Preparing a truthful Calvinist sermon

[Iconoclast]

I think that SBM can answer for herself.

If you think that....then do not assume the worst, be patient and let him answer.:wavey:

 

[savedbymercy]

No, I can freely tell you what I believe, and have the free will to do so. Apparently you do not. God forces you to type on that keyboard. Everything you do is foreordained by God. Isn't that true?
I believe that in the Sovereignty of the infinite love of God, He has given a choice to all men whether to accept or to reject the offer of His love shown through the sacrifice of His son. They are free to choose. God is love.

As for you, you won't give a simple yes or no. We must assume the inevitable then. You are like the little child who broke a dish. "Tommy did you do this?"
Tommy won't answer because he knows he will get in trouble. His silence answers for him. He is guilty by his silence. If he were innocent he would immediately answer: "No, I didn't do it." And possibly he would be able to give a reasoned answer.
You are guilty be your silence.
But I will give you another chance.

Is God a God of Love to the non-elect? Yes or no.

Already answered and this is a Rabbit Trail ! And you are guilty of slander and misrepresentation !

 

[DHK]

Already answered and this is a Rabbit Trail ! And you are guilty of slander and misrepresentation !

Please don't lie. If you answered the question with a direct yes or no, you would be able to point me to the post. Can you do that for me. All I need is yes or no.

Is God a God of Love to the non-elect? Yes or no.

 

[savedbymercy]

Please don't lie. If you answered the question with a direct yes or no, you would be able to point me to the post. Can you do that for me. All I need is yes or no.

Already answered and continual slander and misrepresentation !

 

[DHK]

Already answered and continual slander and misrepresentation !

Is God a God of Love to the non-elect? Yes or no.

 

[savedbymercy]

Is God a God of Love to the non-elect? Yes or no.

Already answere !

 

[DHK]

Already answere !

Where is the answer?
Is God a God of Love to the non-elect? Yes or no.

 

[savedbymercy]

Where is the answer?
Is God a God of Love to the non-elect? Yes or no.

Already answered, look for it, I am not your flunky ! You you can't keep track that is your problem !

 

[RLBosley]

Will someone please close this ridiculous thread?

 

[steaver]

Will someone please close this ridiculous thread?

It was a very good thread. Very revealing, exposing the nitty gritty flaws of Calvinism.

 

[OldRegular]

It was a very good thread. Very revealing, exposing the nitty gritty flaws of Calvinism.

It exposed nothing but your flawed understanding of Calvinism!

 

[Rippon]

Steaver, you have a mountain of obstacles that you have generated.

Go to sermonaudio.com regularly and tune in "Calvinistic" preachers. They are nothing like your misrepresentations.

 

[thatbrian]

There are two main sticking points with Arminians & Pelagians vs Calvinists. They arise out of a thinking that is too simplistic. They throw around the term, "free will", but they don't understand that there are distinctions to made when you use such a term. Are they talking about Libertarian free will? They usually are, and they are incorrect.

1) Man does not have libertarian free will. Man cannot chose any option, and he does not even wish to chose any/every option. He is limited in his options, and he is severely/completely limited by his sin nature. He is bound by his sinful nature to do that which ONLY a sinful nature can and would do: sin. Just as a fish does what fishes do, a sinner does what sinners do. Man cannot, and does not even desire to do, what is pleasing to God.

2) Man is NOT morally neutral. It's not that he can swing either way. He is not in a neural position. He is in rebellion against God. This is where Arminian thought falls apart completely.

God could offer salvation to sinful mankind all day and night - forever, and no one would accept. Why? Because a sinner is looking for God like a criminal is looking for a cop. Post Fall, man is hiding from God (from the light) he is NOT seeking God. God is seeking him.

 

[convicted1]

There are two main sticking points with Arminians & Pelagians vs Calvinists. They arise out of a thinking that is too simplistic. They throw around the term, "free will", but they don't understand that there are distinctions to made when you use such a term. Are they talking about Libertarian free will? They usually are, and they are incorrect.

1) Man does not have libertarian free will. Man cannot chose any option, and he does not even wish to chose any/every option. He is limited in his options, and he is severely/completely limited by his sin nature. He is bound by his sinful nature to do that which ONLY a sinful nature can and would do: sin. Just as a fish does what fishes do, a sinner does what sinners do. Man cannot, and does not even desire to do, what is pleasing to God.

2) Man is NOT morally neutral. It's not that he can swing either way. He is not in a neural position. He is in rebellion against God. This is where Arminian thought falls apart completely.

God could offer salvation to sinful mankind all day and night - forever, and no one would accept. Why? Because a sinner is looking for God like a criminal is looking for a cop. Post Fall, man is hiding from God (from the light) he is NOT seeking God. God is seeking him.

:thumbsup::wavey::thumbs::applause:

 

[PreachTony]

I have made my self perfectly clear as to who I believe God loves, the Elect . And you impute to me, that believing that makes me say God is cruel, when in reality it is you who think that God is cruel for exclusively loving His Elect ! GOD is still Love to His Elect without loving the none elect !

