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