In my opinion, it basically comes down to evangelism. Remember, the SBC was formed as a missions cooperative. If your theology of soteriology prevents you from following Jesus, then it's bad theology. One could, in theory, be a hyper-Calvinist and carry out the Great Commission as a matter of obedience.

94chem said:

---

In my opinion, it basically comes down to evangelism. Remember, the SBC was formed as a missions cooperative. If your theology of soteriology prevents you from following Jesus, then it's bad theology. One could, in theory, be a hyper-Calvinist and carry out the Great Commission as a matter of obedience.

---

In my opinion, if you have an incorrect view of God's character, then it is impossible to present a truthful witness. Which is what we are to do when we spread the Gospel.

I will say that in real life, most Calvinists I know are delightful Christians. I sometimes wonder if they have actually thought through what their theology actually says about the character of God.

For friendly discussion purposes only:

Does anyone have a truly correct view of God's character?

Jabin said:

---

For friendly discussion purposes only:

Does anyone have a truly correct view of God's character?

---

Probably not. But I posted what I thought was a good article on this not long ago. I always think of the fruits of the Spirit as visible displays of God's character.

Peace, patience, joy, love, kindness, gentleness, faithfulness, generosity, and self control.

And I agree with A. W. Tozer that what comes to a person's mind when they think about God is the most important thing about us.

dermdoc said:

---

94chem said:

---

In my opinion, it basically comes down to evangelism. Remember, the SBC was formed as a missions cooperative. If your theology of soteriology prevents you from following Jesus, then it's bad theology. One could, in theory, be a hyper-Calvinist and carry out the Great Commission as a matter of obedience.

---

In my opinion, if you have an incorrect view of God's character, then it is impossible to present a truthful witness. Which is what we are to do when we spread the Gospel.

I will say that in real life, most Calvinists I know are delightful Christians. I sometimes wonder if they have actually thought through what their theology actually says about the character of God.

---

IDK - maybe that he's omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent? Even though it presents a conundrum for me, I choose not to construct a false dichotomy between what God causes and what He allows. If nothing else, I can derive comfort in knowing that he caused, not merely allowed, his only son to be crushed for me. If there is a dichotomy, I suppose it is between what gives God pleasure and what does not.

94chem said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

94chem said:

---

In my opinion, it basically comes down to evangelism. Remember, the SBC was formed as a missions cooperative. If your theology of soteriology prevents you from following Jesus, then it's bad theology. One could, in theory, be a hyper-Calvinist and carry out the Great Commission as a matter of obedience.

---

In my opinion, if you have an incorrect view of God's character, then it is impossible to present a truthful witness. Which is what we are to do when we spread the Gospel.

I will say that in real life, most Calvinists I know are delightful Christians. I sometimes wonder if they have actually thought through what their theology actually says about the character of God.

---

IDK - maybe that he's omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent? Even though it presents a conundrum for me, I choose not to construct a false dichotomy between what God causes and what He allows. If nothing else, I can derive comfort in knowing that he caused, not merely allowed, his only son to be crushed for me. If there is a dichotomy, I suppose it is between what gives God pleasure and what does not.

---

Agree. But the Holy Spirit is part of the Trinity and expresses the nature of God. As does Jesus.

I think the list of the fruits of the Spirit gives an insight into God's character as does the ministry of Jesus.

dermdoc said:

---

94chem said:

---

In my opinion, it basically comes down to evangelism. Remember, the SBC was formed as a missions cooperative. If your theology of soteriology prevents you from following Jesus, then it's bad theology. One could, in theory, be a hyper-Calvinist and carry out the Great Commission as a matter of obedience.

---

I will say that in real life, most Calvinists I know are delightful Christians. I sometimes wonder if they have actually thought through what their theology actually says about the character of God.

---

I'm sorry, is this for real?

