Failure to Grasp the Doctrine of Union with Christ, leads to many Error's

[Zaatar71]

Charlie is partially correct:
But, it ignores the larger issue.
It is certainly the case that God has no moral duty to save anyone, "elect" or "non-elect". Calvinists love to point this out. This is not the problem. It isn't so much the issue that God is seen to arbitrarily save some and not others.

It's that he even creates the ones he never intends to save in the first place.

You have to combine with Calvinism's arbitrary mechanic for who God chooses to save with the fact that no one chooses in any meaningful sense to "become" a sinner needing saving to begin with.
Calvinism assumes Original Sin, and more specifically Original Guilt whereby every human, born, unborn, died at 2, or died at 80 is a wretched being who is so filthy and disgusting in God's sight that they "deserve" eternal torture for the crime of God's decreeing that they be born with Original Sin.
This was God's plan after all.
God decided that all humans would share Adam's stain. God decided to give Adam freedom to fail knowing without a doubt he would do so. God decided that all humans would share in the guilt of that original sin Adam committed. God has decreed that all people will be born incapable of doing right or being righteous. In effect, humans are sinners because ultimately God decreed that they be sinners.

Calvinism assumes non posse non peccare:
It is simply impossible for any human God has created to NOT be a sinner.
Therefore, it is capricious at best to choose to save some and not others. God, then, has chosen, to subject countless billions to eternal torture just to glorify himself, whereas presumably, he could choose to save all. This could be argued to be evil or at least unbelievably cruel.

Couple all of this with the pretense God makes in the Scriptures about not glorying in the death of the wicked, or calling all men to repent (knowing they can't and can't want to), or claiming to have love for all mankind and it seems not only that God is being cruel but claiming to be kind and loving in the process.
Some people think this seems a lot like abusing your spouse and claiming that you are only doing so because you love them.
Or beating your wife and saying you wish: "they didn't make you have to do that".

While you state some things correctly, you fail here when you suggest that God does anything capriciously.
God has a plan and purpose that is Holy ,wise,and Just in all he does. To suggest otherwise is a theological third rail.

 

[Some Rando]

While you state some things correctly, you fail here when you suggest that God does anything capriciously.
God has a plan and purpose that is Holy ,wise,and Just in all he does. To suggest otherwise is a theological third rail.

I don't believe God does anything capriciously.
That is one reason I am not a Calvinist.
If I believed Calvinist doctrine to be true. I would be forced to conclude that God is capricious and cruel.
Certainly, Calvinists don't generally consider God capricious either.

 

[Some Rando]

Is this your position or are you saying it is the Calvinist position?

You neglected to include any scriptural references to support your statements.

It is both.

Nothing I said required a Scripture reference.
If I had asserted that 2+2=4, I wouldn't cite Scripture either.

 

[Zaatar71]

I don't believe God does anything capriciously.
That is one reason I am not a Calvinist.
If I believed Calvinist doctrine to be true. I would be forced to conclude that God is capricious and cruel.
Certainly, Calvinists don't generally consider God capricious either.

My friend, I am going to suggest to you, that you cannot accurately explain Calvinistic beliefs, without making a strawman. Your statement demonstrate this.

 

[Some Rando]

My friend, I am going to suggest to you, that you cannot accurately explain Calvinistic beliefs, without making a strawman. Your statement demonstrate this.

You would be wrong.
I know Calvinistic beliefs backwards and forwards, and all the differences Supra vs infralapsarian Compatibilist and non-compatibilist etc.

I know it, and I can explain it.
I also know that on internet message debate forums, it is simply a Universal tactic to claim that non-Calvinist interlocutors who disagree with it simply "don't understand" or "can't explain" Calvinism.

I've seen it for decades.
I've seen it on numerous forums (including the CARM forums etc)
Calvinists say this about former Calvinists who used to be their strongest allies.
They used to do this to Leighton Flowers on this forum years ago.

If, you, my friend, ever changed your view of Calvinism:
Calvinists on message boards would begin accusing YOU of not being able to accurately explain Calvinist beliefs.
I guarantee it.

 

[Zaatar71]

You would be wrong.
I know Calvinistic beliefs backwards and forwards, and all the differences Supra vs infralapsarian Compatibilist and non-compatibilist etc.

I know it, and I can explain it.
I also know that on internet message debate forums, it is simply a Universal tactic to claim that non-Calvinist interlocutors who disagree with it simply "don't understand" or "can't explain" Calvinism.

I've seen it for decades.
I've seen it on numerous forums (including the CARM forums etc)
Calvinists say this about former Calvinists who used to be their strongest allies.
They used to do this to Leighton Flowers on this forum years ago.

If, you, my friend, ever changed your view of Calvinism:
Calvinists on message boards would begin accusing YOU of not being able to accurately explain Calvinist beliefs.
I guarantee it.

SR, Thanks for your reply.....if what you stated was true and accurate, you would never use the statement of our omniscient God doing anything random, or capricious in any way. If you are another who listens to the Pelagian Leighton Flowers false teaching. and anti cal ideas I see, why you would make such an unfortunate staement. I will tell you flat out, that no biblical Calvinists drift away, unless they are on the road to apostasy.
In a court of law Leighton would not be found guilty of being a Calvinist, neither would any of the other supposed form Calvinists. Their words give them away. You identify some of the terms, but that is a small part of it. Let me ask you to tell me how these verses fit with your false description of God;
9 Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me,

10 Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:

11 Calling a ravenous bird from the east, the man that executeth my counsel from a far country: yea, I have spoken it, I will also bring it to pass; I have purposed it, I will also do it.

