God's View of Unbelievers

[jbh28]

Same old, same old. Calvinism waxes on and on about the fallen "choosing to sin" and they avoid saying the fallen are unable to seek God and trust in Christ. The Bible says God sets before us the choice of life or death, not life only for some and death only for others, which is the Calvinistic perversion. Their God is a God of compulsion, but the God of the Bible is love and love does not demand its own way.

We teach that God sets before us the choice of life or death. Please don't say otherwise. Those that end up in hell will go their entire lives choosing death.

That their doctrine is false is demonstrated by Matthew 23:13 where unregenerate men are "entering heaven" yet are turned aside by falsehood. Calvinism says they could not have actually been "entering heaven" if they were unregenerate, yet Calvinism also says they could not have been blocked because of "irresistible grace."

Were they really entering heaven? How far into heaven did they get? You keep using this story yet it doesn't apply. I guess I'll hear "false teacher" cries from you now. Matthew 23 in no way contradicts our doctrine.

But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you shut off the kingdom of heaven from people; for you do not enter in yourselves, nor do you allow those who are entering to go in.

Either you have no clue as to what "irresistible grace" actually teaches, or you are grossly misinterpreting this passage. Please share with us your interpretation of the passage so I can compare it to my doctrine and see if my doctrine matches the passages of Scripture.

 

[Winman]

What he posted is exactly what Calvinism teaches. Please stop saying what we say we believe isn't what we believe. You notice how I accuse you of straw men, this is why. We say, we believe A, you say no, you believe B and argue against B. Why don't you just argue against what we say we believe instead of making stuff up about what we believe.

I have represented Calvinism accurately. Calvinism teaches that men are born with a sin nature and are unable to be willing to believe God. You did not choose this, nor was it the result of sin personally committed, but a person is born this way.

You constantly deflect by saying men are given a choice, while ignoring that you believe men are born unable to be willing to choose for God.

Your idea of choice is like giving a man born blind a book and then giving him the choice to read it or not, and then condemning him for being unable to read it. This would be unjust by anyone's standards except a brainwashed Calvinist. This is why Calvinists tell people they cannot rely on human reasoning, because they know their position is unreasonable and illogical as well. But if you want to deceive yourself with such fallacies, that is your right, I can't stop you. You are only fooling yourself.

 

[Winman]

My analogy of giving a blind man a book fails, because you will say he could be willing.

A better analogy might be giving someone a bowl of boiling sulfuric acid, and telling him he must drink it to be saved. By nature no man could be willing to do this.

I know how you play with words. You aren't fooling anyone, though you think you are clever and are.

 

[Van]

Notice on one hand a Calvinist says God sets before us the choice of life or death, but does not address that because of the fall, no fallen man is able to choose life, according to Calvinism. Thus just shuck and jive, word games, and the whole nine yards of baloney reposted again and again.

Next Jesus says they were entering heaven, and Calvinism says they were not actually entering heaven. QED

 

[Van]

Hi Jbh28, Lets see some actual insight into God's word.
Folks, anytime a Calvinist writes about the qualifications or character of an opponent, they are simply offering up a logical fallacy to defend their false doctrine.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Hi Jbh28, Lets see some actual insight into God's word.
Folks, anytime a Calvinist writes about the qualifications or character of an opponent, they are simply offering up a logical fallacy to defend their false doctrine.

some folks reading these obsessive tirades about Calvinists are Calvinists ....personally we just view you as bizarre & dismiss you.:laugh:

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Same old, same old. Calvinism waxes on and on about the fallen "choosing to sin" and they avoid saying the fallen are unable to seek God and trust in Christ. The Bible says God sets before us the choice of life or death, not life only for some and death only for others, which is the Calvinistic perversion. Their God is a God of compulsion, but the God of the Bible is love and love does not demand its own way.

I praise God that He loved me enough to compel me to come in (Luke 14:23). I do not fool myself into thinking that I would have come on my own (1Cor 2:14). Alas, your god seems to be one who doesn't love anyone enough to save him. Your theology has Christ on the cross not saying, "It is finished," but "Let's see how that works."

That their doctrine is false is demonstrated by Matthew 23:13 where unregenerate men are "entering heaven" yet are turned aside by falsehood. Calvinism says they could not have actually been "entering heaven" if they were unregenerate, yet Calvinism also says they could not have been blocked because of "irresistible grace."

Again, your theology has God wringing His hands impotently while the Pharisees triumphantly prevent believers entering the kingdom of heaven. I thank God that not one of those for whom Christ died will fail to enter the kingdom (John 6:39; 10:11). Matt 23:13 must be read in the light of that fact.

Steve

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

I praise God that He loved me enough to compel me to come in (Luke 14:23). I do not fool myself into thinking that I would have come on my own (1Cor 2:14). Alas, your god seems to be one who doesn't love anyone enough to save him. Your theology has Christ on the cross not saying, "It is finished," but "Let's see how that works."



Again, your theology has God wringing His hands impotently while the Pharisees triumphantly prevent believers entering the kingdom of heaven. I thank God that not one of those for whom Christ died will fail to enter the kingdom (John 6:39; 10:11). Matt 23:13 must be read in the light of that fact.

Steve

You tell him Steve :love2::thumbs:

 

[jbh28]

I have represented Calvinism accurately. Calvinism teaches that men are born with a sin nature and are unable to be willing to believe God. You did not choose this, nor was it the result of sin personally committed, but a person is born this way.

Remember, you are the one that seems to always tell us what we believe. Just argue againsts what we say not what you think we believe. You consistantly tell Calvinists that they don't believe what they type here and then tell them what they really believe. That should tell you something.

You constantly deflect by saying men are given a choice, while ignoring that you believe men are born unable to be willing to choose for God.