Just trying to think off the top of my head of a few of the greatest protestant theologians who have devoted the time and thought required to write systematics, which, just perhaps, a few of us might have read and appreciate:
Luther
Calvin
Zwingli
Beza
A Brakel
Edwards
Owen
Turrentin
VanMastrich
Hodge
Bavinck
Vos
Berkhof
Van Til
Strong
Lloyd-Jones
Packer
Grudem
Sproul
Culver
Frame
Letham

Read one or two of those and come back again with a comment as utterly absurd and insulting as this. Maybe you don't agree with them...but cmon man, the bubble you have to live in to be this ignorant of Church history and basic theology to say something like that. Yeah, they just "haven't really thought it through." Good gracious.

tk111 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

94chem said:

---

In my opinion, it basically comes down to evangelism. Remember, the SBC was formed as a missions cooperative. If your theology of soteriology prevents you from following Jesus, then it's bad theology. One could, in theory, be a hyper-Calvinist and carry out the Great Commission as a matter of obedience.

---

I will say that in real life, most Calvinists I know are delightful Christians. I sometimes wonder if they have actually thought through what their theology actually says about the character of God.

---

I'm sorry, is this for real?

Just trying to think off the top of my head of a few of the greatest protestant theologians who have devoted the time and thought required to write systematics, which, just perhaps, a few of us might have read and appreciate:
Luther
Calvin
Zwingli
Beza
A Brakel
Edwards
Owen
Turrentin
VanMastrich
Hodge
Bavinck
Vos
Berkhof
Van Til
Strong
Lloyd-Jones
Packer
Grudem
Sproul
Culver
Frame
Letham

Read one or two of those and come back again with a comment as utterly absurd and insulting as this. Maybe you don't agree with them...but cmon man, the bubble you have to live in to be this ignorant of Church history and basic theology to say something like that. Yeah, they just "haven't really thought it through." Good gracious.

---

I am not talking about theologians. I am talking about regular people who claim to be Calvinists.
I do not believe the majority of them believe in limited atonement or double pre destination.

Do you?

dermdoc said:

---

tk111 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

94chem said:

---

In my opinion, it basically comes down to evangelism. Remember, the SBC was formed as a missions cooperative. If your theology of soteriology prevents you from following Jesus, then it's bad theology. One could, in theory, be a hyper-Calvinist and carry out the Great Commission as a matter of obedience.

---

I will say that in real life, most Calvinists I know are delightful Christians. I sometimes wonder if they have actually thought through what their theology actually says about the character of God.

---

I'm sorry, is this for real?

Just trying to think off the top of my head of a few of the greatest protestant theologians who have devoted the time and thought required to write systematics, which, just perhaps, a few of us might have read and appreciate:
Luther
Calvin
Zwingli
Beza
A Brakel
Edwards
Owen
Turrentin
VanMastrich
Hodge
Bavinck
Vos
Berkhof
Van Til
Strong
Lloyd-Jones
Packer
Grudem
Sproul
Culver
Frame
Letham

Read one or two of those and come back again with a comment as utterly absurd and insulting as this. Maybe you don't agree with them...but cmon man, the bubble you have to live in to be this ignorant of Church history and basic theology to say something like that. Yeah, they just "haven't really thought it through." Good gracious.

---

I am not talking about theologians. I am talking about regular people who claim to be Calvinists.
I do not believe the majority of them do not believe in limited atonemen or double pre destination.

Do you?

---

What makes you say that? Your own introspection? You're all over the place doc. Those who aren't theologians just get thrown into your bucket of "they haven't akshually thought about it?"

The clear implication of your post is that you believe that because these folks you know are "delightful christians," it must be in spite of the fact that they're calvinists or that they have serious theological shortcomings, because that's the only way could make sense to you. You think maybe that's a bit obtuse?

tk111 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

tk111 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

94chem said:

---

In my opinion, it basically comes down to evangelism. Remember, the SBC was formed as a missions cooperative. If your theology of soteriology prevents you from following Jesus, then it's bad theology. One could, in theory, be a hyper-Calvinist and carry out the Great Commission as a matter of obedience.

---

I will say that in real life, most Calvinists I know are delightful Christians. I sometimes wonder if they have actually thought through what their theology actually says about the character of God.

---

I'm sorry, is this for real?

