Link pleaseNope, as Dr mac still holds that God intended to have Jesus death provide definite salvation towards his own!
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Link pleaseNope, as Dr mac still holds that God intended to have Jesus death provide definite salvation towards his own!
So you think dying for those never to be saved is universalism.So Jesus death brought reconciliation between the lost sinner in hell and the father?
Yet another false charge from Calvinists. They want to derail discussion and waste time having their opponent deny their false charges. They use these vicious and vindictive ploys to hide their obviously false doctrines, such as claiming God does not love all mankind, the opposite of what scripture (John 3:16) says.So, you don't deny being a universalist...
I do, if all those people have been universally atoned. If they have had their sins paid for, they are holy and righteous when they stand before God. In that case God would be unjust.So you think dying for those never to be saved is universalism.
Folks, Calvinists just make up false assertions to deflect from their false doctrine.
Your position is to make up falsehoods and ask questions to deflect from truth, such as claiming God does not love all mankind, the opposite of what scripture (John 3:16) says.I do, if all those people have been universally atoned. If they have had their sins paid for, they are holy and righteous when they stand before God. In that case God would be unjust.
If you make entrance, not about God making everyone holy, but instead about belief, then you have turned salvation into a work that gets someone into heaven rather than understanding that belief is an effect of being both atoned for and saved.
So...your position is universalism or it's legalism. Which one?
Your position is to make up falsehoods and ask questions to deflect from truth, such as claiming God does not love all mankind, the opposite of what scripture (John 3:16) says.
1) Did anyone say all people have been universally atoned? Nope, so the Calvinist is posting falsehood to deflect from discussion of John Macarthur's view of John 3:16.
2) Did anyone say Christ dying for all mankind made all mankind holy and righteous? Nope, so the Calvinist is posting falsehood to deflect from discussion of John Macarthur's view of John 3:16.
3) Did anyone say Christ dying for all mankind makes God unjust? Or was that the claim of the falsehood posting Calvinist?
4) Did anyone "turn salvation into a work?" Nope, so the Calvinist is posting falsehood to deflect from discussion of John Macarthur's view of John 3:16.
5) Does God love all mankind? Yes, John 3:16.
The TULI of the TULIP are false doctrines. I have posted this truth dozens of times. But this Calvinist wants you to believe he does not know the "L" is false doctrine.So, you agree with limited atonement?
Yes, God loved the world so that whosoever believes (only people made spiritually alive will believe) will not perish, but have eternal life. Notice, John 3:16 does not say "whosoever chooses to believe." Ephesians 2 makes it clear that those who are dead in their trespasses and sins will not believe until God chooses to make them alive.
Interesting, you teach limited atonement while denying it. How does that work?The TULI of the TULIP are false doctrines. I have posted this truth dozens of times. But this Calvinist wants you to believe he does not know the "L" is false doctrine.
Does Ephesians 2 support total spiritual inability as claimed by the Calvinist? Of course not. Just another falsehood to hide a falsehood. They remove a little here, add a little there, and redefine words another place to pour Calvinism into scripture.
This non-stop poster of falsehood after falsehood is at it again, pathetically trying to have me address his false charges, rather than discuss the fact God loves all mankind according to John Macarthur.Interesting, you teach limited atonement while denying it. How does that work?
Charles Spurgeon (a Calvinist that you might have heard of) preached an entire Sunday sermon on just that one verse (John 3:16). One of his points was that God “so loved the world” and His love was for all mankind. Another of his points was that God “gave His Son” for the salvation of “whosoever believes”, which means that EVERY believer is included and EVERY unbeliever is excluded. Read the verse for yourself:John 3:16 teaches God loves mankind in this way, He gave His uniquely divine Son so that everyone believing into Him shall not perish but have eternal life. Many Calvinists including John Macarthur, apparently hold this view. Does this make John a 4 pointer with Dr. Wiersbe?
Calvin Trillin, Calvin Coolidge?!?Who is "a Calvin"?
Calvin Trillin, Calvin Coolidge?!?
Charles Spurgeon (a Calvinist that you might have heard of) preached an entire Sunday sermon on just that one verse (John 3:16). One of his points was that God “so loved the world” and His love was for all mankind. Another of his points was that God “gave His Son” for the salvation of “whosoever believes”, which means that EVERY believer is included and EVERY unbeliever is excluded. Read the verse for yourself:
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.” [John 3:16 NKJV]Believers, by definition, believe and have “everlasting life” because “God gave his only son”.
Unbelievers, by definition, do not believe and do not have “everlasting life”.
Do all non-Calvinists agree on every detail of every verse?Here we have the false claim, Calvinism does not interpret "world" in John 3:16 to refer only to the elect.
This thread is closed.Six hour warning
This thread will be closed no sooner than 1230 am (EDT) (Mon) / 930 PM (PDT) Sun