Who did Christ die for?

Amy, when checking the quick links (to see who all's on here), lately I've noticed "private messaging" by your name when I'm on here quite a bit. Anybody here may be playing that role of influencer?

 

No, Amy, I'm not even slightly irritated. I'm sorry if it came across that way. It was a very friendly warning, because the Calvinist/Reformed theology denies God's very character of love.

So I ask you again -- what does 'everyone' mean to you?

 

Nope. Just chatting about other stuff, various topics on whatever thread. Nothing specific.

Thanks for your concern.

 

Cool...I wasn't trying to be nosy or anything, but your name beginning with "A"...you are ususally right at the top

BTW, I like the stance you took only a few weeks back, as that is what I see as being truth :thumbs:
http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1098829&postcount=13

 

Thanks Helen. I'm sorry I took it the wrong way. I'm just now learning and exploring reformed theology, so forgive me if I can't answer your questions right now. I'm not trying to avoid you. I understand where you're going with "everyone" and I've been there myself.

I'm going to start another thread on this topic.

 

I can't hide! :laugh:
You can be nosy if you want. I don't mind.

What stance was that? I've slept since then! :laugh:

 

I hope that's not a reference to non calvinistic theology being the substance of a lack of sleep. Truth is truth, regardless. I think you had it.

 

Yes, npetreley, quoting Scripture. Amy, is onto something. :thumbs:

 

Both sides have been quoting Scripture, TCG. I'm sure you know that.

 

Yeah, Mr. Know It All. As if you know that the only way to become a Calvinist is through outside influence. Your reasoning is flawed (that for Calvinism to be true you'd have to be saved as a Calvinist), as is your premise (that Calvinists must be influenced by men). The first Calvinist could not have outside influence.

I'm not going to argue this with you, but you have no right to tell me how I got where I am. You have no clue.

 

Somebody is right. What is the influence behind the one that is not? Nothing? I'm sorry, but it is your premise that is false.

 

Well, I'm just trying to put what you said about man-made speculations into perspective, since it's against those who espouse the doctrines of grace.

 

As I asked npet...both sides cannot be right. One is man made speculation. Is it the one that states God must do thing in a certain way to be sovereign...of the one that says there are some things we will never know about God, sovereignty and man's free will this side of Heaven?

 

Webdog,

1. In respect to salvation, there's a point at which the sovereignty of God must always be maintained and there's also a point at which human responsibilty must be maintained.

2. That is what the scriptural evidence point to.

 

Okay, let's see if you can take it as well as dish it out.

Nobody believes in free-willism except through the influence of free-willers like Finney, Pelagius. And since this false teaching that is what itching ears want to hear has infected today's church as was clearly prophesied, people get it from their local church every week. Nobody could possibly get free-willism from the Bible, since it is not taught in the Bible. Anyone who says they got it from scripture is self-deceived, knowingly or unknowingly. That includes you, webdog. Either you believe a lie and don't know it, or you're just plain lying, because we all know you didn't get your ideas from scripture.

 

LOL

Does the teaching of the Holy Spirit count as an "outside " influence?
Cause I'm sure all the Calvinists here will acknowledge His work as an influence, much to the chagrin of others I'm sure.

 

I was wondering when that verse would come up.
I have sat in a non-Calvinistic church Bible study where this chapter and verse were being studied.
The non-Calvinists struggled with that passage just as much as anyone.

So far, I think that this refers to the fact that the false teachers were numbered with the church. Meaning they professed and were thought to be part of the visible church, but when their damnable heresies were brought to the light, they showed themselves to be not part of the true church and therefore not safe from destruction.
So in the sense that they were considered part of the church is how I think of that phrase.

I'm not dogmatic about my interpretation but just putting it out there as a consideration.

 

That is how I've always heard that verse interpreted also.

It is one of those difficult ones no matter what your theology is.

 

It was an error on my part and I realized it just a few moments ago when I reread the post and before I read yours. I apologize for attributing the quote to you. It was not intentional.