We should not pray for all men, Only those in authority
2. God only desires that those in authority be saved. There is no textual reason to shift paul's supposed specification from "kings and those in authority" to "His elect ONLY". If we are going to limit "all" we must do it based on clues from the immediate context, not on who we think paul means, even though he gives no reason HERE for us to think that.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

You have proven that it is indeed possible for all to not mean literally "all" all the time (as in your OT examples)...but you have not come back to this verse to apply your logic. If you did, you would come up with the following rediculous conclusions:

1. We should not pray for all men, Only those in authority
2. God only desires that those in authority be saved. There is no textual reason to shift paul's supposed specification from "kings and those in authority" to "His elect ONLY". If we are going to limit "all" we must do it based on clues from the immediate context, not on who we think paul means, even though he gives no reason HERE for us to think that.

Precisely....there is no way that that works in this passage similarly:

If Paul truly meant 'every single man, woman, and child' when he said the word 'all', then there would be no need to make mention of certain groups.

If Paul truly meant kings, and those in authority....then there would be no reason for Paul to say "all men" later at all, since he has included all he wants to include already.

 

[Loopie]

So allow me to ask a few questions to those who actually believe that Jesus ransomed every single man, woman, and child:

Who does Christ intercede for to the Father? Who does he mediate for? You quoted 1 Timothy 2:5-6:

5 For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,
6 who gave Himself as a ransom for all, the testimony given at the proper time.

So is Christ mediating for every single man woman and child that ever lived? Is he mediating for the Amorite high priest who was slain by the Israelites? Did God desire for the Amorites to be saved, even though he had specifically told Abraham that his descendants won't take possession of the land of Canaan until the iniquities of the Amorites was complete:

Genesis 15:16 (NASB)
16 "Then in the fourth generation they will return here, for the iniquity of the Amorite is not yet complete."

I think it is important that we think through our understanding of 1 Timothy 2:4. Now in response to what some of you said, you made the argument that God must therefore only desire for Kings and all those in authority to be saved. How is it not clear that Paul is using the term 'all' in a categorical sense? Certainly he would agree that we pray for all men, but even then we automatically assume he means 'men who are alive'. Would anyone hear argue that Paul was commanding Christians to pray for dead men? Right there we have already contextualized the term 'all'. We assume he is referring to LIVING men. So on the one hand you say that Paul is NOT referring to every single man woman and child who ever lived, and on the other hand you are saying that he IS referring to every single man woman and child. Furthermore, we all tend to agree that the word 'men' does not just refer to males, but is this also not a recognition of context? So when it comes to God desiring 'all men' to be saved, it's ok if we remove any context and say that it MUST refer to every single man woman and child (of course, this would mean LIVING people, not those who are already dead, right?).

I would also like to ask another question: Did Christ pay the penalty for the sins of every single man woman and child that ever lived? If so, then why do the wicked still pay the penalty for their own sins in hell? I mean, isn't that a case of double jeopardy? If Christ TRULY PAID for the sins of unbelievers, then their sins should not have to be paid again by themselves, right?

Did the blood of Christ justify and sanctify every single man woman and child? Would you suggest that those unbelievers, when they stand on the parapets of hell, will be able to proclaim that they overcame the blood of Christ that covered their sins? Would any of you argue that?

These are the difficult questions that Arminians must answer. I mean, if God bestows his grace upon EVERYONE EQUALLY, then the only reason why one person believes and another does not is found in the person themselves. They must have been smarter, more spiritually capable, or something else. When we take away God's sovereign election, we ultimately make man able to save himself. That is the result of any synergistic system of salvation.

I would also point out some of Jesus' own words:

Matthew 22:14 (NASB)
14 "For many are called, but few are chosen."

In speaking of the parable of the wedding feast, I think Jesus clearly points out the difference between the general call of the gospel and the effectual call of the gospel.

John 6:37-39 (NASB)
37 "All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out.
38 "For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me.
39 "This is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day.

So in this statement of Jesus, does the Father give every single man woman and child who ever lived to Jesus? Jesus makes it pretty clear that those who the Father GIVES to him WILL come to him. If the Father gave every single human being to Jesus, then they WILL come to him, right? Are we now embracing Universalism?

John 6:44 (NASB)
44 "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day.

In this statement of Jesus we need to see that apparently no one can come to Christ unless the Father draws him. Question: does the Father draw every single human being equally? If so, then how comes not all are saved? It must be because of something inherent in the human being that enables them to believe. Obviously not all humans are on equal spiritual footing, because not all are saved, even though God draws everyone equally. Again, salvation ends up in the hands of men, not God.

