The Banned said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

If I were, I would get what I deserve.

But the "P" in TULIP is my favorite. The Lord Jesus will ensure his flock will endure to the end, if we are truly His. What good shepherd would actually allow his little sheep to wander off and be consumed by the enemy? Not mine.

While we can all find ourselves in seasons of doubt, I know I belong to Jesus. Not because I ate of a specific loaf or was baptized at just the right time, but because I know who Christ is, what He did me on the cross, and I have placed all of my trust in him, albeit in a very flawed and incomplete way. I desire to mold my life after Christ as Scripture has outlined, and I aim to carry on until my time on Earth is over.

---

How can you have kids with this theology?

---

Well, since God is totally sovereign in this theology, did he really have any choice but to have kids? If God wants X number of kids for His elect from 10&B, what can 10&B do to stop Him?

---

My point is that I could not have kids knowing that they could be preordained to ECT hell. And I and they have no control over it.

But that is me. And like I said I applaud Calvinists for their faith. I personally can not go there. And when I tried it nearly destroyed me. If Calvinists are correct, then maybe it is because I am preordained to ECT hell is why I can't agree with TULIP.

i had no choice in being created. I am here. According to TULIP, my fate is sealed. Either ECT hell or heaven. I can do nothing to change that so it is done.

I do have control over whether I have kids. And I would not if I believed in TULIP.Unless God, who I believe is omnipotent, had my wife become pregnant, then have a kid (we do not believe in abortion), and preordain that child to ECT hell for His glory according to Calvinists.

To me (and I am only talking about myself), that would make God worse than Hitler. Preordained ETERNAL conscious hell for a child I love. I can not fathom that. But that is me. And when I tried to believe it, I nearly killed myself with booze and sleeping pills.

dermdoc said:

---

The Banned said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

If I were, I would get what I deserve.

But the "P" in TULIP is my favorite. The Lord Jesus will ensure his flock will endure to the end, if we are truly His. What good shepherd would actually allow his little sheep to wander off and be consumed by the enemy? Not mine.

While we can all find ourselves in seasons of doubt, I know I belong to Jesus. Not because I ate of a specific loaf or was baptized at just the right time, but because I know who Christ is, what He did me on the cross, and I have placed all of my trust in him, albeit in a very flawed and incomplete way. I desire to mold my life after Christ as Scripture has outlined, and I aim to carry on until my time on Earth is over.

---

How can you have kids with this theology?

---

Well, since God is totally sovereign in this theology, did he really have any choice but to have kids? If God wants X number of kids for His elect from 10&B, what can 10&B do to stop Him?

---

My point is that I could not have kids knowing that they could be preordained to ECT hell. And I and they have no control over it.

But that is me. And like I said I applaud Calvinists for their faith. I personally can not go there. And when I tried it nearly destroyed me. If Calvinists are correct, then maybe it is because I am preordained to ECT hell is why I can't agree with TULIP.

i had no choice in being created. I am here. According to TULIP, my fate is sealed. Either ECT hell or heaven. I can do nothing to change that so it is done.

I do have control over whether I have kids. And I would not if I believed in TULIP.Unless God, who I believe is omnipotent, had my wife become pregnant, then have a kid (we do not believe in abortion), and preordain that child to ECT hell for His glory according to Calvinists.

To me (and I am only talking about myself), that would make God worse than Hitler. Preordained ETERNAL conscious hell for a child I love. I can not fathom that. But that is me. And when I tried to believe it, I nearly killed myself with booze and sleeping pills.

---

Again, their view on faith is that it is monergistically given to them.. If man has to choose to believe, then man has a role in his salvation, which is not gonna jive with Calvinism. You should applaud God for the faith of Calvinists, if you're going to view it through their lens.

Also, if you were a TULIP believing Calvinist, by what ground would you say you have control over having a child? God has preordained every single human being to hell or heaven before the foundation of the world. You choosing not to have a baby that God wanted means you prevented Him from ordaining someone to heaven or hell. This means that election has a human element, which takes it outside of God's 100% control. A consistent Calvinist should say that whatever babies they chose to have were because God foreordained they would choose to have that many children.

The Banned said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

The Banned said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

If I were, I would get what I deserve.

But the "P" in TULIP is my favorite. The Lord Jesus will ensure his flock will endure to the end, if we are truly His. What good shepherd would actually allow his little sheep to wander off and be consumed by the enemy? Not mine.

While we can all find ourselves in seasons of doubt, I know I belong to Jesus. Not because I ate of a specific loaf or was baptized at just the right time, but because I know who Christ is, what He did me on the cross, and I have placed all of my trust in him, albeit in a very flawed and incomplete way. I desire to mold my life after Christ as Scripture has outlined, and I aim to carry on until my time on Earth is over.

---

How can you have kids with this theology?

---

Well, since God is totally sovereign in this theology, did he really have any choice but to have kids? If God wants X number of kids for His elect from 10&B, what can 10&B do to stop Him?

