Noncals main flaw

[Reformed]

I will make a comment in this thread.

The author of the OP and I share many of the same doctrinal stands. That said, I wonder about the purpose of the OP. Was it to spur theological discussion with the hope that his argument would be taken seriously and given the best possible condition? Perhaps it is me, but the OP doesn't read that way. It comes across as an in-your-face rebuke of the other side of the Calvinism debate without making any pretense of serious engagement.

 

[steaver]

When you require that God's goodness means that he has to die for sinners, you make man's welfare the definition of God's goodness.

Since this is your declaration, I suppose this would be a good time for you to show how preachers preach this, give some quotes, maybe use your own quotes when you were a freewill Baptist. If you don't have any examples......well........folks can draw their own conclusions about this OP then.

 

[Skandelon]

When you require that God's goodness means that he has to die for sinners, you make man's welfare the definition of God's goodness.

Can you quote even one notable non-Calvinist who teaches that for God to be GOOD it REQUIRES a sacrifice?

Luke, even for you this is way over the top. I'm glad to see many from both sides soundly rebuke this unfounded rant. You can do better my friend.

 

[convicted1]

I see what the OP is saying, and although it is kinda brusque, he does make some points. People around here believe that Christ died for everyone, and He will try to save everyone, if they choose to come to Him. It's the "one step after another" altar call methodology presented. The church I belong to doesn't have altar calls, but we would pray with anyone who came forth desiring salvation. But, they think God will call everyone, they see babies being innocent, that people are good, &c.

The way God is portrayed in the bible is One who chooses according to His good will and pleasure, loves some and hates the rest, has mercy on some and hardens the others, calls some and leaves the rest in their fallen state.

 

[Revmitchell]

I will make a comment in this thread.

The author of the OP and I share many of the same doctrinal stands. That said, I wonder about the purpose of the OP. Was it to spur theological discussion with the hope that his argument would be taken seriously and given the best possible condition? Perhaps it is me, but the OP doesn't read that way. It comes across as an in-your-face rebuke of the other side of the Calvinism debate without making any pretense of serious engagement.

Thank you. Exactly:thumbs:

 

[steaver]

The way God is portrayed in the bible is One who chooses according to His good will and pleasure, loves some and hates the rest, has mercy on some and hardens the others, calls some and leaves the rest in their fallen state.

Very sad........


"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!"

"What could have been done more to my vineyard, that I have not done in it?"

"And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely."

 

[convicted1]

And the quicker you properly exegete those passages, the better, Steaver....


That's truly sad.....

 

[steaver]

And the quicker you properly exegete those passages, the better, Steaver....


That's truly sad.....

And that would have to be properly through the premise of Calvinism for you to accept.......

 

[Skandelon]

they think God will call everyone,

He does call everyone through the gospel...

they see babies being innocent, that people are good, &c.

I don't know of many who actually believe or teach this on either side of the isle. Its certainly not orthodox Arminianism and its also certainly not Baptist doctrine of any kind.

The way God is portrayed in the bible is One who chooses according to His good will and pleasure, loves some and hates the rest, has mercy on some and hardens the others, calls some and leaves the rest in their fallen state.

You have been deceived my brother. You are confusing God's appointment of messengers with his love and atoning provision for all mankind.

 

[Revmitchell]

He does call everyone through the gospel...

I don't know of many who actually believe or teach this on either side of the isle. Its certainly not orthodox Arminianism and its also certainly not Baptist doctrine of any kind.



You have been deceived my brother. You are confusing God's appointment of messengers with his love and atoning provision for all mankind.

This ridiculous thread was dead.

 

[Yeshua1]

The problem with every noncalvinist is this: He has man as the measure of all things rather than God. What is good for man is the definition of good and what is bad for man is the definition of bad.
God HAS to offer salvation to every single man of the fallen human race because that is what is good for man... and what is good for man is the essence of good. If God does not do what is good for man, then God is not good.
Noncalvinists see man as God. They really do. They don't mean to. But they think God can only be good if he has man's welfare as a high priority. But where are the tears for the fallen angels? Noncals have no tears for them. They do not care about them. They do not think Jesus has to die for Satan and his ilk. Why? Because noncals are not angels- they are people. And to noncals only PEOPLE really matter because that is what they themselves are. God does not have to do ANYTHING for Satan. "Let him go to HELL!!! You don't have to die for him!! But you DO HAVE TO DIE FOR ME!!! Why? Because I AM THE MEASURE OF GOOD AND EVIL. Do what is good for me and mine or you are evil and I will not worship you!"
But the fact is that the welfare of neither angels NOR men is the measure of good and evil. God is the measure. What is good is that which pleases him. What is evil is that which displeases him. And if you don't like him because he does not die to save you and everybody like you... well... maybe you are evil. Maybe, in fact, that is the very DEFINITION of evil.

Are you saying ONLY calvinists preach and teach the real Gospel, that non cals/arminians hold to a flase one then?t is that your point here?

