Who did Christ die for?

[webdog]

To that I say Amen :thumbs: I believe the time element and our understanding (or lack thereof) of how God works within and out of it plays a big role in that.

 

[faithgirl46]

I and others have seen this for weeks and said nothing.

I have been away all day....that was my take on things as I read it. I have been wrong before, so its no big deal if I'm wrong again. That is just how I saw things.

Anyway...back to the thread

I jusst saw this thread
faithgirl

 

[npetreley]

I see just the opposite, James. I see one person leaning your way...and then being showered with praise for learning the "truth" and "Scripture". I guess it's in the eye of the beholder, eh?

Actually, I said nothing until you made the outrageous claim that it is impossible to learn Calvinism except from men. As far as I know, you were the first one to comment on Amy's change of disposition. Looks like the insecurity is on your end.

 

[Jarthur001]

eggs are on sale at Walmart

 

[npetreley]

eggs are on sale at Walmart

Cool! Brown? Free-range, or what?

 

[webdog]

Actually, I said nothing until you made the outrageous claim that it is impossible to learn Calvinism except from men. As far as I know, you were the first one to comment on Amy's change of disposition. Looks like the insecurity is on your end.

It's Possible to learn TULIP from other source? Aliens, maybe? National Enquirer? World Daily?

Insecure about what? I'm secure in my beliefs.

 

[webdog]

eggs are on sale at Walmart

Another useful post

Why not some more trivial posts that I've come to expect:

Did Jesus die?

Are we sinners?

 

[npetreley]

It's Possible to learn TULIP from other source? Aliens, maybe? National Enquirer? World Daily?

Insecure about what? I'm secure in my beliefs.

I didn't have any idea what TULIP meant until I came to BB. I was already convinced of election, etc., though. I wouldn't say I'm a true Calvinist, anyway, but I'm comfortable being called that, since it's an easy shorthand.

Yeah, real secure.

 

[menageriekeeper]

by how can calvinist vs. non calvinist both be wrong, though? They are two absolutes on each side of the spectrum. If both are wrong, nothing is right.

Perhaps, Webdog, we can't see the entire spectrum. It's possible we only see what we want to see.

 

[Jarthur001]

Another useful post

Why not some more trivial posts that I've come to expect:

Did Jesus die?

Are we sinners?

tell you what...

my eggs are just as good as your words.

For 4 pages now you have WASTED post on everything but the thread subject.

Still if you look 5-6 pages back...maybe more. You have NOT answered what was asked.

 

[Jarthur001]

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1111474&postcount=120

 

[Helen]

how can calvinist vs. non calvinist both be wrong, though? They are two absolutes on each side of the spectrum. If both are wrong, nothing is right.

That is not correct. If you had said Calvinist vs. say, Arminian, then you could make that statement. But the way you made the statement as Calvinist vs. non-Calvinist, that is logically an A/non-A proposition and one must be right by definition. "non-A", like "non-Calvinist" does not define a positive position, it only states that the positive postion of "A" or "Calvinist" is incorrect.

So it is impossible for them both to be wrong. It's a logic thing...:thumbs:

 

[webdog]

how can calvinist vs. non calvinist both be wrong, though? They are two absolutes on each side of the spectrum. If both are wrong, nothing is right.

That is not correct. If you had said Calvinist vs. say, Arminian, then you could make that statement. But the way you made the statement as Calvinist vs. non-Calvinist, that is logically an A/non-A proposition and one must be right by definition. "non-A", like "non-Calvinist" does not define a positive position, it only states that the positive postion of "A" or "Calvinist" is incorrect.

So it is impossible for them both to be wrong. It's a logic thing...:thumbs:

I think that's what I meant

 

[Helen]

Now that I read your response more carefully, I realize that IS what you said....I'm sorry. California blond and all that (transplanted, but still...:laugh: )

 

[npetreley]

how can calvinist vs. non calvinist both be wrong, though? They are two absolutes on each side of the spectrum. If both are wrong, nothing is right.

That is not correct. If you had said Calvinist vs. say, Arminian, then you could make that statement. But the way you made the statement as Calvinist vs. non-Calvinist, that is logically an A/non-A proposition and one must be right by definition. "non-A", like "non-Calvinist" does not define a positive position, it only states that the positive postion of "A" or "Calvinist" is incorrect.

So it is impossible for them both to be wrong. It's a logic thing...:thumbs:

Actually, it's only impossible according to logic if Calvinism was a single "thing" that was either right or wrong. But it's not. Calvinism includes a lot of details, some of which could be right, some of which could be wrong. Both Calvinism and non-Calvinism could be wrong on some (different) points. In fact, I don't agree 100% with Calvinism. Your either/or logic wouldn't work for me.

 

[Lou Martuneac]

In fact, I don't agree 100% with Calvinism. Your either/or logic wouldn't work for me.

Which of the five points of Calvinism do you reject?

Total Inability

Unconditional Election

Limited Atonement

Irresistible Grace

Perseverance of the Saints


LM

 

[Rippon]

Once again Lou , you show how little you understand Calvinism . It is much broader in scope than just the 5 points . It is so tedious to have to explain this time and time again .

 

[Isaiah40:28]

Do you care to venture an answer?

Well, I think I've posted pretty much what i'm currently thinking right now in my post on Hebrews 10, post #201.
Not sure what else you want me to say about it.

 

[Isaiah40:28]

Christ died for people who were already condemned to hell due to their sin and unbelief?
What purpose did His death serve those who were already condemned to hell?

I asked this way back at the beginning and have continued to ask it since.

What is the non-Calvinist consensus?

Why can we not exclude those OT unbelievers who were already damned by their unbelief?
What could Christ's death do for them?

I'd really like a straight-up answer by everyone who has argued otherwise in this thread.

 

[menageriekeeper]

Actually, Isaiah, I think the question has been answered quite well. You just don't like the answer.