---

My point is that I could not have kids knowing that they could be preordained to ECT hell. And I and they have no control over it.

But that is me. And like I said I applaud Calvinists for their faith. I personally can not go there. And when I tried it nearly destroyed me. If Calvinists are correct, then maybe it is because I am preordained to ECT hell is why I can't agree with TULIP.

i had no choice in being created. I am here. According to TULIP, my fate is sealed. Either ECT hell or heaven. I can do nothing to change that so it is done.

I do have control over whether I have kids. And I would not if I believed in TULIP.Unless God, who I believe is omnipotent, had my wife become pregnant, then have a kid (we do not believe in abortion), and preordain that child to ECT hell for His glory according to Calvinists.

To me (and I am only talking about myself), that would make God worse than Hitler. Preordained ETERNAL conscious hell for a child I love. I can not fathom that. But that is me. And when I tried to believe it, I nearly killed myself with booze and sleeping pills.

---

Again, their view on faith is that it is monergistically given to them.. If man has to choose to believe, then man has a role in his salvation, which is not gonna jive with Calvinism. You should applaud God for the faith of Calvinists, if you're going to view it through their lens.

Also, if you were a TULIP believing Calvinist, by what ground would you say you have control over having a child? God has preordained every single human being to hell or heaven before the foundation of the world. You choosing not to have a baby that God wanted means you prevented Him from ordaining someone to heaven or hell. This means that election has a human element, which takes it outside of God's 100% control. A consistent Calvinist should say that whatever babies they chose to have were because God foreordained they would choose to have that many children.

---

I said I applauded them for their faith I said that if Calvinism is right, then maybe I am preordained to hell and that is why I cannot agree with TULIP.

And as I stated I am here. And if TULIP is correct and I disagree with it, then sounds like I am preordained to hell.

But I'll be damned (excuse the pun) that if I believed TULIP, I would have kids and subject them to the possibility of ECT hell.

If TULIP is correct, there is no shame in going to hell. Nothing you could have done about it. Heck, some people believe in TULIP for decades before rejecting it, meaning they were destined for hell during all those years of belief anyway.

But if you believed in TULIP and refused to have kids for fear of them going hell, it's actually God making you not have kids, because He has already monergistically decided who will and won't be born without any input from you. You don't actually get a say if you believe in TULIP. You just get to think you do.

dermdoc said:

---

The Banned said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

The Banned said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

If I were, I would get what I deserve.

But the "P" in TULIP is my favorite. The Lord Jesus will ensure his flock will endure to the end, if we are truly His. What good shepherd would actually allow his little sheep to wander off and be consumed by the enemy? Not mine.

While we can all find ourselves in seasons of doubt, I know I belong to Jesus. Not because I ate of a specific loaf or was baptized at just the right time, but because I know who Christ is, what He did me on the cross, and I have placed all of my trust in him, albeit in a very flawed and incomplete way. I desire to mold my life after Christ as Scripture has outlined, and I aim to carry on until my time on Earth is over.

---

How can you have kids with this theology?

---

Well, since God is totally sovereign in this theology, did he really have any choice but to have kids? If God wants X number of kids for His elect from 10&B, what can 10&B do to stop Him?

---

My point is that I could not have kids knowing that they could be preordained to ECT hell. And I and they have no control over it.

But that is me. And like I said I applaud Calvinists for their faith. I personally can not go there. And when I tried it nearly destroyed me. If Calvinists are correct, then maybe it is because I am preordained to ECT hell is why I can't agree with TULIP.

i had no choice in being created. I am here. According to TULIP, my fate is sealed. Either ECT hell or heaven. I can do nothing to change that so it is done.

I do have control over whether I have kids. And I would not if I believed in TULIP.Unless God, who I believe is omnipotent, had my wife become pregnant, then have a kid (we do not believe in abortion), and preordain that child to ECT hell for His glory according to Calvinists.

To me (and I am only talking about myself), that would make God worse than Hitler. Preordained ETERNAL conscious hell for a child I love. I can not fathom that. But that is me. And when I tried to believe it, I nearly killed myself with booze and sleeping pills.

---

Again, their view on faith is that it is monergistically given to them.. If man has to choose to believe, then man has a role in his salvation, which is not gonna jive with Calvinism. You should applaud God for the faith of Calvinists, if you're going to view it through their lens.

Also, if you were a TULIP believing Calvinist, by what ground would you say you have control over having a child? God has preordained every single human being to hell or heaven before the foundation of the world. You choosing not to have a baby that God wanted means you prevented Him from ordaining someone to heaven or hell. This means that election has a human element, which takes it outside of God's 100% control. A consistent Calvinist should say that whatever babies they chose to have were because God foreordained they would choose to have that many children.

---

I said I applauded them for their faith I said that if Calvinism is right, then maybe I am preordained to hell and that is why I cannot agree with TULIP.

