Calvinism and God's love for the cosmos.

Ransom said:
ALAYMAN said:
In what sense, if any, do you believe that God loves the non-elect?
Click to expand...

He lets them live. He gives them their entire lives as ample opportunity to hear and obey the Gospel. Christ was crucified and resurrected publicly as a testimony to all men. He wants them to repent rather than perish. He gives all men common grace (e.g. letting the rain fall on the just and unjust, allowing the wicked to prosper, etc.).
Click to expand...

Uhmmm... If they are the "non-elect", then why would God give them an opportunity to hear and obey the gospel if they're going to Hell anyways? 

And if God wants them to repent rather than perish - which all "non-elect" WILL do, perish, according to you - then is God not Sovereign since He didn't get what he wanted? 

And if your Calvinistic god gives common grace to all men, then what good would that do for those predestined to Hell other than prolong it by threescore and ten years-ish?


 
HammondCheese said:
Uhmmm... If they are the "non-elect", then why would God give them an opportunity to hear and obey the gospel if they're going to Hell anyways? 

And if God wants them to repent rather than perish - which all "non-elect" WILL do, perish, according to you - then is God not Sovereign since He didn't get what he wanted? 

And if your Calvinistic god gives common grace to all men, then what good would that do for those predestined to Hell other than prolong it by threescore and ten years-ish?
Click to expand...

Oh, no, these are questions no one ever thought of in 2000 years of church history! Now I have to start all over again!

[goes back to playing Minecraft]
 
Ransom said:
HammondCheese said:
Uhmmm... If they are the "non-elect", then why would God give them an opportunity to hear and obey the gospel if they're going to Hell anyways? 

And if God wants them to repent rather than perish - which all "non-elect" WILL do, perish, according to you - then is God not Sovereign since He didn't get what he wanted? 

And if your Calvinistic god gives common grace to all men, then what good would that do for those predestined to Hell other than prolong it by threescore and ten years-ish?
Click to expand...

Oh, no, these are questions no one ever thought of in 2000 years of church history! Now I have to start all over again!

[goes back to playing Minecraft]
Click to expand...
That's because nobody in 2,000 years has been able to give an answer from Scripture...  Nobody.  At least John MacArthur admits that fact.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 
Ransom said:
Oh, no, these are questions no one ever thought of in 2000 years of church history! Now I have to start all over again!

[goes back to playing Minecraft]
Click to expand...

Ransom's Rule #2 - When you can't answer a question, deflect to humor.
 
HammondCheese said:
That's because nobody in 2,000 years has been able to give an answer from Scripture...
Click to expand...

I gave an answer from Scripture. See reply #6, above. It is true that God desires the repentance of the wicked. See the Scriptures I cited.

It is also true that God chooses, by his will, whom he will save, and this choice was made before the beginning of the world and not based on any works they had done (Ephesians 1:4-5).

Your questions are designed to pit Scripture against Scripture. They aren't borne out of a desire to understand the truth. They come from a position of operational unbelief in the integrity of Scripture. Sorry, not into playing word games from the Pharisees and scribes today.

Nobody.  At least John MacArthur admits that fact.
Click to expand...

I highly doubt that. Especially given your previous failure to deal honestly with MacArthur's statements.
 
Ransom said:
HammondCheese said:
That's because nobody in 2,000 years has been able to give an answer from Scripture...
Click to expand...

I gave an answer from Scripture. See reply #6, above. It is true that God desires the repentance of the wicked. See the Scriptures I cited.

It is also true that God chooses, by his will, whom he will save, and this choice was made before the beginning of the world and not based on any works they had done (Ephesians 1:4-5).

Your questions are designed to pit Scripture against Scripture. They aren't borne out of a desire to understand the truth. They come from a position of operational unbelief in the integrity of Scripture. Sorry, not into playing word games from the Pharisees and scribes today.

Nobody.  At least John MacArthur admits that fact.
Click to expand...