Ultimately these are very important things to think about. That is why we must be careful not to force 1 Timothy 2:4 to say something that it is not saying, unless of course we believe that scripture can contradict scripture. We always must look at the context, and use scripture to interpret scripture. If we truly believe that God desires every single man woman and child who ever lived to be saved, then obviously God's will is NOT being accomplished. His will is being thwarted by man's will. If Christ is truly mediating for every single human being that ever lived (including the Amorite high priest), then there is no reason why God's wrath is still upon unbelievers (unless of course we are suggesting that Christ has not been successful in mediating to the Father).

In the end, if we truly believe that Faith is a GIFT from God (as seen in Ephesians), then obviously faith is not something that we can exercise APART from God's saving grace. The heart of stone must be replaced with the heart of flesh in regeneration for man to exercise faith and repentance.

 

[Yeshua1]

You are teaching the Bible, but in some cases falling upon 'deaf ears"

 

[HeirofSalvation]

So allow me to ask a few questions to those who actually believe that Jesus ransomed every single man, woman, and child:

Who does Christ intercede for to the Father? Who does he mediate for? You quoted 1 Timothy 2:5-6:

He intercedes for us.....and he mediates for his children, that is what a High Priest does, a Priest is a mediator. Those of us who are in Christ, he has become our Great High Priest. Those who seek to function as their own Priest, God will (I assume) say something to the effect of..."depart from me for I never knew you." There must be something implied in this objection which is not at all clear to me.

So is Christ mediating for every single man woman and child that ever lived?

No

Is he mediating for the Amorite high priest who was slain by the Israelites?

No, as the Amorite Priest is functioning as his own mediator, and that, to a God other than the God of the Bible.

Did God desire for the Amorites to be saved, even though he had specifically told Abraham that his descendants won't take possession of the land of Canaan until the iniquities of the Amorites was complete:

Yes....and he did tell Abraham that. The obvious reference is to the unique command of God to Israel to engage in whole-sale genocide of wicked men. So what? It has little to do with salvation. It has to do with God punishing the wicked. God does not judge them until their sin reaches critical mass. He is slow to anger.

I would also like to ask another question: Did Christ pay the penalty for the sins of every single man woman and child that ever lived?

Christ became a perfect sacrifice sufficient to meet the demands of Divine Justice. So, yes.

If so, then why do the wicked still pay the penalty for their own sins in hell?

A question God also asks....you would have to ask the wicked that.
Eze 18:31 Cast away from you all your transgressions, whereby ye have transgressed; and make you a new heart and a new spirit: for why will ye die, O house of Israel?


Eze 18:32 For I have no pleasure in the death of him that dieth, saith the Lord GOD: wherefore turn [yourselves], and live ye.

Eze 33:11 Say unto them, [As] I live, saith the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live: turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die, O house of Israel?

I mean, isn't that a case of double jeopardy? If Christ TRULY PAID for the sins of unbelievers, then their sins should not have to be paid again by themselves, right?

Rom 9:20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God?

Did the blood of Christ justify and sanctify every single man woman and child?

No.

Would you suggest that those unbelievers, when they stand on the parapets of hell, will be able to proclaim that they overcame the blood of Christ that covered their sins?

No, the blood never covered their sins, because they refused to have it applied to their sins. The blood was shed, the blood was shed for them. It was never applied to them. Do you realize that only one lamb was sufficient to satisfy the demands of Divine Justice in the case of atoning for National Israel? Some of the children of Israel were OT saints, some remained in, and died in their sin. But one lamb would do it.

Would any of you argue that?

No, but that is because we don't bring to it the Calvinistic assumptions that you seem to.

These are the difficult questions that Arminians must answer.

They are not that difficult.

I mean, if God bestows his grace upon EVERYONE EQUALLY, then the only reason why one person believes and another does not is found in the person themselves. They must have been smarter, more spiritually capable, or something else.

The part in bold is the determinist assumption which renders this argument invalid....You are seeking for an answer to the cause of a decision. You are assumming that there is something which necessitates a "why". You are searching for a set of conditions which required a "choice" to be what that "choice" was. LFW does not work that way. Choices are un-caused...they are not necessitated. They do not flow automatically from a given set of conditions in LFW. Therefore, it has nothing to do with intelligence, spiritual capacity, manna, armor class, dex. con. or anything else. The is a common mistake for determinists. It is not intentionally mis-leading. You are searching for something which simply does not exist given LFW.

When we take away God's sovereign election, we ultimately make man able to save himself.

I believe in "Sovereign Election". I do not believe in determinism. Most people on this board have some view of what "election" means. Man is not able to save himself. Never has been, never will be.

That is the result of any synergistic system of salvation.

