Featured John MacArthur

you are not speaking about the same thing here. I was speaking of deserving of damnation. Unconditional refers to election.

thats true. God wasn't under obligation by any outside force, but chose to save us because of his mercy.

It's not accurate to any honest person, only to those that are trying to make something someone else look false.

No Calvinist believe that there are people that believe, but cannot be saved. My point though still remains, we all deserve hell and don't deserve salvation nor that chance to be saved.

 

They are still condemned because they are sinners. God not saving someone doesn't change the fact that people are sinners and deserve hell. All who are saved are saved by God's undeserving grace. We don't deserve salvation nor that chance to be saved. So if God chooses not to save someone, he is perfectly just to do so.

 

If God chooses who is saved, logically he also chooses who is lost. Calvinism teaches this choosing is unconditional, the scriptures show it is determined by faith.

So God IS obligated to save people.

No, it is Calvinism that is dishonest and misleading, Calvinism gives the IMPRESSION that any person can be saved, but you do not really believe that. You know very well that it is utterly IMPOSSIBLE for the non-elect to be saved in Calvinism. Those whom God chose to pass by have absolutely no chance to be saved in your system.

Play on words, of course no Calvinist believes an unbeliever will be saved, non-Cals and Arminians believe the same thing.

The difference is, Calvinism teaches that only those God chose before the foundation of the world to regenerate will be able to believe and be saved. Those whom God passes by cannot possibly believe and have no chance to be saved.

That would make God a respecter of persons, as all men are sinners. If God chooses to elect and regenerate some, that is favoritism.

The very fact you have to play sleazy word games reveals Calvinism for what it is.

 

The fatalism of Calvinistic-like doctrines were a frequent attack against the early Christians. That's why the 2nd-century Christian apologists so vigorously defended man's real and not apparent ability to respond to the Holy Spirit's conviction either positively or negatively.

 

Really? Really? The early Church was threatened by heresies such as Arianism, Donatsim, Gnosticism, Docetism, Nestorianism et. al. Which of the early church heresies were fatalistic in nature?

You're free to criticize the DoG, but you're not free to just throw things out without sourcing them.

 

Did you read what I wrote Winman?

God was under no obligation to decide to save anyone. Understand what I'm saying? You said, "God made the decision before the foundation of the world." and I say that God was under no obligation to make that decision.

And I agree too that God will save all that trust in Jesus(faith).

So that's my point. God was under no obligation to save anyone. He choose to save people. That was his choice. He can choose to save everyone(universalism) or choose to save some (how he chooses isn't relevant to my point). The point I was making was simply that if God doesn't save someone, he is perfectly just to send them to hell regardless of any chance of salvation. We are all sinners and deserve hell.

 

Do you understand what I'm saying?

 

That wasn't true in Nov. of 2012 or today, June 1,2013.

 

A book countering the claims of the John 3:16 conference is Whomever He Wills. Thomas K. Ascol has a good cpter called :Calvinism Foundational For Evangelism and Missions.

Here,on page 271,he comments on the subject of this thread.

"John MacArthur provocatively declared in a 2007 sermon that Jesus was a Calvinist.The charges of being irreverant and anachronistic that resulted came from people who obviously missed the point. MacArthur was simply saying --admittedly in a provocative way --that historic Calvinism derives its views from the teachings of Jesus.No self-respecting Calvinist would ever disagree. In fact,in the way that MacArthur meant it,we could go on to say that all of the prophets and apostles were also Calvinists. No anachronism is intended. Rather,the point simply needs to be reestablished...that Calvinism owes its convictions to the Word of God,not to a sixteenth century reformer." (271)

 

To get back on track...

chic tracts are terrible... you should ask her to repent