Just trying to think off the top of my head of a few of the greatest protestant theologians who have devoted the time and thought required to write systematics, which, just perhaps, a few of us might have read and appreciate:
Luther
Calvin
Zwingli
Beza
A Brakel
Edwards
Owen
Turrentin
VanMastrich
Hodge
Bavinck
Vos
Berkhof
Van Til
Strong
Lloyd-Jones
Packer
Grudem
Sproul
Culver
Frame
Letham

Read one or two of those and come back again with a comment as utterly absurd and insulting as this. Maybe you don't agree with them...but cmon man, the bubble you have to live in to be this ignorant of Church history and basic theology to say something like that. Yeah, they just "haven't really thought it through." Good gracious.

---

I am not talking about theologians. I am talking about regular people who claim to be Calvinists.
I do not believe the majority of them do not believe in limited atonemen or double pre destination.

Do you?

---

What makes you say that? Your own introspection? You're all over the place doc. Those who aren't theologians just get thrown into your bucket of "they haven't akshually thought about it?"

The clear implication of your post is that you believe that because these folks you know are "delightful christians," it must be in spite of the fact that they're calvinists or that they have serious theological shortcomings, because that's the only way could make sense to you. You think maybe that's a bit obtuse?

---

Are you a Calvinist?

dermdoc said:

---

tk111 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

tk111 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

94chem said:

---

In my opinion, it basically comes down to evangelism. Remember, the SBC was formed as a missions cooperative. If your theology of soteriology prevents you from following Jesus, then it's bad theology. One could, in theory, be a hyper-Calvinist and carry out the Great Commission as a matter of obedience.

---

I will say that in real life, most Calvinists I know are delightful Christians. I sometimes wonder if they have actually thought through what their theology actually says about the character of God.

---

I'm sorry, is this for real?

Just trying to think off the top of my head of a few of the greatest protestant theologians who have devoted the time and thought required to write systematics, which, just perhaps, a few of us might have read and appreciate:
Luther
Calvin
Zwingli
Beza
A Brakel
Edwards
Owen
Turrentin
VanMastrich
Hodge
Bavinck
Vos
Berkhof
Van Til
Strong
Lloyd-Jones
Packer
Grudem
Sproul
Culver
Frame
Letham

Read one or two of those and come back again with a comment as utterly absurd and insulting as this. Maybe you don't agree with them...but cmon man, the bubble you have to live in to be this ignorant of Church history and basic theology to say something like that. Yeah, they just "haven't really thought it through." Good gracious.

---

I am not talking about theologians. I am talking about regular people who claim to be Calvinists.
I do not believe the majority of them do not believe in limited atonemen or double pre destination.

Do you?

---

What makes you say that? Your own introspection? You're all over the place doc. Those who aren't theologians just get thrown into your bucket of "they haven't akshually thought about it?"

The clear implication of your post is that you believe that because these folks you know are "delightful christians," it must be in spite of the fact that they're calvinists or that they have serious theological shortcomings, because that's the only way could make sense to you. You think maybe that's a bit obtuse?

---

Are you a Calvinist?

---

What does it matter? You're not acknowledging the predicament in your statement. Youre saying either a "regular person" (whatever that means) who is calvinist "hasn't actually thought it through," thus he can be a "delightful christian" because his theology is inconsistent, or that everyone on that list I just gave who spent their whole lives "thinking it through" can't be "delightful Christians" (by whatever standard you've set up for yourself) because they would affirm the "five points." Consider the position you've put yourself in.

tk111 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

tk111 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

tk111 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

94chem said:

---

In my opinion, it basically comes down to evangelism. Remember, the SBC was formed as a missions cooperative. If your theology of soteriology prevents you from following Jesus, then it's bad theology. One could, in theory, be a hyper-Calvinist and carry out the Great Commission as a matter of obedience.

---

I will say that in real life, most Calvinists I know are delightful Christians. I sometimes wonder if they have actually thought through what their theology actually says about the character of God.

---

I'm sorry, is this for real?

Just trying to think off the top of my head of a few of the greatest protestant theologians who have devoted the time and thought required to write systematics, which, just perhaps, a few of us might have read and appreciate:
Luther
Calvin
Zwingli
Beza
A Brakel
Edwards
Owen
Turrentin
VanMastrich
Hodge
Bavinck
Vos
Berkhof
Van Til
Strong
Lloyd-Jones
Packer
Grudem
Sproul
Culver
Frame
Letham

Read one or two of those and come back again with a comment as utterly absurd and insulting as this. Maybe you don't agree with them...but cmon man, the bubble you have to live in to be this ignorant of Church history and basic theology to say something like that. Yeah, they just "haven't really thought it through." Good gracious.