Not really.
I would also point out some of Jesus' own words:

Matthew 22:14 (NASB)
14 "For many are called, but few are chosen."

Yes. This is perfectly consistent with a Calvinist understanding of Soteriology, it is also perfectly consistent with non-Calvinistic beliefs.

In speaking of the parable of the wedding feast, I think Jesus clearly points out the difference between the general call of the gospel and the effectual call of the gospel.

John 6:37-39 (NASB)
37 "All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out.
38 "For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me.
39 "This is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day.

So in this statement of Jesus, does the Father give every single man woman and child who ever lived to Jesus?

No, He only gives him those who are truly his.

Jesus makes it pretty clear that those who the Father GIVES to him WILL come to him.

Yes, they will.

If the Father gave every single human being to Jesus, then they WILL come to him, right?

According to the above passage, yes, but, then again, he didn't so......

Are we now embracing Universalism?

No

John 6:44 (NASB)
44 "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day.

Yes, There is no human being, ever, in the history of the Universe who will ever come to Christ, except they be drawn.

In this statement of Jesus we need to see that apparently no one can come to Christ unless the Father draws him. Question: does the Father draw every single human being equally?

Don't know about "equally", but at least sufficiently to enable. You seem to not be aknowledging that there is such a thing as the doctrine of "prevenient grace" there is such a thing, though and it is consistent with all of these passages here. But you are assuming that they teach an "efficient" call. But that point of view is not required by those passages. Again, although those passages are consistent with an "irresistable calling" they do not necessitate it.

If so, then how comes not all are saved?

Because they do not come to Christ.

It must be because of something inherent in the human being that enables them to believe.

No, see above

Ultimately these are very important things to think about.

They are indeed

 

[HeirofSalvation]

That is why we must be careful not to force 1 Timothy 2:4 to say something that it is not saying,

Correct: But similarly, we can't pretend that it is NOT saying what it does say.

If we truly believe that God desires every single man woman and child who ever lived to be saved, then obviously God's will is NOT being accomplished. His will is being thwarted by man's will.

No, his desire, that all men be saved, is not being accomplished, since it was God's will to give man free choice and moral agency. THAT was God's will. God was also aware of the consequences of the decision to give men free agency. He did it anyway. It was his WILL to do so. He is Sovereign, he can do that if He wishes.

If Christ is truly mediating for every single human being that ever lived (including the Amorite high priest), then there is no reason why God's wrath is still upon unbelievers (unless of course we are suggesting that Christ has not been successful in mediating to the Father).

I really don't understand this objection you have, Christ is not, and does not "mediate" for those who are not his....who ever claimed he did? I think that you seem to believe that Christ was always in a state of "mediation" he wasn't. He does not mediate for us until we become his Children.

 

[Benjamin]

Christ is the Mediator of the covenant, the gospel, and me thinks that means everyman has heard and has responded, or not.

I haven't read much of the tread but will state all men, both OT and NT were saved by faith. Jesus, the Word, the Mediator has been in the world as a light to all men since the beginning.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Christ is the Mediator of the covenant, the gospel, and me thinks that means everyman has heard and has responded, or not.

I haven't read much of the tread but will state all men, both OT and NT were saved by faith. Jesus, the Word, the Mediator has been in the world as a light to all men since the beginning.

Thinking is not knowing, its merely thinking IE offering a best guess.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Thinking is not knowing, its merely thinking IE offering a best guess.

:laugh: Benjamin's thoughts run through his head faster than his fingers can type...He didn't mean " me......thinks" he meant:
"me-thinks" (one word) two totally and clearly different phrases with two decidedly different meanings. Punctuation, is not his strong suit....You have to mentally supply it in your own mind for him. :laugh: But, once correctly translated, it'll make sense.

 

[Loopie]

Heir of Salvation:

I think the biggest reason for the error of your arguments is the assumption that choices are uncaused. I mean, that is absolutely ridiculous when you even try to apply that to the life of humans. Can you name one decision that you ever made that was without cause? Are you saying that human choice is never subject to external and internal influences (all of which are part of the web of causality).

Your assumption that human choice is absolutely free from ALL causality and ALL influence results in making man equal with God. According to your system of salvation, God is not truly free. He must base his decisions on the absolutely free will of man. You have inadvertantly taken freedom and sovereignty from God.

I would strongly recommend you read Jonathan Edwards book Freedom of the Will, as he goes very much in depth on the subject. In fact, I think Augustine would be a good source to read as well.

Since you hold to LFW, do you believe that a person can lose their salvation? I mean, even though God declares that those who come to him WILL be raised up on the last day, and that no one can snatch them from his hand, how can that fit with LFW? If man had the freedom to enter into Christ, he should have the freedom to exit out of Christ.

