Scriptur
11-28-2010, 11:20 AM
Re: 52blades
http://www.youtube.com/user/52blades
I wasn't a Calvinist when I was saved.
You thought you gave your life to Christ and were regenerated. Now you think you never did but were irresistibly made to believe in Christ. This is a testimony you were never saved to begin with since you concede now you never did repent and believe in Christ to be regenerated. Since God calls you to repent and believe in Him to be regenerated only when you do so will you be saved.
the Calvinist God is inhuman. In this you are correct.I think you are confusing what I said which is that your god is inhumane with standards below our own.
When you stated that God owes every man the choice to be saved (you have indeed conveyed above that it would be unjust for God to send every man to hell without "giving them a choice" first) you have abolished any pretention of salvation being an act of undeserved mercy.
You're misusing undeserved mercy. The context of mercy is a person receives more than they deserve. This has nothing to do with being irresistibly selected. Nor does it mean people deserve to go to Hell because they were born into sin, for God would be unrighteous not to respond to man's fallen nature since it is not our own fault we are born this way. He responds with sufficient enabling grace to give us all the choice. Realize your god is powerless to be able to do that. Therefore, God of the Bible trumps your god.
Would it be unjust of the Father if He had chosen not to send the Son to die for any man's sins? Your above statements force you to answer that it would be unjust of God if He had chosen not to die for man's sins because every man deserves a "choice".
Indeed, it would be unjust of the Father if He had chosen not to send His Son to die on the cross since this is the only way anyone could be saved, and nobody deserves to go to Hell for being born into sin.
Is a criminal at trial entitled to the choice to be saved from his punishment? Certainly not. If the judge is somehow obligated to give him the choice to go free without paying the penalty for his crimes (as you say) then when the judge gives him the choice to go free the judge is not showing mercy. He is only doing what he was obligated to do in the first place (let all people have the choice to go off the hook). Certainly God is obligated to save no one.
You're presuming everyone would want to go free according to your analogy. In this world, in reality, even though God provides sufficient grace to us all, people still refuse it and prefer the punishment of going to that eternal jail.
You complain that it is unfair for God to save some men from judgment and not others, and you are correct: It is unfair, and we want God to be unfair. If He were fair ALL men would be given judgment and none would be saved. We don't want justice. We want mercy.
I never said it is unfair for God to save some and not others. Rather, it is unfair for God to irresistibly select some, preterition others and not provide sufficient grace to all men. God would not be fair if He let people perish without sufficient grace for it was not their fault they were born into sin. Mercy is given by God over and above what He is obligated to do. There is no world ensemble where God would not enter His creation to atone for sins, because He is not an unrighteous God.
Are convicted criminals entitled to have another take their punishment for them? You have conveyed a disturbingly ennobled and innocent view of man, and you have conveyed that you don't seem to take sin seriously, nor is there any place in your system for true mercy.
Since in the world a criminal can't get someone else to do their time and criminals don't want to go to jail, your analogy is not applicable to what we are discussing. In God's design everyone can receive Jesus' atoning sacrifice or go to that eternal jail. Thus, God's grace and mercy is greater than man, because He provides the ransom so to not go to jail. If man had God's mercy and grace, he would be able to discern if a person really had repented and thus, free him from going to jail. You have described a very evil system where everyone goes to Hell because they are born into sin, not of their own fault, unless your god irresistibly imposes regeneration. But if your god can irresistibly impose salvation then why not save everyone? Letting even one person perish is evil. Letting someone drown when we could have helped them is evil. If it is evil for us to behave this way towards one another then why not your god? Don't you feel like your god is like Hitler since that is how Hitler treated the Jews?
While I can show you a God who has room for mercy and righteousness, your god of irresistibly imposing salvation, passing over others and not providing sufficient grace to all indicates zero mercy and a downright evil nature. Forcing someone to do something against their will is of the same opinion still. Yanking someone out of playing in quicksand and leaving the other who does not realize he won't be able to get out is not a good system at all. For God can extend an explanation and stick to both of them to grab and plead with them to grab hold. Since this is better then it is better. Mercy is seen in God going above what we would normally anticipate as the fair thing to do.