---

I am not talking about theologians. I am talking about regular people who claim to be Calvinists.
I do not believe the majority of them do not believe in limited atonemen or double pre destination.

Do you?

---

What makes you say that? Your own introspection? You're all over the place doc. Those who aren't theologians just get thrown into your bucket of "they haven't akshually thought about it?"

The clear implication of your post is that you believe that because these folks you know are "delightful christians," it must be in spite of the fact that they're calvinists or that they have serious theological shortcomings, because that's the only way could make sense to you. You think maybe that's a bit obtuse?

---

Are you a Calvinist?

---

What does it matter? You're not acknowledging the predicament in your statement. Youre saying either a "regular person" (whatever that means) who is calvinist "hasn't actually thought it through," thus he can be a "delightful christian" because his theology is inconsistent, or that everyone on that list I just gave who spent their whole lives "thinking it through" can't be "delightful Christians" (by whatever standard you've set up for yourself) because they would affirm the "five points." Consider the position you've put yourself in.

---

And I can give you a list who have thought it through and come to different theological conclusions than the list you mentioned,

Yes it makes a difference if you are a Calvinist or not.

dermdoc said:

---

tk111 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

tk111 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

tk111 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

94chem said:

---

In my opinion, it basically comes down to evangelism. Remember, the SBC was formed as a missions cooperative. If your theology of soteriology prevents you from following Jesus, then it's bad theology. One could, in theory, be a hyper-Calvinist and carry out the Great Commission as a matter of obedience.

---

I will say that in real life, most Calvinists I know are delightful Christians. I sometimes wonder if they have actually thought through what their theology actually says about the character of God.

---

I'm sorry, is this for real?

Just trying to think off the top of my head of a few of the greatest protestant theologians who have devoted the time and thought required to write systematics, which, just perhaps, a few of us might have read and appreciate:
Luther
Calvin
Zwingli
Beza
A Brakel
Edwards
Owen
Turrentin
VanMastrich
Hodge
Bavinck
Vos
Berkhof
Van Til
Strong
Lloyd-Jones
Packer
Grudem
Sproul
Culver
Frame
Letham

Read one or two of those and come back again with a comment as utterly absurd and insulting as this. Maybe you don't agree with them...but cmon man, the bubble you have to live in to be this ignorant of Church history and basic theology to say something like that. Yeah, they just "haven't really thought it through." Good gracious.

---

I am not talking about theologians. I am talking about regular people who claim to be Calvinists.
I do not believe the majority of them do not believe in limited atonemen or double pre destination.

Do you?

---

What makes you say that? Your own introspection? You're all over the place doc. Those who aren't theologians just get thrown into your bucket of "they haven't akshually thought about it?"

The clear implication of your post is that you believe that because these folks you know are "delightful christians," it must be in spite of the fact that they're calvinists or that they have serious theological shortcomings, because that's the only way could make sense to you. You think maybe that's a bit obtuse?

---

Are you a Calvinist?

---

What does it matter? You're not acknowledging the predicament in your statement. Youre saying either a "regular person" (whatever that means) who is calvinist "hasn't actually thought it through," thus he can be a "delightful christian" because his theology is inconsistent, or that everyone on that list I just gave who spent their whole lives "thinking it through" can't be "delightful Christians" (by whatever standard you've set up for yourself) because they would affirm the "five points." Consider the position you've put yourself in.

---

And I can give you a list who have thought it through and come to different theological conclusions than the list you mentioned,

Yes it makes a difference if you are a Calvinist or not.

---

I didn't say people couldn't come to different theological conclusions. Im addressing your fallacious statement. Again, what do my personal beliefs have to do with that? Please explain how telling you my position would affect your answer.

I suppose if you met me and determined me to be delightful, you could answer your own question eh?

tk111 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

tk111 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

tk111 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

tk111 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

94chem said:

---

In my opinion, it basically comes down to evangelism. Remember, the SBC was formed as a missions cooperative. If your theology of soteriology prevents you from following Jesus, then it's bad theology. One could, in theory, be a hyper-Calvinist and carry out the Great Commission as a matter of obedience.

