"For God SO LOVES the HUMAN RACE..."

[1689Dave]

I know that is what you are saying. I am saying that you are wrong to ask others to even consider your conclusion if you cannot prove the assumption.

It is a fallacy. You say "IF Christ died for all sin AND all are not saved THEN Christ did not die fir sin."

In a way you are correct because Christ died for man, NOT sin. But you are just making unsubstantiated and unconnected assumptions.

If Christ died for sin and all are not saved then I am at Disneyworld. You can't just say stuff and if it sounds good treat it as fact.

If Christ died for all sin as you say. Either all will be saved, or, since most perish, his death didn't pay for sin at all, and you are mistaken.

 

[JonC]

If Christ died for all sin as you say. Either all will be saved, or, since most perish, his death didn't pay for sin at all, and you are mistaken.

Again, this is a huge assumption that you must address instead of relying on a fallacy.

Christ died for the sin of man (in toto). All are not saved. There are no "unpaid" sins.

 

[1689Dave]

Again, this is a huge assumption that you must address instead of relying on a fallacy.

Christ died for the sin of man (in toto). All are not saved. There are no "unpaid" sins.

But sin sends people to hell. And if Jesus paid for all sin as you say, then either you are mistaken or he did not pay for any sins on the cross. Since nearly all perish.

 

[Reformed1689]

Very true, but with no applicability to God graciously crediting our faith as righteousness. Scripture explicitly teaches faith is not works.

And where does that faith come from?

 

[Reformed1689]

He preceded himself!?


Hmm, Calvinism didn't start with Calvin!? How can this be?


We do? I don't, know any such thing first - I am not a calvinist. nor do I focus upon him nor have I ever focused upon him.
Again what is the argument?

red herring; plural noun: red herrings

1. 1.
   a dried smoked herring, which is turned red by the smoke.
   synonyms: bluff, blind, ruse, feint, deception, subterfuge, hoax, trick, ploy, device, wile, sham, pretense, artifice, cover, smokescreen, distraction, expedient, contrivance, machination; More
   informal dodge, put-on, put-up job
2. "it's more of a red herring than a legitimate plot element"
3. 2.
   something, especially a clue, that is or is intended to be misleading or distracting.
   "the book is fast-paced, exciting, and full of red herrings"

IMO, Your claim to a "red herring" defense is itself a "red herring"

Why not just drop the name since two calvinist can rarely do justice to him and disagree anyway.

Are you infralapsarian or supralapsarian?
Again he was wrong about baptism and its meaning which is the first reason to not trust anything else he teaches.

Again, why the focus on Calvin? He did not come up with these doctrines. If Calvin were the only one to teach these, if he truly came up with them, then I MIGHT be inclined to give your logic some merit, but he didn't.

 

[JonC]

But sin sends people to hell. And if Jesus paid for all sin as you say, then either you are mistaken or he did not pay for any sins on the cross. Since nearly all perish.

If you cannot or will not address your assumptions there is really nothing to discuss.

I will leave you with the assurance that sin is no entiry that sends people to Hell.

 

[1689Dave]

If you cannot or will not address your assumptions there is really nothing to discuss.

I will leave you with the assurance that sin is no entiry that sends people to Hell.

There is nothing to discuss. If you are right about universal atonement, and all are not saved. Christ did not pay for sin at all.

 

[JonC]

Again, why the focus on Calvin? He did not come up with these doctrines. If Calvin were the only one to teach these, if he truly came up with them, then I MIGHT be inclined to give your logic some merit, but he didn't.

I think most focus on Calvin because the Institutes formed the basis of the doctrines. While Beza and the following generation was more important (in the doctrines) than Calvin, it always pointed back to the Institutions.

Probably more importantly is that the term "Calvinism" had already been attached to the sect by the Lutherans (due to sacramental differences). So the "Doctrines of Grace" came out of the "Calvinist" sect.

Calvin preferred "Reformed".

 

[HankD]

Again, why the focus on Calvin? He did not come up with these doctrines. If Calvin were the only one to teach these, if he truly came up with them, then I MIGHT be inclined to give your logic some merit, but he didn't.

Yes and I ask you to be honest:

12 Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of [Calvin]; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.
13 Is Christ divided? was [Calvin]crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of [Calvin]?

That is why.

Then drop his name. Preach the Gospel and baptize believers.

 

[HankD]

I think most focus on Calvin because the Institutes formed the basis of the doctrines. While Beza and the following generation was more important (in the doctrines) than Calvin, it always pointed back to the Institutions.

Probably more importantly is that the term "Calvinism" had already been attached to the sect by the Lutherans (due to sacramental differences). So the "Doctrines of Grace" came out of the "Calvinist" sect.

Calvin preferred "Reformed".

Reformed is much more acceptable to me - no association with a man.

 

[JonC]

There is nothing to discuss. If you are right about universal atonement, and all are not saved. Christ did not pay for sin at all.

That is where you are mistaken, but I think it may be because you cannot see how Christ could have died for human sin in toto except universal salvation be the result.

If you could understand the opposing view (within Calvinism itself) then an interesting discussion may be had.

The reason I think this is you have continued to say the same thing (if this then that) without defending the assumptions inherent between the cause and effect. It is poor form and a fallacy.

 

[JonC]

Reformed is much more acceptable to me - no association with a man.

But an association with a bunch of men and the RCC...

Calvin preferred "Reformed" as well.

 

[HankD]

But an association with a bunch of men and the RCC...

Calvin preferred "Reformed" as well.

I said much more acceptable, not totally acceptable... baby steps

 

[HankD]

But an association with a bunch of men and the RCC...

Calvin preferred "Reformed" as well.

I'll be back in a few minutes, I'm BBQing Beef ribs!

 

[JonC]

I'll be back in a few minutes, I'm BBQing Beef ribs!

Me too.....And I'm the beef (I am at Disneyworld...a taste of Hell on Earth).

 

[HankD]

Me too.....And I'm the beef (I am at Disneyworld...a taste of Hell on Earth).

OH NO, what is the temperature?
Probably very humid as well.

 

[Reformed1689]

Yes and I ask you to be honest:

12 Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of [Calvin]; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.
13 Is Christ divided? was [Calvin]crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of [Calvin]?

That is why.

Then drop his name. Preach the Gospel and baptize believers.

You know most Calvinists only use the word "Calvinist" because we are forced to. I don't "follow Calvin" I follow the Scriptures. I don't call it Calvinism, I call it the Doctrines of Grace.

 

[Reformed1689]

I think most focus on Calvin because the Institutes formed the basis of the doctrines. While Beza and the following generation was more important (in the doctrines) than Calvin, it always pointed back to the Institutions.

But they were taught well before Calvin.

 

[Reformed1689]

There is nothing to discuss. If you are right about universal atonement, and all are not saved. Christ did not pay for sin at all.

I don't think that is the necessary logical conclusion of @JonC position. You can (and must) with his position say that Christ must not have died for all sin. But there is no reason to force them to say that he did not die for any sin.

 

[JonC]

I don't think that is the necessary logical conclusion of @JonC position. You can (and must) with his position say that Christ must not have died for all sin. But there is no reason to force them to say that he did not die for any sin.

There are so many philosophical varients I do not know we can determine another's "logical conclusion" at all. Often things fall apart when we decontextualize other people's views and put then in our own theological context.

Non-Calvinists do this all the time with the "robot" nonsense.