Then that's your answer. God is a God of love to the Elect only. The non-Elect are just out of luck. God never loved them in the first place.

7 Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God.
8 He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love.

That last part of verse 8 is a general statement about God. It is not a conditional statement about God's feelings toward only a certain group. Yet, according to you, God is love only to the Elect.

Man, I wish the Biblical authors would've been moved by God to write in less confusing words. :smilewinkgrin:

 

[steaver]

It exposed nothing but your flawed understanding of Calvinism!

And yet not one post from a Calvinist in 24 pages which points to a part in the OP sermon which is being dishonest. Not one..........

 

[steaver]

Steaver, you have a mountain of obstacles that you have generated.

Go to sermonaudio.com regularly and tune in "Calvinistic" preachers. They are nothing like your misrepresentations.

Of course they are not like my OP sermon. I have heard many Calvinist preachers and they sound just like Arminian preachers. This is the problem, they don't preach the FULL truth of TULIP to the masses, oh they will preach it to their like minded believers.

And again, more accusations of "misrepresentation" without any pointed argument towards any part of the OP sermon which is dishonest and why. Which part do you disagree with and why?

 

[steaver]

There are two main sticking points with Arminians & Pelagians vs Calvinists. They arise out of a thinking that is too simplistic. They throw around the term, "free will", but they don't understand that there are distinctions to made when you use such a term. Are they talking about Libertarian free will? They usually are, and they are incorrect.

Misunderstanding #1, Freewill as used in a biblical debate has it's restrictions found within the parameters which God has set forth that freewill to be exercised therein. God in His Sovereignty, gives freewill to move about and make decisions within parameters which He has set forth. We find the very first example of this with Adam and Eve when placed in the garden of Eden and given the freewill choice to believe God or believe Satan.

1) Man does not have libertarian free will. Man cannot chose any option, and he does not even wish to chose any/every option. He is limited in his options, and he is severely/completely limited by his sin nature. He is bound by his sinful nature to do that which ONLY a sinful nature can and would do: sin. Just as a fish does what fishes do, a sinner does what sinners do. Man cannot, and does not even desire to do, what is pleasing to God.

Correct, man must be given light and enablement from the Holy Spirit before he can choose between good and evil, between God and this world. Until man is enabled, enlightened, man will only seek his own selfish ways. Thanks be to God for seeking out man and offering His Son as an atonement for all who will believe!!!!!

2) Man is NOT morally neutral. It's not that he can swing either way. He is not in a neural position. He is in rebellion against God.

Correct

God could offer salvation to sinful mankind all day and night - forever, and no one would accept. Why? Because a sinner is looking for God like a criminal is looking for a cop. Post Fall, man is hiding from God (from the light) he is NOT seeking God. God is seeking him

Correct, see above.....

 

[PreachTony]

Misunderstanding #1, Freewill as used in a biblical debate has it's restrictions found within the parameters which God has set forth that freewill to be exercised therein. God in His Sovereignty, gives freewill to move about and make decisions within parameters which He has set forth. We find the very first example of this with Adam and Eve when placed in the garden of Eden and given the freewill choice to believe God or believe Satan.

I've always heard (from others) that, seemingly as a function of Irresistible Grace, whoever God enables to choose between right and wrong will inevitably choose right and follow after God. I am loosely working with the assumption that this premise is false, as it would create a bit of a quandary. If this is the case, and God enable Adam and Eve to choose right and wrong, how did they choose wrong?

Correct, man must be given light and enablement from the Holy Spirit before he can choose between good and evil, between God and this world. Until man is enabled, enlightened, man will only seek his own selfish ways. Thanks be to God for seeking out man and offering His Son as an atonement for all who will believe!!!!!

If man is only capable of choosing wrong until God enables him, then he is capable of choosing right and wrong, is it still possible for man to choose wrong after being enabled by God, under this theological system?

 

[steaver]

I've always heard (from others) that, seemingly as a function of Irresistible Grace, whoever God enables to choose between right and wrong will inevitably choose right and follow after God. I am loosely working with the assumption that this premise is false, as it would create a bit of a quandary. If this is the case, and God enable Adam and Eve to choose right and wrong, how did they choose wrong?

Most of the Calvinist I have spoken with will say God regenerated them first which at the same time zapped them into being a believer, so by default they seemingly chose Christ. Second, many will say Adam and Eve had a freewill choice, but nobody afterwards, it was lost forever. Of course this is inference, which is needed to support their belief system.

If man is only capable of choosing wrong until God enables him, then he is capable of choosing right and wrong, is it still possible for man to choose wrong after being enabled by God, under this theological system?

I believe the Calvinist, although reluctantly, has to accept freewill to some sort of degree. Otherwise, no matter what you do, God made you do it. Say, choosing a jelly donut over a glazed, choosing to give to charity or ignore other's needs, etc.