To the Calvinists here: what part of Non cal theology Bothers you the Most?

[Revmitchell]

Ach


correct...i would not say ...No Knowledge...but mostly false, contrived ,caricatures

Whether or not the caricature is correct in to you is not evidence in any way that the person does not understand your position. That is an absurd claim.

 

[Yeshua1]

That's a "myth" on here, because I haven't read anyone supporting this claim on here.....and I've been here since 2007......

Those who see us as being total free willed, and those holding to all it takes is us to hear the gospel, as we can still freely decide are advocating just that!

referring to those among us who see us able to respond by ourselves to god, apart from the working of the HS!

 

[Yeshua1]

I believe God knows who will be saved by foreknowledge. God knew I would accept Christ when I heard the gospel. God also knows who will not believe.

Jhn 6:64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.

Jesus knew from the beginning that Judas would not believe and would betray him. Did God determine this? Yes and No. God did determine to allow Judas to betray Jesus to bring about the crucifixion, but God did not cause Judas to reject Jesus, God NEVER tempts any man to sin.

But God knowing Judas would betray Jesus allowed him to use Judas to bring about his purpose.

The scriptures are clear that God desires all men should be saved. But God does not force (you would say cause) people to be saved as you falsely teach.

So He is basing this upon your freewill response , right?
So God waiting to see how you will accept/reject, correct?


Why does one reject/another accept in your system then?

 

[Yeshua1]

I see Iconoclast offered up the usual shuck and jive. Presenting Calvinism's Limited Atonement as if Christ did not become the propitiation for the whole world. Or he did not lay down His life as a ransom for all. Shuck and jive folks.

Any man is redefined to mean certain preselected men. Chosen in Him is rewritten to read individually chosen in Him. On and on it goes, shuck and jive, and rewritten verse after verse.

There is no actual support for the TULI of the Tulip in scripture, all they do is reference rewritten scriptures.

Any man does not mean certain preselected men. Thus Calvinism reverses the meaning of verse after verse.

What do Calvinists find offensive about non Calvinist doctrine?

Calvinists believe in Total Spiritual Inability, thus when non-Calvinists quote scripture that demonstrates unregenerates seek God and heaven, they hate it. Matthew 23:13.

Calvinists believe in Unconditional Election, thus when non-Calvinists quote scripture that demonstrates God chooses people for salvation through faith in the truth, they hate it. 2 Thessalonians 2:13.

Calvinists believe in Limited Atonement, thus when non-Calvinists quote scripture that demonstrates Christ laid down His life as a ransom for all, they hate it. 1 Timothy 2:6

Calvinists believe in Irresistible Grace, thus when non-Calvinists quote scripture that demonstrates unregenerate men can understand the milk of the gospel, they hate it. 1 Corinthians 3:1

But most of all they hate discussing the faults of Calvinism, and so constantly seek to discuss the faults of Arminianism.

god NEVER has saved all people, for he saved out Noah and His family, and allowed all the rest of mankind to perish, reserved to himself a faithful remnant in time of Elijeh, and paul stated there were a faithful remnant in Israel who received messiah, rest were blinded By GOD...

either jesus died to atone for certain for JSUT His people that were to be the elect and chosen to receive that atoning work, or else he died for all, a potential atonement, that was waiting upon our freewill response!

think the biblcal answer quite clear, that jesus died to secure an actual repurchase back odf sinners to god, a definite atoning, not a potentail/hope so one!

And whathappens to those sinners in hell that jesus died to secure a reconcilation back to God for?

 

[convicted1]

Someone show me that hell was prepared solely for Satan and his minions. Hell was created to punish the wicked. Dead sinners are wicked in His sight, and therefore, punished accordingly.

Will someone/anyone answer this please?

 

[convicted1]

Those who see us as being total free willed, and those holding to all it takes is us to hear the gospel, as we can still freely decide are advocating just that!

referring to those among us who see us able to respond by ourselves to god, apart from the working of the HS!

The problem is is there aren't any on here advocating this.

 

[Yeshua1]

The problem is is there aren't any on here advocating this.

You mean that you have not seen those advocate here they have free will to come to god, to accept on their own, or that the Gospel itself will save them, as it works with their free will?

 

[convicted1]

You mean that you have not seen those advocate here they have free will to come to god, to accept on their own, or that the Gospel itself will save them, as it works with their free will?