 

[TCassidy]

Even though the OP stated his proposition a bit more forcefully than required, I have to agree with his foundational premise.

We judge God on the basis of our own understanding of what is good and what is not.

We assume that because we would save all people if it were possible, God must also do so if He is as compassionate as we think we are.

As we are repelled by the idea that God is not as compassionate as we are, we have to invent fanciful excuses why God, who COULD save everybody, has chosen not to. We invent ideas like "God is too much the gentleman to force salvation on anyone." And again, we assume that God must meet our standards of what constitutes a "gentleman."

What seems to be beyond the ken of most "choice" people is that God is not a man. He does not think like a man. His ways are so much higher than our ways that we lack the ability to comprehend Him. So, as with all the endevours of mere men, when we are incapable to ascending up to God's level, we insist on trying to drag Him down to our level by insisting He must meet the same standard of love, compassion, ethics, and morals that we do.

Oh the folly of arrogant man.

 

[convicted1]

Even though the OP stated his proposition a bit more forcefully than required, I have to agree with his foundational premise.

We judge God on the basis of our own understanding of what is good and what is not.

We assume that because we would save all people if it were possible, God must also do so if He is as compassionate as we think we are.

As we are repelled by the idea that God is not as compassionate as we are, we have to invent fanciful excuses why God, who COULD save everybody, has chosen not to. We invent ideas like "God is too much the gentleman to force salvation on anyone." And again, we assume that God must meet our standards of what constitutes a "gentleman."

What seems to be beyond the ken of most "choice" people is that God is not a man. He does not think like a man. His ways are so much higher than our ways that we lack the ability to comprehend Him. So, as with all the endevours of mere men, when we are incapable to ascending up to God's level, we insist on trying to drag Him down to our level by insisting He must meet the same standard of love, compassion, ethics, and morals that we do.

Oh the folly of arrogant man.

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

 

[salzer mtn]

Even though the OP stated his proposition a bit more forcefully than required, I have to agree with his foundational premise.

We judge God on the basis of our own understanding of what is good and what is not.

We assume that because we would save all people if it were possible, God must also do so if He is as compassionate as we think we are.

As we are repelled by the idea that God is not as compassionate as we are, we have to invent fanciful excuses why God, who COULD save everybody, has chosen not to. We invent ideas like "God is too much the gentleman to force salvation on anyone." And again, we assume that God must meet our standards of what constitutes a "gentleman."

What seems to be beyond the ken of most "choice" people is that God is not a man. He does not think like a man. His ways are so much higher than our ways that we lack the ability to comprehend Him. So, as with all the endevours of mere men, when we are incapable to ascending up to God's level, we insist on trying to drag Him down to our level by insisting He must meet the same standard of love, compassion, ethics, and morals that we do.

Oh the folly of arrogant man.

:thumbsup:

 

[convicted1]

:thumbsup:

Only one??


I must have liked it a whole lot better. I gave him three of'em. :tongue3:

 

[Revmitchell]

It matters not how much truth there "may" be in the op. They way in which it was presented trumps it.

 

[Reformed]

It matters not how much truth there "may" be in the op. They way in which it was presented trumps it.

I think I understand what you're saying, but IMHO truth (which is God-given) can never be trumped by anything. It can, however, be muddled or obscured because of sin.

The theological discussions on this board often become self-defeating because the truth is saturated in bitter rivalries. Insults, harsh words, caustic attitudes; these behaviors make me think of what James wrote:

James 3:10 from the same mouth come both blessing and cursing. My brethren, these things ought not to be this way.

I can only speak for myself. I had to change the way I interact on this board because my prior attitude was not glorifying God. That does not mean I have lessened my convictions. It also does not mean that we should avoid all vigorous discussions. Since all truth is from God, if that truth is being attacked, we have a right to contend for it.

 

[Revmitchell]

I think I understand what you're saying, but IMHO truth (which is God-given) can never be trumped by anything. It can, however, be muddled or obscured because of sin.

I was not suggesting that the way he posted made any possible truth in his post less truthful, what I am saying is the mean spirited way in which his position was presented detracts from his own credibility as to whether or not he actually knows what in the world he is talking about.

Those who already hold to his position will agree, at least in part, with him but those who may be converted to his position will never be moved to believe a word he says because of the nature of his heart on the matter.

 

[Reformed]

Those who already hold to his position will agree, at least in part, with him but those who may be converted to his position will never be moved to believe a word he says because of the nature of his heart on the matter.

And that was my concern when I jumped into the thread with my earlier comment. How we say things really does matter. I am thankful that some godly men had patience with me when I was a younger Christian. I look back at the things that came out of my mouth back then and cringe. The men were kind to me. They reasoned with me in a fatherly way. They won me to the truth without antagonizing me.

 

[steaver]

Since all truth is from God, if that truth is being attacked, we have a right to contend for it.

Amen! :thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup: