Calvinism vs. Arminianism

[reformed1689]

Oh this is simple...cat got-cha tongue.
If God knows how it all is going to turn out....what is the purpose of predestination? Is predestination a change?

No, God is the one who determines who will be saved. Without that predestination, nobody gets saved.

 

[Grailhunter]

How is that verse relevant to what we are talking about?

Guess you can't read?

 

[Grailhunter]

No, God is the one who determines who will be saved. Without that predestination, nobody gets saved.

Then it a change from what He knew what it would be...
lol a Form of favoritism? How does He choose those that will be saved? Dartboard?
So still in effect those he does not choose are damned to hell?

 

[reformed1689]

Guess you can't read?

No, you just don't post anything of use.

 

[Grailhunter]

No, you just don't post anything of use.

Well I'll tell ya what...you might not be able to read or believe the Word of God...lol...but the people reading these posts can!

 

[justbyfaith]

So please show me the verse that it is the will of God that all be saved. If God willed all to be saved all would be saved, but we know that is not the case because some do go to Hell.

1 Timothy 2:4, 1 Timothy 2:6, 1 John 2:2, 2 Peter 3:9.

 

[Renniks]

Again, a misunderstanding of the Calvinist position. The blood of Christ was sufficient to save all, but only effectual for the elect. Because only the elect will follow Him.

Nonsense. Limited atonement is just that. You can't have it both ways.

 

[reformed1689]

Then it a change from what He knew what it would be...
lol a Form of favoritism? How does He choose those that will be saved? Dartboard?
So still in effect those he does not choose are damned to hell?

So it's a Red Herring argument. God knew who he would choose so that is what it would be. So no, no change.

And yes, those who he does not choose are condemned, yes, that is a true statement. But they are not innocent as I believe you posted if I am not mistaken. All have sinned.

 

[reformed1689]

Nonsense. Limited atonement is just that. You can't have it both ways.

How exactly is that having it both ways?

 

[reformed1689]

1 Timothy 2:4, 1 Timothy 2:6, 1 John 2:2, 2 Peter 3:9.

I have already addressed these. None of these verses are talking about all individuals if you read the verses in context and not isolation.

 

[Grailhunter]

So it's a Red Herring argument. God knew who he would choose so that is what it would be. So no, no change.

And yes, those who he does not choose are condemned, yes, that is a true statement. But they are not innocent as I believe you posted if I am not mistaken. All have sinned.

Scripture is not misleading or distracting. I gave you the exact words you requested. You have been caught in your own web of deception.

Yes I believe in innocence....No I do not believe in "Original Sin"
Yes I believe that abortion is the murder of innocence.
So then we are back to, God actually decided who would not be saved...damned to hell...before the creation of the all things.

 

[reformed1689]

Yes I believe in innocence....No I do not believe in "Original Sin"

Romans 3:23

So then we are back to, God actually decided who would not be saved...damned to hell...before the creation of the all things.

No, we are back to God decided to save some for His glory and pass over others condemned for their sin. ALL have sinned. Or do you just ignore Romans 3?

 

[Grailhunter]

Romans 3:23


No, we are back to God decided to save some for His glory and pass over others condemned for their sin. ALL have sinned. Or do you just ignore Romans 3?

Look for a better scripture....
If your best rebuttal is that un-conceived babies have sinned, you have already lost.
Keep in mind that there is a difference between innocence and righteousness.

 

[justbyfaith]

I have already addressed these. None of these verses are talking about all individuals if you read the verses in context and not isolation.

It is merely a false teaching to teach that "all" doesn't mean "all".

Look for a better scripture....
If your best rebuttal is that un-conceived babies have sinned, you have already lost.
Keep in mind that there is a difference between innocence and righteousness.

Psa 58:3, The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies.

 

[Enoch111]

Reformed Theology is absolutely biblical. I will be glad to take you up on any of the five major points.

To understand Reformed Theology we need to go to the Westminster Confession of Faith. That document clearly states that God elects some for salvation and others for damnation, and that this is by an eternal decree. However that is DEFINITELY NOT what the Bible teaches, since the Gospel invitation is for all. The Bible refutes Five Point Calvinism.

 

[Grailhunter]

It is merely a false teaching to teach that "all" doesn't mean "all".



Psa 58:3, The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies.

Who said all does not mean all? All would mostly mean all, it is kind of "all" encompassing....lol
But it is still limited to all that exist. Not the unconceived. Or before "all" creation. lol
And I agree a baby that starts talking as soon as its head its pops out the womb...I would consider possessed.

 

[reformed1689]

Look for a better scripture....
If your best rebuttal is that un-conceived babies have sinned, you have already lost.
Keep in mind that there is a difference between innocence and righteousness.

Strawman, I never said anything about unconceived babies.

 

[reformed1689]

To understand Reformed Theology we need to go to the Westminster Confession of Faith. That document clearly states that God elects some for salvation and others for damnation, and that this is by an eternal decree. However that is DEFINITELY NOT what the Bible teaches, since the Gospel invitation is for all. The Bible refutes Five Point Calvinism.

Where does the Bible say Christ died for all? That all are able to be saved? Where does it say that?

 

[reformed1689]

It is merely a false teaching to teach that "all" doesn't mean "all".

I did not say that all does not mean all. But you have to look at what the all is referring to.

 

[Nancy]

I have not misunderstood what Calvinism teaches...I have learned its teaching through many conversations with those who hold to Calvinistic theology.

I also think that you are evading when you try to say that Calvinists do not really believe what I have set forth as their belief system.

Perhaps you don't believe exactly that way; and perhaps some who identify themselves as Calvinists don't believe that way; but I assure you that this is the faith of Calvinism that I have presented: and therefore if your belief is different you ought to question whether your view is truly Calvinistic in nature.

Hello JBF,
The last pastor I sat down with to introduce myself to his church went through all of the TULIP acronyms and they are exactly as you say. I also know there are some that do not hold to all of them. Some are 5 pointers, 3 pointers and so on. And then back in the early mid 1990's, I was getting all the books I could on God and Christ. Unfortunately I had come across a book written by a Calvinist...it threw me, terribly. I did end up walking away from the church as I was convinced I was not saved but, God had other plans, He never let go of me Praise God!
In Him,
nancy