---

I will say that in real life, most Calvinists I know are delightful Christians. I sometimes wonder if they have actually thought through what their theology actually says about the character of God.

---

I'm sorry, is this for real?

Just trying to think off the top of my head of a few of the greatest protestant theologians who have devoted the time and thought required to write systematics, which, just perhaps, a few of us might have read and appreciate:
Luther
Calvin
Zwingli
Beza
A Brakel
Edwards
Owen
Turrentin
VanMastrich
Hodge
Bavinck
Vos
Berkhof
Van Til
Strong
Lloyd-Jones
Packer
Grudem
Sproul
Culver
Frame
Letham

Read one or two of those and come back again with a comment as utterly absurd and insulting as this. Maybe you don't agree with them...but cmon man, the bubble you have to live in to be this ignorant of Church history and basic theology to say something like that. Yeah, they just "haven't really thought it through." Good gracious.

---

I am not talking about theologians. I am talking about regular people who claim to be Calvinists.
I do not believe the majority of them do not believe in limited atonemen or double pre destination.

Do you?

---

What makes you say that? Your own introspection? You're all over the place doc. Those who aren't theologians just get thrown into your bucket of "they haven't akshually thought about it?"

The clear implication of your post is that you believe that because these folks you know are "delightful christians," it must be in spite of the fact that they're calvinists or that they have serious theological shortcomings, because that's the only way could make sense to you. You think maybe that's a bit obtuse?

---

Are you a Calvinist?

---

What does it matter? You're not acknowledging the predicament in your statement. Youre saying either a "regular person" (whatever that means) who is calvinist "hasn't actually thought it through," thus he can be a "delightful christian" because his theology is inconsistent, or that everyone on that list I just gave who spent their whole lives "thinking it through" can't be "delightful Christians" (by whatever standard you've set up for yourself) because they would affirm the "five points." Consider the position you've put yourself in.

---

And I can give you a list who have thought it through and come to different theological conclusions than the list you mentioned,

Yes it makes a difference if you are a Calvinist or not.

---

I didn't say people couldn't come to different theological conclusions. Im addressing your fallacious statement. Again, what do my personal beliefs have to do with that? Please explain how telling you my position would affect your answer.

I suppose if you met me and determined me to be delightful, you could answer your own question eh?

---

You are correct and I apologize.

I will admit that it is my opinion that the doctrine of double predestination is so dreadful that I can not read the entirety of the Bible and accept it.

I could not have kids if I thought there was a chance they were pre ordained to eternal torment. And neither they or I could do nothing about it.

But that is just me and obviously a lot of people smarter than me disagree.

Hadn't clicked in here since I wasn't all that interested in something Al Mohler said. Come to find out we're talking about those squirrelly Calvinists again.

While I agree that at the end of the day, Calvinists like myself and Arminians like Doc should still rally around our gracious Lord and Savior as one day we will be in His presence together, TULIP does offer significant nuances into how we consider the character of God as Doc is pointing out.

It all boils down to whether or not you believe in God being completely sovereign over ALL. Arminians do not believe sovereignty over ALL. It is impossible to say otherwise if God is not sovereign over salvation. So therefore a traditional baptist or Arminian would essentially embrace the doctrine of God's limited sovereignty. That isn't the God I find in the Bible.

Regarding the original subject, I can consider myself one of those Christians with far less enthusiasm for Trump this go around. But it has more to do with general Trump fatigue than anything else. I'm completely on board with the decentralization of the federal government in most issues and leaving the states to handle. From that point, you better believe I want Texas to do everything in its power to overthrow the gross realities of abortion in any way. And at the same time be more charitable to helping families with adoption. I would call on other Christians in other states to act and vote accordingly in their own state environments.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Hadn't clicked in here since I wasn't all that interested in something Al Mohler said. Come to find out we're talking about those squirrelly Calvinists again.

While I agree that at the end of the day, Calvinists like myself and Arminians like Doc should still rally around our gracious Lord and Savior as one day we will be in His presence together, TULIP does offer significant nuances into how we consider the character of God as Doc is pointing out.