Finally, your doctrine of prevenient Grace is also unbiblical. This is because you failed to see the point that I made concerning God's drawing. I will ask again: does God draw ALL men equally (in that he equally desires all men to be saved, and equally tries as best he can to save them). If God indeed draws all men equally, then when some men accept him, while others refuse him, the only reason for this is because there was something inherent within those who accepted him that enabled them to accept him. Everyone received an equal amount of grace, but apparently only a few were able in and of themselves to see it and accept it. Certainly you might say that their choices were uncaused, but that would also mean that God had no part in influencing them, drawing them, or calling them. If their choices TRULY were uncaused, then they TRULY did save themselves. For this reason I would ask that you take a look at the concept of Compatibilism, in which man's will is perfectly compatible with God's sovereignty. If you study any of the Reformers, Puritans, or post-Puritans, I doubt you will find any of them that does not believe both that man is responsible, and God is sovereign. Have you read any of Calvin's works, or even the works of Arminius?

 

[Yeshua1]

Heir of Salvation:

I think the biggest reason for the error of your arguments is the assumption that choices are uncaused. I mean, that is absolutely ridiculous when you even try to apply that to the life of humans. Can you name one decision that you ever made that was without cause? Are you saying that human choice is never subject to external and internal influences (all of which are part of the web of causality).

Your assumption that human choice is absolutely free from ALL causality and ALL influence results in making man equal with God. According to your system of salvation, God is not truly free. He must base his decisions on the absolutely free will of man. You have inadvertantly taken freedom and sovereignty from God.

I would strongly recommend you read Jonathan Edwards book Freedom of the Will, as he goes very much in depth on the subject. In fact, I think Augustine would be a good source to read as well.

Since you hold to LFW, do you believe that a person can lose their salvation? I mean, even though God declares that those who come to him WILL be raised up on the last day, and that no one can snatch them from his hand, how can that fit with LFW? If man had the freedom to enter into Christ, he should have the freedom to exit out of Christ.

Finally, your doctrine of prevenient Grace is also unbiblical. This is because you failed to see the point that I made concerning God's drawing. I will ask again: does God draw ALL men equally (in that he equally desires all men to be saved, and equally tries as best he can to save them). If God indeed draws all men equally, then when some men accept him, while others refuse him, the only reason for this is because there was something inherent within those who accepted him that enabled them to accept him. Everyone received an equal amount of grace, but apparently only a few were able in and of themselves to see it and accept it. Certainly you might say that their choices were uncaused, but that would also mean that God had no part in influencing them, drawing them, or calling them. If their choices TRULY were uncaused, then they TRULY did save themselves. For this reason I would ask that you take a look at the concept of Compatibilism, in which man's will is perfectly compatible with God's sovereignty. If you study any of the Reformers, Puritans, or post-Puritans, I doubt you will find any of them that does not believe both that man is responsible, and God is sovereign. Have you read any of Calvin's works, or even the works of Arminius?

welcome to the board! As a fellow calvinist, at least in regards to Sotierology, you will find some interesting postings to be had here!

some addressing do NOT hold to original Sin, as Agustine was flat wrong to them. others that mn has real Free Will, others that man do seek and understand God on their own, some that the Gospel alone is all required to save us, and still others that cals see God as a puppet master, and he is jerking our chains, while others see it unfair that he would be a monster, and chose to save some and not all!

 

[agedman]

welcome to the board! As a fellow calvinist, at least in regards to Sotierology, you will find some interesting postings to be had here!

some addressing do NOT hold to original Sin, as Agustine was flat wrong to them. others that mn has real Free Will, others that man do seek and understand God on their own, some that the Gospel alone is all required to save us, and still others that cals see God as a puppet master, and he is jerking our chains, while others see it unfair that he would be a monster, and chose to save some and not all!

And some mock and ridicule and rarely post any Scriptural proof of what they either view as solid Biblical teaching or in rebuttal to someone they think is in error.

Some come across as so high and mighty that Loopie might need to be a bit extra careful to avoid them floating about in the clouds.

I frankly am a bit jealous. Every time Loopie goes to work he gets to practice what we mere believers can only hope will happen, soon. Being caught up into the air.

 

[Yeshua1]

And some mock and ridicule and rarely post any Scriptural proof of what they either view as solid Biblical teaching or in rebuttal to someone they think is in error.

Some come across as so high and mighty that Loopie might need to be a bit extra careful to avoid them floating about in the clouds.

I frankly am a bit jealous. Every time Loopie goes to work he gets to practice what we mere believers can only hope will happen, soon. Being caught up into the air.

Did I leave any doctrine held here out?