Also, Calvinism affirms that all men have been given the choice to follow Christ. The point is that they are so radically enslaved to their sin that they never will choose to be saved unless God first chooses to change their will out of His own unmerited mercy.
Since God provides sufficient grace to all men and obviously some receive Christ, then there is no need for God to irresistibly change wills. You're under the mistaken assumption that men are Totally depraved so your god has to irresistibly impose, all the while forgetting God provides sufficient grace for us all. Thus we are told we are without excuse. You've created for yourself an assumed TD idol that prevents you from repenting and believing in Christ to be regenerated.
Your claim that Christ has died for all the sins of all men is incoherent in that you are saying that Christ has already paid the price for all sin and satisfied God's wrath yet He still finds charge against the unregenerate man for sins that have already been paid for. What basis is there to punish the same sin twice?
Your misunderstanding lies in the fact you assume that Jesus dying on the cross for the sins of the whole world leads to everyone being saved. Not at all. The all-inclusive ransom for sin still must be accepted by the individual otherwise it is not appropriated. That very sin keeps that person eternally separated from God as they continue to reject God's provision.
In regards to 1 Tim 4:10, we should ask how it is that God can be the savior of those who do not believe. Also, the term malista should most likely be understood as giving a definition or identification of that which precedes it. Rendering the passage "that is, believers."
God is the Savior of all men because He died on the cross for the sins of the whole world. Not too complicated. "Specially" is a subset of "all men". Since not all men willingly receive His saving grace, then not all men are saved. I've never seen any other interpretation that makes sense.
So you are still stuck with the same problem in 1 Tim. 4.10. "Savior of all men, specially those who believe" does not make sense in any context that I know of other than as Savior of all men because He provides sufficient grace to all men; thus, those who believe are specially important because they respond to that grace.
It doesn't make any sense at all to say "Savior of all men who believe, specially those who believe" or "Savior of all men but some go to Hell, specially those who believe".
Whatever approach the Calvinist wants to take, he can't solve this problem, thus exposing Calvinism as a fraud of Satan.
This is why this verse is often cited as the most powerful verse that exposes Calvinism as utterly evil.
http://www.youtube.com/user/52blades
I wasn't a Calvinist when I was saved.
You thought you gave your life to Christ and were regenerated. Now you think you never did but were irresistibly made to believe in Christ. This is a testimony you were never saved to begin with since you concede now you never did repent and believe in Christ to be regenerated. Since God calls you to repent and believe in Him to be regenerated only when you do so will you be saved.
the Calvinist God is inhuman. In this you are correct.I think you are confusing what I said which is that your god is inhumane with standards below our own.
When you stated that God owes every man the choice to be saved (you have indeed conveyed above that it would be unjust for God to send every man to hell without "giving them a choice" first) you have abolished any pretention of salvation being an act of undeserved mercy.
You're misusing undeserved mercy. The context of mercy is a person receives more than they deserve. This has nothing to do with being irresistibly selected. Nor does it mean people deserve to go to Hell because they were born into sin, for God would be unrighteous not to respond to man's fallen nature since it is not our own fault we are born this way. He responds with sufficient enabling grace to give us all the choice. Realize your god is powerless to be able to do that. Therefore, God of the Bible trumps your god.
Would it be unjust of the Father if He had chosen not to send the Son to die for any man's sins? Your above statements force you to answer that it would be unjust of God if He had chosen not to die for man's sins because every man deserves a "choice".
Indeed, it would be unjust of the Father if He had chosen not to send His Son to die on the cross since this is the only way anyone could be saved, and nobody deserves to go to Hell for being born into sin.
Is a criminal at trial entitled to the choice to be saved from his punishment? Certainly not. If the judge is somehow obligated to give him the choice to go free without paying the penalty for his crimes (as you say) then when the judge gives him the choice to go free the judge is not showing mercy. He is only doing what he was obligated to do in the first place (let all people have the choice to go off the hook). Certainly God is obligated to save no one.
You're presuming everyone would want to go free according to your analogy. In this world, in reality, even though God provides sufficient grace to us all, people still refuse it and prefer the punishment of going to that eternal jail.
