The "stumbling block" of Calvinism

[subllibrm]

This assumes that God's will is "free".

It also assumes that the fall had no effect on the condition of man's will.

 

[subllibrm]

"His Spirit bears witness with our spirit that we are the children of God".

Give this man a cigar.

And a whiskey!

Wait, wrong thread.

 

[rsc2a]

This assumes that God's will is "free".

It also assumes that the fall had no effect on the condition of man's will.

Yup. And a certain definition for "free".

 

[subllibrm]

This assumes that God's will is "free".

It also assumes that the fall had no effect on the condition of man's will.

Yup. And a certain definition for "free".

And ignores both God's justice and wrath, minimizing what was actually paid for on Calvary.

 

[praise_yeshua]

"His Spirit bears witness with our spirit that we are the children of God".

Give this man a cigar.

Is that your answer? I posted a reply to T-Bone. Check it out.

 

[praise_yeshua]

This assumes that God's will is "free".

I didn't think I was dealing with atheist and agnostics...

 

[Ransom]

Now you're getting three dimensional....

Yes, I am indeed well-rounded, while you are flat.

 

[praise_yeshua]

This assumes that God's will is "free".

It also assumes that the fall had no effect on the condition of man's will.

Ah... a good Calvinist argument.

Are you going to take up this response? Don't run away!!!

 

[praise_yeshua]

This assumes that God's will is "free".

It also assumes that the fall had no effect on the condition of man's will.

Yup. And a certain definition for "free".

And ignores both God's justice and wrath, minimizing what was actually paid for on Calvary.

How so.... you just can't make such an argument without backing it up.... Tell me how????

 

[praise_yeshua]

Paradoxical situation does not equate to being untrue.

How do we reconcile "free will" over and against "elect of God"? We don't. We accept that both are true, a paradox beyond our ability to comprehend. See also: Jesus fully God and fully man.

Nonsense. Its not a Paradox found in the Scriptures. The Scriptures are true. Not Calvinism. Its getting more and more common for people to say such things. In fact, I know some very good men that refuse to deal with the subject at all.... because they have Calvinist friends it might offend.

I have perfectly explanation. In fact, I've tried to share it several times before here and I usually don't get far enough in the discussion to do so at any length. I'll share a little of it of the logical part of the argument.....

I would logically argue that...

It is impossible to create a creature in the "image of God" and deny that "image".... freewill. If you deny that "creature"....."freewill"..... then you have lost the very semblance of God.

Where did I say there wasn't a free will?

And could you explain how fully God/fully man is not a paradox? When you get a chance. I know you are a busy man. What with all the misrepresenting you have going on and all.

I never said such about the Incarnation.  Are you really that lost in this? YOU'RE the one compared election to what you called the "paradox" of the Incarnation. Stop being dishonest!!!

 

[sword]

For those of us who have not studied the tenets of Calvinism, in much detail at all, can someone explain how they interpret each of the 5 points.

1. Total Depravity
2. Unconditional Election
3. Limited Atonement
4. Irresistible Grace
5. Perseverance of the Saints

Since I believe God came to seek & to save that which was lost & many verses in the Bible refute points 2, 3, & 4, I have not studied it in any detail.

 

[praise_yeshua]

For those of us who have not studied the tenets of Calvinism, in much detail at all, can someone explain how they interpret each of the 5 points.

1. Total Depravity
2. Unconditional Election
3. Limited Atonement
4. Irresistible Grace
5. Perseverance of the Saints

Since I believe God came to seek & to save that which was lost & many verses in the Bible refute points 2, 3, & 4, I have not studied it in any detail.

First, the argument really isn't about the 5 points. A Calvinist just loves to confine the discussion to his own outline.... The issue is much broader and more complicated than just "5 points" in their "own outline".

1. Its nonsense. Man isn't so depraved that he can not respond to the natural aspects of the Gospel. Its a LIE.
2. Its nonsense. God doesn't transgression a man's "unwillingness" or "resistance to God desire" in forcing some "predetermined" "people" to Christ
3. Its nonsense. Christ's atonement wasn't limited in effectiveness. Christ died for those who would willing accept His Work.
4. Its nonsense. God no more wants the unwilling than YOU DO. You can't force someone to love you. Love doesn't work that way.
5. Its nonsense. God keeps His own. However, its not a Calvinist trick to get people to believe their really isn't any indication of whether someone is saved or not.

 

[rsc2a]

This assumes that God's will is "free".

I didn't think I was dealing with atheist and agnostics...

Yup. That's it. <rolls eyes>

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=praise_yeshua]
3. Its nonsense. Christ's atonement wasn't limited in effectiveness. Christ died for those who would willing accept His Work.[/quote]

Holy contradictions, Batman!

 

[praise_yeshua]

This assumes that God's will is "free".

I didn't think I was dealing with atheist and agnostics...

Yup. That's it. <rolls eyes>

Easily enough to prove. Provide a reputable source that teachings God doesn't have "freewill". Now, if you're going to argue about God being constrained by His own Divine nature.... than that's another argument. God's freewill is expressed in His Divine Nature.

 

[praise_yeshua]

[quote author=praise_yeshua]
3. Its nonsense. Christ's atonement wasn't limited in effectiveness. Christ died for those who would willing accept His Work.

Holy contradictions, Batman!
[/quote]

Its impossible for you do anything but throw out "one liners".......

 

[Bruh]

I have yet to me a Calvinist that would say, my child has not been chosen, he was chosen for destruction.  Funny how that works.

 

[praise_yeshua]

I have yet to me a Calvinist that would say, my child has not been chosen, he was chosen for destruction.  Funny how that works.

There application of their doctrine is ALWAYS.... self serving.

Regardless, how they apply what they believe and what they believe..... is entirely two different things. This has long festered in the arguments made between the Hyper-Calvinist and "Calvinist"

Logically speaking, I think its very obvious that most "moderate" Calvinists are just afraid of how "Hyper-Calvinism" makes them look.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

I have yet to me a Calvinist that would say, my child has not been chosen, he was chosen for destruction.  Funny how that works.

That's a stupid argument, IMO.  I have yet to meet anyone, Calvinist or otherwise, who knows whether his children are chosen the same way they know they, themselves are chosen.  The Bible says the Spirit testifies with MY spirit, not the Spirit testifies about my children's spirits. 

Because I love my children and because I place my faith in God's love for them, too, I believe my children are chosen.  But I also know that's up to God, and I am in no position to argue with God.

 

[rsc2a]

This assumes that God's will is "free".

I didn't think I was dealing with atheist and agnostics...

Yup. That's it. <rolls eyes>

Easily enough to prove. Provide a reputable source that teachings God doesn't have "freewill". Now, if you're going to argue about God being constrained by His own Divine nature.... than that's another argument. God's freewill is expressed in His Divine Nature.

"Now I can say things that make no sense at all."