The gospel has no effect unless the Spirit is drawing them. They have said that the Spirit works within the gospel message, which I agree with. But no one has made the claim that anyone can come to God of their own accord.

challenge: Find a post that states what you claim they said.......

 

[DrJamesAch]

Whether or not the caricature is correct in to you is not evidence in any way that the person does not understand your position. That is an absurd claim.

It's really not about that Mitchell. This is a game to them. It's about trying to win debates and show off to each other. They already discussed this morning that they were going to "tag team" Heir of Salvation and I, so that's why you see all of these non sequitur posts burying all the threads. If they get faced with something that they can't give an answer to, or don't know, they deliberately use venomous ad hominem tactics, troll devices, and poeing.

So the majority of the comments that you are seeing have nothing to do with what even they really believe. It's a game that they are doing on purpose in an attempt to bully those who do not share their views away from the Calvinist clique that thinks they own the forums.

They all private messaged each other this morning about it, so it's pretty pointless to answer them because they are not concerned with the truth. They are concerned about the appearance of their clique.

 

[Rippon]

They all private messaged each other this morning about it, so it's pretty pointless to answer them because they are not concerned with the truth. They are concerned about the appearance of their clique.

Hmmm...the all-knowing DJA. You're rather paranoid.

 

[DrJamesAch]

Hmmm...the all-knowing DJA. You're rather paranoid.

Perhaps you should go back and read Post 181 and 182. Not to mention that one of the people that they messaged sent me a message telling me what they were doing, that even though he was a Calvinist, he thought it was childish, and would not be participating.

No paranoia here, just enjoying the show

 

[agedman]

It's really not about that Mitchell. This is a game to them. It's about trying to win debates and show off to each other. They already discussed this morning that they were going to "tag team" Heir of Salvation and I, so that's why you see all of these non sequitur posts burying all the threads. If they get faced with something that they can't give an answer to, or don't know, they deliberately use venomous ad hominem tactics, troll devices, and poeing.

So the majority of the comments that you are seeing have nothing to do with what even they really believe. It's a game that they are doing on purpose in an attempt to bully those who do not share their views away from the Calvinist clique that thinks they own the forums.

They all private messaged each other this morning about it, so it's pretty pointless to answer them because they are not concerned with the truth. They are concerned about the appearance of their clique.

You must certainly be one of the great conspiratorial advocates on the BB!

That, or you most certainly jest!

I don't generally "run away" from threads, but will withdraw when needed (when time constraints, other duties, or merely no longer see edification as a goal).

I also have little to no PM communication with the members of the BB other than inquiry of how they are (John of Japan), where they are - doing (Iconoclast), and if there are others, I don't recall.

At NO time has the PM's been other than to edify the Lord in that person and/or encourage them in the way.


The concern for Scriptural truth is extremely important, and unless one can show by Scriptures the support for the doctrine held, it remains unsupported.

For instance, today I posted on a thread in response to two verses (Peter, Ezekiel) used in posts, yesterday. Unless it can show by Scripture the error of that post, then it is the non-cal's own use that stands corrected.

That is not arrogance, that is not conspiratorial, it is discerning the Scriptures appropriately.

 

[DrJamesAch]

You must certainly be one of the great conspiratorial advocates on the BB!

That, or you most certainly jest!

I don't generally "run away" from threads, but will withdraw when needed (when time constraints, other duties, or merely no longer see edification as a goal).

I also have little to no PM communication with the members of the BB other than inquiry of how they are (John of Japan), where they are - doing (Iconoclast), and if there are others, I don't recall.

At NO time has the PM's been other than to edify the Lord in that person and/or encourage them in the way.


The concern for Scriptural truth is extremely important, and unless one can show by Scriptures the support for the doctrine held, it remains unsupported.

For instance, today I posted on a thread in response to two verses (Peter, Ezekiel) used in posts, yesterday. Unless it can show by Scripture the error of that post, then it is the non-cal's own use that stands corrected.

That is not arrogance, that is not conspiratorial, it is discerning the Scriptures appropriately.

I gave you a very lengthy response about Peter and Ezekiel both. Iconoclast responded to it, you did not.

I'm just here for the coffee and donuts because even when I post 100 verses back to back with detailed explanations, you fellas will STILL claim that it's not there.

 

[agedman]

I gave you a very lengthy response about Peter and Ezekiel both. Iconoclast responded to it, you did not.