It all boils down to whether or not you believe in God being completely sovereign over ALL. Arminians do not believe sovereignty over ALL. It is impossible to say otherwise if God is not sovereign over salvation. So therefore a traditional baptist or Arminian would essentially embrace the doctrine of God's limited sovereignty. That isn't the God I find in the Bible.

Regarding the original subject, I can consider myself one of those Christians with far less enthusiasm for Trump this go around. But it has more to do with general Trump fatigue than anything else. I'm completely on board with the decentralization of the federal government in most issues and leaving the states to handle. From that point, you better believe I want Texas to do everything in its power to overthrow the gross realities of abortion in any way. And at the same time be more charitable to helping families with adoption. I would call on other Christians in other states to act and vote accordingly in their own state environments.

---

I agree with you on the Trump thing.

Scripture tells us God is love. And that He desires all men to be saved. When Christ was born the angels said it was good news for all men, not the elect.

Granted there are Scriptures supporting Calvinism also. But I am very leery of a theology that has to insert words (all kinds of men, when the Scripture says all men) to be consistent.

Calvinism gets a lot right. But it all comes down to the character of God. Is God love as 1 John clearly states? Or does He preordain people, maybe even your children, to hell? Without them having any chance?

I also believe in free will. And I believe Scripture supports the concept of free will. And I believe God gave us free will because He is love. As Scripture clearly says.

We can accept or reject God. It is not love, in my opinion, if we have no free will.

Is God sovereign? Of course. He can do anything He wants. But because He is love, He does not pre ordain people to hell.

I am sovereign over my children but because of love, I do not take away their free will. And I certainly do not love one child more than another. Or condemn one to eternal torment just because I can.

But we are both blessed to know the Lord. We are brothers in Christ. We just have some differences in theology. And that is okay.

Jabin said:

---

Quote:

---

It all boils down to whether or not you believe in God being completely sovereign over ALL. Arminians do not believe sovereignty over ALL. It is impossible to say otherwise if God is not sovereign over salvation. So therefore a traditional baptist or Arminian would essentially embrace the doctrine of God's limited sovereignty. That isn't the God I find in the Bible.

---

As a friendly rejoinder - I've never heard anybody claim to "embrace the doctrine of God's limited sovereignty" or any words to that effect. Rather, that seems to be an incorrect label put on others by extreme Calvinists.

Most people who are devout Christians but not Calvinists believe in both free will and God's absolute sovereignty. God, in his sovereignty, has granted men free will. Additionally, if one believes that God is outside of time, predestination (as defined by Calvinists) is somewhat pointless.

---

Agree. I have never heard a non Calvinist speak of God's limited sovereignty. Sounds like something a Calvinist preacher would say.
And I would wonder why the majority of the church and theologians throughout history and present day, reject Calvin's views on election and pre destination.

Calvin basically changed the emphasis and nature of election and pre destination that had been orthodox for centuries.

Were (are) all those believers wrong?

And I am still perplexed how Calvin wrote all those pages in his Institutes and never used the word love?

Quote:

---

But we are both blessed to know the Lord. We are brothers in Christ. We just have some differences in theology. And that is okay.

---

Amen.

I come from the perspective that a loving father wouldn't let me to my own devices. You have to look at the entire doctrines of Grace, and without an understanding of our total or radical depravity, you believe that man is good enough and capable enough to choose God without his sovereign work.

Why is it that some men come to believe? Why would the rest not believe? Are non-believers a type of manufacturer defect that God didn't create equally to the others? Are believers smarter than others? Did God create everyone exactly equally with the same capacity to believe? If so, is his creation imperfect in that not all believe?

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Quote:

---

But we are both blessed to know the Lord. We are brothers in Christ. We just have some differences in theology. And that is okay.

---

Amen.

I come from the perspective that a loving father wouldn't let me to my own devices. You have to look at the entire doctrines of Grace, and without an understanding of our total or radical depravity, you believe that man is good enough and capable enough to choose God without his sovereign work.

Why is it that some men come to believe? Why would the rest not believe? Are non-believers a type of manufacturer defect that God didn't create equally to the others? Are believers smarter than others? Did God create everyone exactly equally with the same capacity to believe? If so, is his creation imperfect in that not all believe?