People are given a choice, that's correct. A choice is when there are two possible options. What we are speaking of here is our nature in our choosing.

[snip]

not going to deal with the rest if you are going to resort to this type of posting.

 

[jbh28]

Notice on one hand a Calvinist says God sets before us the choice of life or death, but does not address that because of the fall, no fallen man is able to choose life, according to Calvinism. Thus just shuck and jive, word games, and the whole nine yards of baloney reposted again and again.

Next Jesus says they were entering heaven, and Calvinism says they were not actually entering heaven. QED

You too scared to give your interpretation of the passage? You seem to like to dish out but can't actually give your interpretation to what you believe the passage is saying. Instead, you play games by saying we give "baloney" and "word games,"

 

[jbh28]

Hi Jbh28, Lets see some actual insight into God's word.

I'm waiting...

Folks, anytime a Calvinist writes about the qualifications or character of an opponent, they are simply offering up a logical fallacy to defend their false doctrine.

Stop whining and just give it out. Nobody has talked about your qualifications here nor your character. Stop whining when one does do that. It's not a logical fallacy unless they use it as their argument. But I've not done that. Simply give your interpretation of the Matthew passage so I can compare my theology to it to see if it matches the Bible.

 

[Winman]

People are given a choice, that's correct. A choice is when there are two possible options. What we are speaking of here is our nature in our choosing.

So what if the unelect are offered a choice? You believe they are born with a sin nature (through no fault of their own) that cannot possibly be willing to choose God. As to being willing or unwilling, they have no choice by your own definition.

By your own definition you said a choice involves at least two POSSIBLE options.

Is it POSSIBLE for the unelect to be willing to choose for God?

 

[jbh28]

So what if the unelect are offered a choice? You believe they are born with a sin nature (through no fault of their own) that cannot possibly be willing to choose God. As to being willing or unwilling, they have no choice by your own definition.

By your own definition you said a choice involves at least two POSSIBLE options.

Is it POSSIBLE for the unelect to be willing to choose for God?

The option is there if they wanted it. The limitation is not in the options, but in their nature. They have no desire to come to Christ. It is foolish to them. They want to go their own way. God is not forcing them to choose against him.

 

[quantumfaith]

The option is there if they wanted it. The limitation is not in the options, but in their nature. They have no desire to come to Christ. It is foolish to them. They want to go their own way. God is not forcing them to choose against him.

Jbh

I just "don't get it" (not disrespectful). If the impetus for our nature goes back to the fall of Adam, and certainly God knows this, and if He is aware that the possible solution is for Him to regenerate us and yet by some definitions of this election, it only applies to some, then logic dictates that those not regenerated have no choice in the matter.

 

[Winman]

The option is there if they wanted it. The limitation is not in the options, but in their nature. They have no desire to come to Christ. It is foolish to them. They want to go their own way. God is not forcing them to choose against him.

No, no, you are moving the goalposts. By your own definition you said a choice involves at least two POSSIBLE options. But in your view it is impossible for the unelect to be willing to choose for God.

An option that is impossible is not a real option. If I offered you the choice of flying to Chicago in an airplane, or flapping your arms and flying there, how many POSSIBLE options have I offered you? Only one, because you cannot possibly flap your arms and fly.

Painted yourself into a corner this time.

 

[jbh28]

Jbh

I just "don't get it" (not disrespectful). If the impetus for our nature goes back to the fall of Adam, and certainly God knows this, and if He is aware that the possible solution is for Him to regenerate us and yet by some definitions of this election, it only applies to some, then logic dictates that those not regenerated have no choice in the matter.

No, they choose no. God is not forcing anyone to reject him.

 

[jbh28]

No, no, you are moving the goalposts. By your own definition you said a choice involves at least two POSSIBLE options. But in your view it is impossible for the unelect to be willing to choose for God.

An option that is impossible is not a real option. If I offered you the choice of flying to Chicago in an airplane, or flapping your arms and flying there, how many POSSIBLE options have I offered you? Only one, because you cannot possibly flap your arms and fly.

Those are still two options. Nobody can flap their wings and fly, but people come to Christ all the time. All they have to do is believe(which is humanly possible) but because they have no desire to come to him, they choose to reject him.

Painted yourself into a corner this time.

one day Winman, maybe one day

 

[Winman]

Jbh

I just "don't get it" (not disrespectful). If the impetus for our nature goes back to the fall of Adam, and certainly God knows this, and if He is aware that the possible solution is for Him to regenerate us and yet by some definitions of this election, it only applies to some, then logic dictates that those not regenerated have no choice in the matter.

The reason you don't get it is because it is a fallacy.

 

[Winman]

Those are still two options. Nobody can flap their wings and fly, but people come to Christ all the time. All they have to do is believe(which is humanly possible) but because they have no desire to come to him, they choose to reject him.

one day Winman, maybe one day

In your view only a regenerate person has the ability to come to Christ, it is utterly impossible for the unregenerate to be willing to come. It is not a POSSIBLE option for them.

The funny thing is, for once you gave an accurate definition of what a true choice is. You are coming along.

And as Quantum pointed out, God knows it is impossible for the unregenerate to be willing to believe if your doctrine is true. That would make God's offer empty, insincere, and even mocking of the unelect.

How anyone can believe this nonsense is beyond me.

 

[Amy.G]

Those are still two options. Nobody can flap their wings and fly, but people come to Christ all the time. All they have to do is believe(which is humanly possible) but because they have no desire to come to him, they choose to reject him.

But no one has the desire to come to God unless the Holy Spirit draws them, so what you are saying is that God has chosen to not draw some people, thereby leaving them in their state of not desiring to come to God.

They have no hope of salvation without the drawing of the Holy Spirit. But that is not what the bible teaches. There is hope for all men because Christ died for the whole world, not just part of it.