Ok so I'm Reformed in my beliefs now.

No strawmen, just truth. It cant' be both ways, can it Andy? Is God double minded? </font>[/QUOTE]O.k., if you want to play this game and say that Calvinists must believe X, then don't call me a Calvinist. Call me a neo-Calvinist or call me a dimwit - I don't care. Just don't attribute things to my belief system that are not true. I don't care what label you give me, just don't lie about me. </font>[/QUOTE]Who's "lying about you"? Don't play the martyr. I simply asked if it can be both ways, and you get all defensive. Well, can it be both ways? </font>[/QUOTE]What can be both ways? Do you mean believing in unconditional election while also believing the Gospel call is to be offered to everyone? Or that God loves the elect in a special way not reserved for the reprobate, but that He still loves the reprobate in some sense? So, yes, it can be both ways. Sorry you can't see that. Even when I was a non-Calvinist, I could see that. Obviously you guys are upset that 3John2 has accepted Reformed theology, so instead of berating him with how inconsistent he may be, why don't you lovingly try to show him from Scriptures why he is wrong? I've yet to see one Scripture thrown out on this thread, save for Jarthur who is arguing from the Calvinist side!

 

Oh yes...add "this makes God a Monster" to that list. I forgot that one.

 

If we are incapable of grasping the nature of God, then why is it that you somehow grasp that He is benevolent? It seems there's at least one thing you grasp - that He is benevolent. So which is it, can we grasp or can we not grasp?

 

Yes. "Offered" implies acceptance. Is it both...offered to everyone, but not everyone can accept?

Ahhh...calvinism teaches that God HATES the reprobate (remember, Jacob I loved, Esau I HATED?), if He doesn't...why not offer them the same salvation? Can it be both ways: God hates the reprobate AND God loves the reprobate?

Your view I can't see, but I definately see "it". I doubt you really see "it".

Now you are falsely accusing others. Who said anything about being upset about 3john2's "conversion"? Who's "unloving"? It's sad, but I'm not upset about anything, nor do I see anyone acting "unloving". Let's talk about strawmen

I didn't realize the OP was calling for any. The thing you seem to be upset with is the request of Brother Bob and JohnB to "keep it real", meaning teach TRUE calvinism, not the "God loves you (under breath: maybe)" and "God died for you (under breath: well, most likely not)"

 

Hello again Jarthur001;

You mentioned my bold statements after first calling me "Jack"? Sorry, just don't feel it.

 

If we are incapable of grasping the nature of God, then why is it that you somehow grasp that He is benevolent? It seems there's at least one thing you grasp - that He is benevolent. So which is it, can we grasp or can we not grasp? </font>[/QUOTE]We can certainly understand aspects of something without being able to understand it in its entirety. As a poor analogy, let me offer this:

I do not currently grasp all aspects of fluid mechanics and hydraulics. I do understand the basic concepts of an airfoil. Therefore, I can comprehend how the wings keep an airplane aloft, yet not know the details of the navigation and controls, and how they work.

Yes, like I said a poor analogy, but it is logical error to state that one either grasps all facets of something or none. Few things are that binary.

Also, if God exists as a malevolent being, then there is little to be gained by worshipping him at all, and Christianity is a bad hoax and a waste of time. I don't believe that to be the case.

 

MP,

I agree - we cannot know God exhaustively. But there are some things about God we can grasp, and they are revealed in His Word.

 

No argument there, Andy. Where confusion arises, and the reason there are hundreds of Christian denominations and peripheral cultic pseudo-Christian groups, is that the human mind interprets the Bible in many ways. They see the same words, yet arrive at different meanings. I think this is partly due to the fact that language is a coding and decoding of thoughts, and as such, it is imperfect to express some ideas.

 

Webdog,

So far all I have seen from non-Calvinists is berating and teasing. If a former Calvinist came on this board and said he has rejected Calvinism, I would hope that those Calvinists who engaged him in the thread wouldn't berate him and say things like "you must believe you earned your way to heaven" or things like that. No, if they desired to convince him otherwise, I hope they would try to convince him from the Scriptures.

 

Magnetic Poles;

That is blunt but true and I agree. What would be the point. If I believed some were some not already, I would stay home and pray I was one of them.

When I first went to Michigan many years ago someone said he was going to knock my head off. I told him, you know, where I come from they knock each other's head off. (Which is hills of Kentucky)

 

And wouldn't that make evangelism and the Great Commission an exercise in futility?

 

And wouldn't that make evangelism and the Great Commission an exercise in futility? </font>[/QUOTE]The problem with Brother Bob's comment above is the word "already". The fact is, there are some elect who are not "already" saved - they are currently lost. And that is why we go, (1) to obey the command of God, and (2) to be used as instruments to bring the elect to faith in Christ. And so far from being an excercise in futility, our task is one of eternal importance.

 

Andy T.;
If you are one of them don't sweat it for the Lord will come after before you die. Eat drink and be merry.

 

Bob, I know that I am one of them by the simple fact that I have repented and believed on Christ. What's your problem with that? You seem to be upset that I like to evangelize the lost. Let's go get 'em together, brother.

 

lighten up Andy;
I just kidding you a little. Too much harshness on here we need to enjoy each other some.
Wife and I lived in Columbus for a year one time and almost starved to death so I headed back to Michigan. My wife was raised there close to High St..

 

3john2 Welcome aboard. Don't worry about your label - calvinist, reformed, predestinarian, etc. There are some old threads around where that is dealt with. No matter what label you may have, your doctrine will be ridiculed nevertheless.

Now that you've seen the truth concerning the sovereignty of God, take your time and decide what you believe about the finer points within the system - supra vs sublapsarianism, active or passive reprobation, absolute predestination of all things, common grace vs virulant hatred toward the reprobate, and so on.

And remember you have the greatest theologians of the Christian church backing you up, and some outstanding ones are very active in this forum as well.

J.D.

 

No argument there, Andy.</font>[/QUOTE] But your post that started this whole string of responses was an extra-biblical declaration that God would be a monster if He didn't behave in accordance with your sense of benevolence.

Open theism says that God does not know the future because the future does not yet exist. It limits God's knowledge to natural time and leaves many scriptures that must be explained away. If you accept that God indeed knows the future then either your assumptions about God's nature are wrong or else He is indeed a monster.

 

Scott,

I don't think it is just my sense of benevolence, but any sane person would not view creating beings as objects of eternal torture is benevolent. Are you implying that God would not be sane?

I'm the first to admit that there is much we cannot fathom. To me, this is where trust and faith come into play. I don't have all the answers, I believe God is benevolent, therefore all the rest, while interesting to ponder from a philosophical viewpoint, is in God's hands.