I'm just here for the coffee and donuts because even when I post 100 verses back to back with detailed explanations, you fellas will STILL claim that it's not there.

I left the discussion before Icon responded. I merely scanned the discussion between you and he.

I will state that if you can't answer my post, that is fine. Neither Ezekiel nor Peter support your view, but you desire them too, so to you they provide support irregardless.

 

[DrJamesAch]

I left the discussion before Icon responded. I merely scanned the discussion between you and he.

I will state that if you can't answer my post, that is fine. Neither Ezekiel nor Peter support your view, but you desire them too, so to you they provide support irregardless.

If you can logically address the post point by point, I'll respond.

*********************
Now this verse only says what you say it doesn't say if you read a presuppostional stance into the text. But what does 2 Peter 3:9 actually say?

"The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance."

Now does this verse only mean that God is not willing that ONLY THE ELECT should not perish? That would be impossible because in the very next clause it says "but that all should come to repentance". So the end of the verse is about those who have not came to repentance which means that the subject of this verse are those who are not saved.

And what then does it say about those who have not come to repentance? That the Lord is NOT WILLING (by determination or plan) that ANY should perish"

Now what does Ezekiel 33:11 say?

" Say unto them, As I live, saith the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live: turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die, O house of Israel?"

Furthermore, if God eternally decreed the damnation of sinners to hell, THEN WHY WAS HELL ONLY ORIGINALLY CREATED FOR THE DEVIL AND HIS ANGELS??

"Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels" Matt 25:41

Notice that in Isaiah 5:14 Hell hath ENLARGED itself. Hell did not previously have the capacity for lost sinners because that's not who it was made for. Hell had to be enlarged to include judgment on sinners. If hell was for sinners "According to plan", then the Bible would have made it clear that hell was prepared for the devil, his angels, and sinners.

The Calvinist will claim that God made an eternal decree that sinners will be damned, and site verses like "God knows how to deliver the ungodly and reserve the unjust for punishment" but keep in mind that an "eternal decree" is not eternal IF IT WAS MADE IN TIME. The judgment of sinners in hell is not only devoid of any mention in the Bible of being "decreed" but the evidence shows that the door that opened to reserve even Satan in hell was made AFTER CREATION, WITHIN THE CONCEPT OF TIME, and therefore can not possibly be an "eternal" decree.

"For I know the thoughts that I think toward you, saith the LORD, thoughts of peace, and not of evil, to give you an expected end". Was God talking to ONLY the elect? Of course not, ALL ISRAEL was called God's elect (Isaiah 45:4) and they rejected Him:

"Hear, O heavens, and give ear, O earth: for the Lord hath spoken, I have nourished and brought up children, and they have rebelled against me." Isaiah 1:2

"He came unto his own and his own RECEIVED HIM NOT" John 1:11.

Since you just summarily wrote off my explanation of Romans 8, I won't comment further on it because the explanation is valid.

The plain reading of the Bible proves that God never desired nor intended ANYONE to perish. If perish is used in contrast to those who repent, then perish means hell.

Now when we look at the word "ANY" in 2 Peter 3:9, here is how the word tis (enclitic indefinite pronoun) is used elsewhere:

"Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee" Matt 5:23. Does this mean that if your brother has only SOME things against you, or ANYTHING against you?

"And when he was come to the other side into the country of the Gergesenes, there met him two possessed with devils, coming out of the tombs, exceeding fierce, so that no man might pass by that way." Matt 8:28. Does this mean that only SOME MEN were prevented from passing through, or ANY MAN was prevented from passing through?

And tis is in contrast with pas used 714 times in the Bible to describe "all", 140 "all things", 117 "every", 41 "all men".

In the instances where tis is used to describe "certain ones" it is still used as an indefinite pronoun. In 2 Peter 3:9 the "any" that should perish is compared to the "all" that God wants to come to repentance. The text is clear that God is NOT WILLING that the any should perish. That completely annihilates any view that God DETERMINED that sinners end up in hell, while only some end up in heaven.

The sad reality is that many will end up in hell, but the Bible is clear that that was never God's DESIRE, INTENTION or WILL

 

[agedman]

If you can logically address the post point by point, I'll respond.

*********************
Now this verse only says what you say it doesn't say if you read a presuppostional stance into the text. But what does 2 Peter 3:9 actually say?

"..."

