I challenge any evangelical to prove to me that Christians can be responsible for folks burning in h

[InTheLight]

I think the majority of you free willers holds to the premise.

I don't know any one that holds to the premise that Christians are responsible for people going to hell, and I certainly don't know of anyone that blames Reformed or Calvinists for not praying for the lost as the reason people go to hell.

Why else would you object to Monergism/Soveriegn Grace so strongly and have your silly list?

I object to Calvinism because it is a flawed theology. I certainly don't object to Calvinism because its adherents don't pray for the lost. (Talk about a strawman.) I'm certain that Calvinists DO pray for the lost. Many of them have spoken up and affirmed this, in this thread and in others.

My "silly list" is a compilation of the illogical, nonsensical arguments put forth by Calvinists to defend their beliefs. It's a generic list and could be applied to just about any theological argument, except perhaps for #5. There is nothing Calvinistic about using a strawman argument, it's just that you guys do it so frequently, it's become a cliche.

In fact, I could be a Calvinist, love Reformed theology and still have my list, because it is a list of faulty arguments. It just happens that Calvinists use these faulty arguments much more frequently than classical Arminians, Lutherans, Catholic, just about any one.

 

[Particular]

But you have to admit the cleverness of AustinC's strawmen. By putting them in the form of a question rather than stating them outright as your beliefs, he takes the raw edge off and he sounds less strident.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

This is a diversion to avoid the obvious and therefore not be caught.

 

[Particular]

C'mon, man. You've got to up your strawman game. Here's how:

Instead of saying "perhaps you are blind", say something like, "it seems you are blind" or "it looks like you are blind." Then if someone calls you on it, you can say, "I never said she was blind I only said that it 'seems' like she's blind."

I will give you high marks for condescension. "Perhaps you are blind to the accusation you make to God", quietly infers that you are fully aware of God's attributes and it's a shame that the other person isn't. Nicely played, with just a hint of pride (but not too much to spoil it.)

Another diversion. You simply claim "strawman" everytime you are caught.

 

[Particular]

~ le sigh ~

You claim I am grieving God, questioning him, and complaining against him.

One more time, my questioning was against Yeshua1 for his claiming to be reformed but in describing his beliefs, he is not reformed.

He kept claiming that people who go to hell "choose that". I kept telling him via questions that how can that be under the reformed position since Calvinists don't believe in free will.

I, PERSONALLY, do not have a complaint against God. I am quite happy with the God of the Bible. Everything he does is perfect. I am not reformed and never will be.

For the last time - my issue was with Yeshua1 and his saying he is reformed out of one side of his mouth and speaking as a non-Cal out of the other side of his mouth.

I have no complaint against God.

The God of the Bible is the God of the Reformed.

 

[Revmitchell]

I don't know any one that holds to the premise that Christians are responsible for people going to hell, and I certainly don't know of anyone that blames Reformed or Calvinists for not praying for the lost as the reason people go to hell.



I object to Calvinism because it is a flawed theology. I certainly don't object to Calvinism because its adherents don't pray for the lost. (Talk about a strawman.) I'm certain that Calvinists DO pray for the lost. Many of them have spoken up and affirmed this, in this thread and in others.

My "silly list" is a compilation of the illogical, nonsensical arguments put forth by Calvinists to defend their beliefs. It's a generic list and could be applied to just about any theological argument, except perhaps for #5. There is nothing Calvinistic about using a strawman argument, it's just that you guys do it so frequently, it's become a cliche.

In fact, I could be a Calvinist, love Reformed theology and still have my list, because it is a list of faulty arguments. It just happens that Calvinists use these faulty arguments much more frequently than classical Arminians, Lutherans, Catholic, just about any one.

At some point one has to understand that they are just arguing to be right rather than to disseminate truth.

 

[Reynolds]

Yea, right.

If you were honest you'd admit that you agreed that the Ezekiel passage shows that we [Christians] can be held accountable for the blood of those we fail to warn.

But you're hot going to be honest about it, are you?

The more I think about it, you remind me of the athieits I used to have discussions with when I was in college. They were not trying to convince me. They were trying to convince themselves.

If this topic strikes as deep a nerve with you as it appears it does, well......

 

[Reynolds]

The God of the Bible is the God of the Reformed.

Arrogance on display.

 

[Scarlett O.]

The God of the Bible is the God of the Reformed.

This is why I don't debate the tenets of the reformed vs. non-reformed.

 

[Reformed]

"That sinners prayer has sent more people to hell than anything on the face of the earth" it starts about the 1:19 mark. Sorry for your ignorance and error.

I cannot accuse you of ignorance because your comments are made with the full knowledge you are misrepresenting the man. You are taking a comment by Paul Washer that is part of a larger context. I stand by everything I have said about him (Washer) and the sinners prayer. I too can play the YouTube video clip, but then I am playing your game which I refuse to do. I do not know if I need to say that the sinners prayer has sent more people to hell than anything on the face of the earth. In the end, unbelief is what sends people to hell. That said, the rote sinners prayer is a deceitful exercise for the reasons I gave in my previous post. I will never tell another living soul that praying a prayer will save them. I will them that they need to repent of their sins and place their faith in Christ and Christ alone.