---

Because I believe man has free will. That answers all your questions.

And why evangelize? Our human efforts in your theology would be futile. Everything has been predetermined in your theology.

Quote:

---

I have never heard a non Calvinist speak of God's limited sovereignty. Sounds like something a Calvinist preacher would say.

---

Hadn't heard it either but that's my way of looking at it. It's a question all Arminians would need to wrestle with. If God isn't sovereign over your salvation it means his sovereignty is limited to a degree. And since the whole Bible essentially is the story of God saving his people, it seems like it's a big void over something to not be sovereign over.

Joshua 24:15

But if serving the Lord seems undesirable to you, then CHOOSE for yourself this day who you will serve, whether the gods your ancestors served before the Euphrates, or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you are living.

But as for me and my household, we will serve the Lord.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Quote:

---

I have never heard a non Calvinist speak of God's limited sovereignty. Sounds like something a Calvinist preacher would say.

---

Hadn't heard it either but that's my way of looking at it. It's a question all Arminians would need to wrestle with. If God isn't sovereign over your salvation it means his sovereignty is limited to a degree. And since the whole Bible essentially is the story of God saving his people, it seems like it's a big void over something to not be sovereign over.

---

Do you believe God can be completely sovereign and still give man free will?

Yeah absolutely the two can coexist. I have the free will to be obedient to his commands every minute of every day.

BUT we cannot do it outside the power of the Spirit within us.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Yeah absolutely the two can coexist. I have the free will to be obedient to his commands every minute of every day.

BUT we cannot do it outside the power of the Spirit within us.

---

So do we have free will before we are regenerated? And if not, why did the verse I posted from Joshua instruct the Israelites to choose?

I'm not sure that picking that one verse out of Joshua is appropriate for building the case for man's sovereignty over his own salvation. The context is the Israel community and covenant renewal, a people that God has already chosen as his people. I daily must choose to serve the Lord with my life and put away my idols. That's my take of what was happening there at the end of Joshua's life.

Do we have free will prior to regeneration? Sure, but depends what is meant by free will. We all make decisions everyday about what we say and do. Prior to regeneration, our wills are not in alignment with God's will and we are unable to please him.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

I'm not sure that picking that one verse out of Joshua is appropriate for building the case for man's sovereignty over his own salvation. The context is the Israel community and covenant renewal, a people that God has already chosen as his people. I daily must choose to serve the Lord with my life and put away my idols. That's my take of what was happening there at the end of Joshua's life.

Do we have free will prior to regeneration? Sure, but depends what is meant by free will. We all make decisions everyday about what we say and do. Prior to regeneration, our wills are not in alignment with God's will and we are unable to please him.

---

Of course you do not because you see everything through a Reformed lens. Just like 1 Timothy 2 2-4, 2 Peter 3:9, etc.

No use discussing anymore because every Scripture I post you will discredit.

I love Joshua 24 - I just don't happen to think it's about the people of Israel actively choosing their faith or "accepting Christ" like you or I would today as it relates to salvation.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

I love Joshua 24 - I just don't happen to think it's about the people of Israel actively choosing their faith or "accepting Christ" like you or I would today as it relates to salvation.

---

Why not? It seems very much so to someone who approaches the passage without any preconceived ideas.

And what about Romans 10:9 or 1 John 3:23?

Although the exact words "free will" are never used, the Bible seems replete with synonymous words and phrases.

Jabin said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

I love Joshua 24 - I just don't happen to think it's about the people of Israel actively choosing their faith or "accepting Christ" like you or I would today as it relates to salvation.

---

Why not? It seems very much so to someone who approaches the passage without any preconceived ideas.

And what about Romans 10:9 or 1 John 3:23?

Although the exact words "free will" are never used, the Bible seems replete with synonymous words and phrases.

---

The key to me here is your statement on preconceived ideas. In my opinion, Reformed theology comes first and Scripture is made to fit in with Reformed theology.

I do not understand how anyone can read 1Timothy 2 2-4, 2 Peter 3 9, or numerous other verses and still adhere to Reformed theology.

And of course, Reformed believers do not understand how I can read Romans 9, Ephesians, and other Scripture and not be Reformed.