You complain that it is unfair for God to save some men from judgment and not others, and you are correct: It is unfair, and we want God to be unfair. If He were fair ALL men would be given judgment and none would be saved. We don't want justice. We want mercy.
I never said it is unfair for God to save some and not others. Rather, it is unfair for God to irresistibly select some, preterition others and not provide sufficient grace to all men. God would not be fair if He let people perish without sufficient grace for it was not their fault they were born into sin. Mercy is given by God over and above what He is obligated to do. There is no world ensemble where God would not enter His creation to atone for sins, because He is not an unrighteous God.
Are convicted criminals entitled to have another take their punishment for them? You have conveyed a disturbingly ennobled and innocent view of man, and you have conveyed that you don't seem to take sin seriously, nor is there any place in your system for true mercy.
Since in the world a criminal can't get someone else to do their time and criminals don't want to go to jail, your analogy is not applicable to what we are discussing. In God's design everyone can receive Jesus' atoning sacrifice or go to that eternal jail. Thus, God's grace and mercy is greater than man, because He provides the ransom so to not go to jail. If man had God's mercy and grace, he would be able to discern if a person really had repented and thus, free him from going to jail. You have described a very evil system where everyone goes to Hell because they are born into sin, not of their own fault, unless your god irresistibly imposes regeneration. But if your god can irresistibly impose salvation then why not save everyone? Letting even one person perish is evil. Letting someone drown when we could have helped them is evil. If it is evil for us to behave this way towards one another then why not your god? Don't you feel like your god is like Hitler since that is how Hitler treated the Jews?
While I can show you a God who has room for mercy and righteousness, your god of irresistibly imposing salvation, passing over others and not providing sufficient grace to all indicates zero mercy and a downright evil nature. Forcing someone to do something against their will is of the same opinion still. Yanking someone out of playing in quicksand and leaving the other who does not realize he won't be able to get out is not a good system at all. For God can extend an explanation and stick to both of them to grab and plead with them to grab hold. Since this is better then it is better. Mercy is seen in God going above what we would normally anticipate as the fair thing to do.
Also, Calvinism affirms that all men have been given the choice to follow Christ. The point is that they are so radically enslaved to their sin that they never will choose to be saved unless God first chooses to change their will out of His own unmerited mercy.
Since God provides sufficient grace to all men and obviously some receive Christ, then there is no need for God to irresistibly change wills. You're under the mistaken assumption that men are Totally depraved so your god has to irresistibly impose, all the while forgetting God provides sufficient grace for us all. Thus we are told we are without excuse. You've created for yourself an assumed TD idol that prevents you from repenting and believing in Christ to be regenerated.
Your claim that Christ has died for all the sins of all men is incoherent in that you are saying that Christ has already paid the price for all sin and satisfied God's wrath yet He still finds charge against the unregenerate man for sins that have already been paid for. What basis is there to punish the same sin twice?
Your misunderstanding lies in the fact you assume that Jesus dying on the cross for the sins of the whole world leads to everyone being saved. Not at all. The all-inclusive ransom for sin still must be accepted by the individual otherwise it is not appropriated. That very sin keeps that person eternally separated from God as they continue to reject God's provision.
In regards to 1 Tim 4:10, we should ask how it is that God can be the savior of those who do not believe. Also, the term malista should most likely be understood as giving a definition or identification of that which precedes it. Rendering the passage "that is, believers."
God is the Savior of all men because He died on the cross for the sins of the whole world. Not too complicated. "Specially" is a subset of "all men". Since not all men willingly receive His saving grace, then not all men are saved. I've never seen any other interpretation that makes sense.
So you are still stuck with the same problem in 1 Tim. 4.10. "Savior of all men, specially those who believe" does not make sense in any context that I know of other than as Savior of all men because He provides sufficient grace to all men; thus, those who believe are specially important because they respond to that grace.
It doesn't make any sense at all to say "Savior of all men who believe, specially those who believe" or "Savior of all men but some go to Hell, specially those who believe".
Whatever approach the Calvinist wants to take, he can't solve this problem, thus exposing Calvinism as a fraud of Satan.
This is why this verse is often cited as the most powerful verse that exposes Calvinism as utterly evil.