 

[Revmitchell]

I cannot accuse you of ignorance because your comments are made with the full knowledge you are misrepresenting the man. You are taking a comment by Paul Washer that is part of a larger context. I stand by everything I have said about him (Washer) and the sinners prayer. I too can play the YouTube video clip, but then I am playing your game which I refuse to do. I do not know if I need to say that the sinners prayer has sent more people to hell than anything on the face of the earth. In the end, unbelief is what sends people to hell. That said, the rote sinners prayer is a deceitful exercise for the reasons I gave in my previous post. I will never tell another living soul that praying a prayer will save them. I will them that they need to repent of their sins and place their faith in Christ and Christ alone.

Sigh, it doesnt change what he said. There is no context in which it changes the meaning of his words. I full well know the context and as someone who holds to that doctrine it is inconsistent with his doctrine on the Sovereignty of God. Either God left them in their sin and did not elect them or the prayer sent them to hell. It cannot be both.

Washer is in a war against something that has no effect on mans salvation or the definition of Gods sovereignty as touted by Washer is not correct.

 

[JonC]

This is why I don't debate the tenets of the reformed vs. non-reformed.

It is a debate for fools. Sometimes I do it .

 

[Jerome]

the rote sinners prayer is a deceitful exercise

example of how Charles Spurgeon ended a sermon:

"A Free Grace Promise" (1888)

"breathe an earnest prayer to God, saying, 'God be merciful to me a sinner. Lord, I need to be saved. Save me. I call upon thy name.' Join with me in prayer at this moment, I entreat you. Join with me while I put words into your mouths, and speak them on your behalf—'Lord, I am guilty. I deserve thy wrath. Lord I cannot save myself. Lord, I would have a new heart and a right spirit, but what can I do? Lord, I can do nothing, come and work in me to will and to do of thy good pleasure....But I now do from my very soul call upon thy name. Trembling, yet believing, I cast myself wholly upon thee, O Lord. I trust the blood and righteousness of thy dear Son; I trust thy mercy, and thy love, and thy power, as they are revealed in him. I dare to lay hold upon this word of thine, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved. Lord, save me tonight, for Jesus' sake. Amen.'"

 

[Particular]

Arrogance on display.

Not arrogance, Truth. Reformed theology is biblical theology. Neither you nor Scarlett have to believe it, but you would be wrong to say it isn't derived wholely from Scripture.

 

[Particular]

This is why I don't debate the tenets of the reformed vs. non-reformed.

You implied that Reformed faith is not in the God of the Bible. Such an implication is incorrect.

 

[Iconoclast]

Come on. I have listened to enough Paul Washer to know your comment is exactly what the drive-by media does when they want to smear someone. Paul Washer has made the point that the sinners prayer saves no one. I agree. It does not. He has also made the point that saying the prayer without genuine conversion (repentance and faith) is not only worthless, but it deceives the person saying the prayer into thinking they are saved. That is far cry from what you wrote.

Such wimpy comments are offered by those who cannot deal honestly with a godly preacher speaking truth to a deceived multitude.
Anyone who has listened to any of his messages knows he explains in unmistakable detail, the problem with the man-centered , fleshly nonsense that passes for a profession.

 

[Iconoclast]

Not arrogance, Truth. Reformed theology is biblical theology. Neither you nor Scarlett have to believe it, but you would be wrong to say it isn't derived wholely from Scripture.

These comments are the default comments of those who lack any biblical response.

 

[Iconoclast]

Not arrogance, Truth. Reformed theology is biblical theology. Neither you nor Scarlett have to believe it, but you would be wrong to say it isn't derived wholely from Scripture.

They will not take you up on it as they cannot. Rather than question and learn they make snide remarks that they cannot support.
Kyred raises a question and they call him names,

 

[Iconoclast]

InTheLight,

I don't know any one that holds to the premise that Christians are responsible for people going to hell,

It has been posted and implied on here quite often.

I object to Calvinism because it is a flawed theology.

You make such a statement and yet cannot support your claim.
Start a thread and show us what you have found as flaws,





I

 

[Reynolds]

Not arrogance, Truth. Reformed theology is biblical theology. Neither you nor Scarlett have to believe it, but you would be wrong to say it isn't derived wholely from Scripture.

Doesnt mean its derived from proper interpretation of scripture.

 

[Iconoclast]

Sigh, it doesnt change what he said. There is no context in which it changes the meaning of his words. I full well know the context and as someone who holds to that doctrine it is inconsistent with his doctrine on the Sovereignty of God. Either God left them in their sin and did not elect them or the prayer sent them to hell. It cannot be both.

Washer is in a war against something that has no effect on mans salvation or the definition of Gods sovereignty as touted by Washer is not correct.

For you to suggest an inconsistency is to intentionally misrepresent the doctrine. Paul Washer was not the first person to highlight these defective methodologies. There were people all over these errors before Paul Washer was known.
You and the other frequent critics never get close to the heart of the doctrine. You to this day do not know what the issue is,