And so it has gone for 500 years

Well, Paul wrote most of the New Testament, so the idea that it's been a 500 year thing is something I would reject. He's the one that wrote Romans 9 - not Luther

It's always been there.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Well, Paul wrote most of the New Testament, so the idea that it's been a 500 year thing is something I would reject. He's the one that wrote Romans 9 - not Luther

It's always been there.

---

Nobody interpreted it the way Calvin did. He completely changed views on election and predestination.
And the majority of theologians do not interpret Romans 9 how he did.

And I really like N T Wright

https://pursuingveritas.com/2015/01/07/predestination-and-freewill-n-t-wright/comment-page-1/#comments

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Hadn't clicked in here since I wasn't all that interested in something Al Mohler said. Come to find out we're talking about those squirrelly Calvinists again.

While I agree that at the end of the day, Calvinists like myself and Arminians like Doc should still rally around our gracious Lord and Savior as one day we will be in His presence together, TULIP does offer significant nuances into how we consider the character of God as Doc is pointing out.

It all boils down to whether or not you believe in God being completely sovereign over ALL. Arminians do not believe sovereignty over ALL. It is impossible to say otherwise if God is not sovereign over salvation. So therefore a traditional baptist or Arminian would essentially embrace the doctrine of God's limited sovereignty. That isn't the God I find in the Bible.

Regarding the original subject, I can consider myself one of those Christians with far less enthusiasm for Trump this go around. But it has more to do with general Trump fatigue than anything else. I'm completely on board with the decentralization of the federal government in most issues and leaving the states to handle. From that point, you better believe I want Texas to do everything in its power to overthrow the gross realities of abortion in any way. And at the same time be more charitable to helping families with adoption. I would call on other Christians in other states to act and vote accordingly in their own state environments.

---

Dear Non-Calvinists - What is it like to be in control of your own salvation?

Sincerely,
Myself - A former Southern Baptist who is now a Reformed Christian CREC member (you know - those Doug Wilson Christian Nationalists that JD Grear, Beth Moore, Russell Moore, and Matt Chandler warned you about!)

***** And our numbers are rapidly growing too. Reformed Doctrine, Catholic Liturgy, Psalm Singing, Weekly Eucharist, Male lead churches, Complementarian. Go here to find out more --- https://crechurches.org/

TheEternalOptimist said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Hadn't clicked in here since I wasn't all that interested in something Al Mohler said. Come to find out we're talking about those squirrelly Calvinists again.

While I agree that at the end of the day, Calvinists like myself and Arminians like Doc should still rally around our gracious Lord and Savior as one day we will be in His presence together, TULIP does offer significant nuances into how we consider the character of God as Doc is pointing out.

It all boils down to whether or not you believe in God being completely sovereign over ALL. Arminians do not believe sovereignty over ALL. It is impossible to say otherwise if God is not sovereign over salvation. So therefore a traditional baptist or Arminian would essentially embrace the doctrine of God's limited sovereignty. That isn't the God I find in the Bible.

Regarding the original subject, I can consider myself one of those Christians with far less enthusiasm for Trump this go around. But it has more to do with general Trump fatigue than anything else. I'm completely on board with the decentralization of the federal government in most issues and leaving the states to handle. From that point, you better believe I want Texas to do everything in its power to overthrow the gross realities of abortion in any way. And at the same time be more charitable to helping families with adoption. I would call on other Christians in other states to act and vote accordingly in their own state environments.

---

Dear Non-Calvinists - What is it like to be in control of your own salvation?

Sincerely,
Myself - A former Southern Baptist who is now a Reformed Christian CREC member (you know - those Doug Wilson Christian Nationalists that JD Grear, Beth Moore, Russell Moore, and Matt Chandler warned you about!)

***** And our numbers are rapidly growing too. Reformed Doctrine, Catholic Liturgy, Psalm Singing, Weekly Eucharist, Male lead churches, Complementarian. Go here to find out more --- https://crechurches.org/

---

Cool. So you believe in double predestination? What if your family are not of the elect? How can you have kids knowing they could be pre ordained to eternal torment? With zero chance?

Scripture clearly states that God desires to save all men. Are all men saved?