Explain your statement in light of this, thank you

 

[Some Rando]

SR, Thanks for your reply.....if what you stated was true and accurate, you would never use the statement of our omniscient God doing anything random, or capricious in any way

I never suggested God does anything randomly or capricious. I do not believe he does, and no Calvinist believes he does.

If you are another who listens to the Pelagian Leighton Flowers false teaching.

1.) He isn't a Pelagian
2.) Pelagius wasn't a "Pelagian"
3.) The term "Pelagian" means nothing coming from the mouth of a Calvininst.
4.) You might as well have called him "fatty" or "stupid-head" for all he cares when a Calvinist hurls that random slur around.
5.) I don't "listen" to Flowers. I have before, not in years though, and I don't always agree with him. He used to post on this board. He used to debate Calvinists on this board. My only point about him is:
Say what you want about him, he ABSOLUTELY understands Calvinism thoroughly and used to be one.

I will tell you flat out, that no biblical Calvinists drift away, unless they are on the road to apostasy

It happens all the time.
Christians of all stripes drift away from Soteriological views they once held. This is not an inherently bad thing.
Arminians become Calvinists, Calvinists become Arminians, etc. etc.
The only way to deny it is to utilize the "No true Scotsman" fallacy saying something like: "Then he was never a true Calvinist".
I suspect that's essentially what you were setting up for by saying a "biblical" Calvinist....it's essentially an opening to say that they were never "truly" Calvinist.
I understand the way Calvinists think very well.

In a court of law Leighton would not be found guilty of being a Calvinist

He's not a Calvinist.
I did not say he is.
He does not say he is.

You identify some of the terms, but that is a small part of it. Let me ask you to tell me how these verses fit with your false description of God;

Here's the problem right off the bat:
I have not, and you have never heard me give a "description of God".
The ONLY thing you know is that I'm not a Calvinist.
I have given no description of God, I have never told you what I believe soteriologically, Christologically or anything else. Any "description of God" I have made, was written by you, about me and exists in your head as an idea and set of presuppositions only.
The only descriptions of God I have given on this board is to say that God is NEITHER capricious or cruel nor evil, a proposition which yourself and I assume all believers on this board agree with.

 

[Zaatar71]

I never suggested God does anything randomly or capricious. I do not believe he does, and no Calvinist believes he does.

1.) He isn't a Pelagian
2.) Pelagius wasn't a "Pelagian"
3.) The term "Pelagian" means nothing coming from the mouth of a Calvininst.
4.) You might as well have called him "fatty" or "stupid-head" for all he cares when a Calvinist hurls that random slur around.
5.) I don't "listen" to Flowers. I have before, not in years though, and I don't always agree with him. He used to post on this board. He used to debate Calvinists on this board. My only point about him is:
Say what you want about him, he ABSOLUTELY understands Calvinism thoroughly and used to be one.

It happens all the time.
Christians of all stripes drift away from Soteriological views they once held. This is not an inherently bad thing.
Arminians become Calvinists, Calvinists become Arminians, etc. etc.
The only way to deny it is to utilize the "No true Scotsman" fallacy saying something like: "Then he was never a true Calvinist".
I suspect that's essentially what you were setting up for by saying a "biblical" Calvinist....it's essentially an opening to say that they were never "truly" Calvinist.
I understand the way Calvinists think very well.

He's not a Calvinist.
I did not say he is.
He does not say he is.

Here's the problem right off the bat:
I have not, and you have never heard me give a "description of God".
The ONLY thing you know is that I'm not a Calvinist.
I have given no description of God, I have never told you what I believe soteriologically, Christologically or anything else. Any "description of God" I have made, was written by you, about me and exists in your head as an idea and set of presuppositions only.
The only descriptions of God I have given on this board is to say that God is NEITHER capricious or cruel nor evil, a proposition which yourself and I assume all believers on this board agree with.

you say you have listened to him in the past. Are you saying you never heard him say the Spirit is not necessary to have a man understand the scripture savingly? His pet phrase was men are response-able! If you used to listen you heard it!many times in fact.

 

[Some Rando]

you say you have listened to him in the past. Are you saying you never heard him say the Spirit is not necessary to have a man understand the scripture savingly? His pet phrase was men are response-able! If you used to listen you heard it!many times in fact.

I have heard him say things like that before, and yes, many times. Last I listened to him was probably 5 years ago or so. He has somewhat evolved in the way he thinks and describes his beliefs. All believers should, I believe. It implies growth. He used to be much more classically "Arminian". In fact, if I'm not mistaken, he used to belong to the Society of Evangelical Arminians. He wouldn't describe himself as "Arminian" any more however. He didn't always call himself a "Traditional Baptist" soteriologically, as I think he does now.
He seems to absolutely LOVE that "response-able" line. I find it a little silly, but, it's an effective way to get his point across I guess.