I highly doubt that. Especially given your previous failure to deal honestly with MacArthur's statements.
Click to expand...

In MacArthur's own words...

https://youtu.be/VEH-X2rP0WM


Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 
HammondCheese said:
In MacArthur's own words s...
Click to expand...

So basically,

a) he agrees with what I said in post #6 (so what made you think it was a good idea to try and use this clip to argue with me?); and

b) nowhere does he say your questions haven't been answered.

So thanks for confirming what I said earlier. You have a problem with intellectual honesty where John MacArthur is concerned.
 
Ransom said:
HammondCheese said:
In MacArthur's own words s...
Click to expand...

So basically,

a) he agrees with what I said in post #6 (so what made you think it was a good idea to try and use this clip to argue with me?); and

b) nowhere does he say your questions haven't been answered.

So thanks for confirming what I said earlier. You have a problem with intellectual honesty where John MacArthur is concerned.
Click to expand...
My point is this...  Even though He is on the wrong side of the Calvinism debate, he admits that his position does not negate the truths of ALL Scripture and that he cannot harmonize the two views.  He admits that many truths taught clearly in Scripture contradict Calvinism without dismissing them.

He doesn't take your approach of reinterpreting any Scripture that doesn't fit into his preconceptions - like you do with Calvinism, the blood of Christ, or anything else...  Although MacArthur is guilty of doing the very same thing regarding the blood of Christ, but I won't digress.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 
HammondCheese said:
My point is this...  Even though He is on the wrong side of the Calvinism debate, he admits that his position does not negate the truths of ALL Scripture and that he cannot harmonize the two views.  He admits that many truths taught clearly in Scripture contradict Calvinism without dismissing them.
Click to expand...

MacArthur "admitted" no such thing. He said both divine predestination and human responsibility are both taught in Scripture, and therefore true.

Truth, by definition, does not contradict itself. So he did not, indeed could not, "admit" any contradiction. Why must you continually lie about MacArthur?

Although MacArthur is guilty of doing the very same thing regarding the blood of Christ, but I won't digress.
Click to expand...

Except, well, you just did (and in doing so, lied about him yet again).

Liars have no place in the Kingdom of God. Calvinist and Arminians agree fully on that. By all means, keep lying and proving who you really are. Fill up your cup.
 
ALAYMAN said:
In what sense, if any, do you believe that God loves the non-elect?
Click to expand...

Well, since he "rapes" (the soul of) those who are elect, so that is a very good question.

Yes, that is actual terminology used by both Jonathan Edwards and R.C. Sproul.
 
Ransom said:
Smellin Coffee said:
Well, since he "rapes" (the soul of) those who are elect...
Click to expand...

You just raped our intelligence with such a stupid take.
Click to expand...
...says the alleged rape victim himself.  #metoo

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 
Ransom said:
Perhaps you can clarify what you mean by that question.
Click to expand...

If it is an act of love to allow the freedom of choice (as opposed to coercion or compulsion) then how does the act of forced regeneration coalesce with that facet of love?
 
In the dispensation of the Church, God's dealings with mankind are clear... Light is given to ALL men but for a time... And when that light is given, Jesus Christ draws ALL men to Himself for He is glorified by the Father...

John 12
27 Now is my soul troubled; and what shall I say? Father, save me from this hour: but for this cause came I unto this hour.
28 Father, glorify thy name. Then came there a voice from heaven, saying, I have both glorified it, and will glorify it again.
29 The people therefore, that stood by, and heard it, said that it thundered: others said, An angel spake to him.
30 Jesus answered and said, This voice came not because of me, but for your sakes.
31 Now is the judgment of this WORLD: now shall the prince of this WORLD be cast out.
32 And I, if I be lifted up from the EARTH, will draw ALL men unto me.
33 This he said, signifying what death he should die.
34 The people answered him, We have heard out of the law that Christ abideth for ever: and how sayest thou, The Son of man must be lifted up? who is this Son of man?
35 Then Jesus said unto them, Yet a little while is the light with you. Walk while ye have the light, lest darkness come upon you: for he that walketh in darkness knoweth not whither he goeth.
36 While ye have light, believe in the light, that ye may be the children of light. These things spake Jesus, and departed, and did hide himself from them.




Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 
ALAYMAN said:
If it is an act of love to allow the freedom of choice (as opposed to coercion or compulsion) then how does the act of forced regeneration coalesce with that facet of love?
Click to expand...

Thanks for the clarification.

The Bible describes the unregenerate as, variously, blind, enslaved, imprisoned, and dead. None of these conditions are such that the one suffering from them is empowered to change them. The blind cannot will themselves to see. The enslaved and imprisoned cannot choose to leave their bondage. The dead cannot decide to live. Was Lazarus "coerced" to be alive after he was dead? No, he had no will at all to be compelled against, because he was dead.

It's not "coercion" or "compulsion" to rescue someone from these dire circumstances. It is rendering help to the helpless.

Is it actually an act of love to allow free choice? That seems like an assumption to me. I'd say it's an act of love for God to extend mercy to those who, by his own laws, deserve none.
 
Ransom said:
ALAYMAN said:
If it is an act of love to allow the freedom of choice (as opposed to coercion or compulsion) then how does the act of forced regeneration coalesce with that facet of love?
Click to expand...

The Bible (through Paul, not Jesus) describes the unregenerate as, variously, blind, enslaved, imprisoned, and dead. None of these conditions are such that the one suffering from them is empowered to change them. The blind cannot will themselves to see. The enslaved and imprisoned cannot choose to leave their bondage. The dead cannot decide to live. Was Lazarus "coerced" to be alive after he was dead? No, he had no will at all to be compelled against, because he was dead.

It's not "coercion" or "compulsion" to rescue someone from these dire circumstances. It is rendering help to the helpless.
Click to expand...

Corrected for you. :)
 
Smellin Coffee said:
The Bible (through Paul, not Jesus, because Smellin would have it so, but I frankly give no craps about his ipse dixit) describes the unregenerate as, variously, blind, enslaved, imprisoned, and dead.
Click to expand...
Corrected for you. :)
Click to expand...

Fixed it better.
 
Ransom said:
ALAYMAN said:
If it is an act of love to allow the freedom of choice (as opposed to coercion or compulsion) then how does the act of forced regeneration coalesce with that facet of love?
Click to expand...

Thanks for the clarification.

The Bible describes the unregenerate as, variously, blind, enslaved, imprisoned, and dead. None of these conditions are such that the one suffering from them is empowered to change them. The blind cannot will themselves to see. The enslaved and imprisoned cannot choose to leave their bondage. The dead cannot decide to live. Was Lazarus "coerced" to be alive after he was dead? No, he had no will at all to be compelled against, because he was dead.

It's not "coercion" or "compulsion" to rescue someone from these dire circumstances. It is rendering help to the helpless.

Is it actually an act of love to allow free choice? That seems like an assumption to me. I'd say it's an act of love for God to extend mercy to those who, by his own laws, deserve none.
Click to expand...
Death is never non existence. Sproul once stated that "spiritually dead people are still biologically alive." Yes when we think of dead things we think of them non existing anymore but that's not true. It may be true for animals but not for us. The body is not the real person. AW Pink in his book "Gleanings in Scripture: Man's Total Depravity" talks about this issue he says "instead of attempting to draw analogies between spiritual and physical death and deriving inferences from them we must stick very closely to the Scriptures and regulate our thoughts by them... Ephesians 2:1-2 -You hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins: WHEREIN in times past ye WALKED - Thus the spiritual death of sinner is a state of active opposition against God." If we are truly dead and can't do anything then why is he walking around? The mistake is to assume physical death in which we depart from out body is the same as spiritual death. It is not. Spiritually dead people can still walk around. A dead body and being dead are two different things.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top