The sad reality is that many will end up in hell, but the Bible is clear that that was never God's DESIRE, INTENTION or WILL

Already done:

Quote from post by dr-ach:

"Now this verse only says what you say it doesn't say if you read a presuppostional stance into the text. But what does 2 Peter 3:9 actually say?

"The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance."

Now does this verse only mean that God is not willing that ONLY THE ELECT should not perish? That would be impossible because in the very next clause it says "but that all should come to repentance". So the end of the verse is about those who have not came to repentance which means that the subject of this verse are those who are not saved.

And what then does it say about those who have not come to repentance? That the Lord is NOT WILLING (by determination or plan) that ANY should perish"

Now what does Ezekiel 33:11 say?

" Say unto them, As I live, saith the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live: turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die, O house of Israel?"

Furthermore, if God eternally decreed the damnation of sinners to hell, THEN WHY WAS HELL ONLY ORIGINALLY CREATED FOR THE DEVIL AND HIS ANGELS??"​

First Peter:

Peter is NOT writing to heathens - but to the brethren. He is writing not to the unsaved, but the saved. He is also NOT discussing salvation but the return of Christ.

Therefore the verse in question MUST be read in THAT context to derive the correct interpretation.

Peter is not stating that all will be saved.

Peter is not stating that even some will be saved.

Peter is in fact holding to the same thinking the Lord Jesus Christ expressed when He stated, "All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out."

Peter is reminding the believers that when the last person that the Father has given to the Son to save is saved, He will return.

Any other rendering of the verse will ultimately lead to universalism.

Second Ezekiel:

This is not a verse about salvation, but of God urging HIS people to quit sinning. Think of Paul encouraging the people to degraded the Lord's table and were now "asleep."

Ezekiel is quoting God.

God is making a statement about Himself - He does not take pleasure in the death of the wicked.
God is stating what does please Him - the His children stop sinning.

The universal-istic thinker's desire to use this verse and apply it to all the heathen to prove a point shows a great weakness in understanding the character and nature of God.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Hmmm...the all-knowing DJA. You're rather paranoid.

Agreed I am sorry to say.

 

[preacher4truth]

Perhaps you should go back and read Post 181 and 182. Not to mention that one of the people that they messaged sent me a message telling me what they were doing, that even though he was a Calvinist, he thought it was childish, and would not be participating.

No paranoia here, just enjoying the show

Baloney. What a ridiculous statement. Every person who has participated in this thread did so without being coerced. I see you also hate unity.

 

[Herald]

Wow. I didn't know I was part of a clique or some vast Calvinist or Reformed conspiracy. I thought I was convinced by the testimony of Scripture that the Doctrines of Grace is a more accurate theology than Arminianism and semi-Pelagianism.

It is enough for me that I am responsible, along with my fellow elders, for the spiritual welfare of a local assembly. Of course I have an affinity for those who share my theological distinctives. Does that mean I am unquestionably right? No. I thought I was unquestionably right when I was a card carrying dispensational, Arminian, hyper-fundamentalist, neo-Pharisee. I was humbled when I understood the depth of my error. While I am convinced I am on the right side of the Calvinism issue I am open to correction through the testimony of scripture and plain reason. God, in His providence, has not revealed the need for such a theological change. In fact, the baseless and almost comical refutations against Reformed soteriology, do nothing to affect the status quo.

Okay, I've been above water too long during this post. Back to my hidden bunker to receive more orders from the mother ship.

 

[DrJamesAch]

Wow. I didn't know I was part of a clique or some vast Calvinist or Reformed conspiracy. I thought I was convinced by the testimony of Scripture that the Doctrines of Grace is a more accurate theology than Arminianism and semi-Pelagianism.

It is enough for me that I am responsible, along with my fellow elders, for the spiritual welfare of a local assembly. Of course I have an affinity for those who share my theological distinctives. Does that mean I am unquestionably right? No. I thought I was unquestionably right when I was a card carrying dispensational, Arminian, hyper-fundamentalist, neo-Pharisee. I was humbled when I understood the depth of my error. While I am convinced I am on the right side of the Calvinism issue I am open to correction through the testimony of scripture and plain reason. God, in His providence, has not revealed the need for such a theological change. In fact, the baseless and almost comical refutations against Reformed soteriology, do nothing to affect the status quo.

Okay, I've been above water too long during this post. Back to my hidden bunker to receive more orders from the mother ship.

Yes, I am familiar with the "spiritual warfare" of Calvinists, and so was Servetus and many others. Nothing's changed.