And as I stated I am here. And if TULIP is correct and I disagree with it, then sounds like I am preordained to hell.

But I'll be damned (excuse the pun) that if I believed TULIP, I would have kids and subject them to the possibility of ECT hell.

---

Plenty of Arminians are in Heaven; there is no requirement of believing a man-made acronym.

No matter your spiritual and theological beliefs, you are subjecting children to hell by bringing them into the world, unless you believe all will be saved regardless of who they claim Christ is. Whether it is God's sovereign choice or man's free will, some will be saved and others will not.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Plenty of Arminians are in Heaven; there is no requirement of believing a man-made acronym.

No matter your spiritual and theological beliefs, you are subjecting children to hell by bringing them into the world, unless you believe all will be saved regardless of who they claim Christ is. Whether it is God's sovereign choice or man's free will, some will be saved and others will not.

---

Arminians don't believe in monergism though. Man must choose to follow God and man call fall away after that initial choice. Arminius basically resurrected the synergist teachings the Reformers broke away from.

Arminians can say they believe each of their babies has a shot at responding to God's call. Calvinists can't say that. Each baby's destination is already pre-planned

Yes I know that Armininans are anti monergism. I am simply saying that it is not a requirement to be saved.

If you do not you want to acknowledge foreordination, if you bring a child into this world there is a chance they are saved and chance they aren't. I still don't see how that is supposed to bring peace. If anything that brings me extreme anxiety and pressure to somehow shape my child's belief in a way that is truly genuine.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Yes I know that Armininans are anti monergism. I am simply saying that it is not a requirement to be saved.

Whether or not you want to acknowledge foreordination, if you bring a child into this world there is a chance they are saved and chance they aren't. I still don't see how that is supposed to bring peace. If anything that brings me extreme anxiety and pressure to somehow shape my child's belief in a way that is truly genuine.

---

Monergism was a foundational tenet for Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, etc. It's a founding principle of Protestantism. All those dudes would say belief in synergistic salvation is a severe theological error and likely indicated an unsaved individual.

To the bolded, Calvinism would say there is no "chance". God already picked. If damned, their damnation 100% locked in. Your child didn't go wayward or rest in their own pride and ability. He/She just wasn't picked. It may not generate anxiety in you, but idk how you could look at your new born baby and think that he or she is already irrevocably screwed

To the italicized, it shouldn't bring extreme anxiety or pressure, but some level of anxiety is to be expected in parenthood, both for their spiritual and physical safety. Why bother with Christian or homeschooling if public schools aren't going to have any effect on their salvation? Who cares if they access website they shouldn't at a young age, if their salvation or damnation is already decided?

I know that, as a dad, I can't offer my child salvation. But clearly I am commanded in the bible to raise them well and teach them the faith. What good does teaching them the faith do if he or she never had a shot at believing in the first place? It's totally unnecessary commands. If anything, i would say Calvinism (or monergism in general) makes it very easy to punt the responsibility all together. Synergism brings the healthy blend of seeing the urgency of teaching our children the faith, while resting on the fact that God is the one who has the power to save. St. Monica praying for St. Augustine while he was still lost is the preeminent example.

The Banned said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Yes I know that Armininans are anti monergism. I am simply saying that it is not a requirement to be saved.

Whether or not you want to acknowledge foreordination, if you bring a child into this world there is a chance they are saved and chance they aren't. I still don't see how that is supposed to bring peace. If anything that brings me extreme anxiety and pressure to somehow shape my child's belief in a way that is truly genuine.

---

Monergism was a foundational tenet for Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, etc. It's a founding principle of Protestantism. All those dudes would say belief in synergistic salvation is a severe theological error and likely indicated an unsaved individual.

---

Those dudes weren't perfect. I'd agree it's a theological error but we all have theological errors. Unless you're Catholic or Orthodox of course.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

The Banned said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Yes I know that Armininans are anti monergism. I am simply saying that it is not a requirement to be saved.

Whether or not you want to acknowledge foreordination, if you bring a child into this world there is a chance they are saved and chance they aren't. I still don't see how that is supposed to bring peace. If anything that brings me extreme anxiety and pressure to somehow shape my child's belief in a way that is truly genuine.

---

Monergism was a foundational tenet for Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, etc. It's a founding principle of Protestantism. All those dudes would say belief in synergistic salvation is a severe theological error and likely indicated an unsaved individual.

---

Those dudes weren't perfect. I'd agree it's a theological error but we all have theological errors. Unless you're Catholic or Orthodox of course.

---

When a theological error results in the body of believers splintering into thousands of different sects, I would say that's on heck of an error.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Link?

---

You

"Ah, yes, the Calvinist hating, free will loving, pull yourself up by your bootstraps mentality"

Or are you saying we actually do have free Will, but it is something only deserving of mockery and contempt?

Or it's irrelevant. We have free will to sin. We have free will to accept Christ as our Lord and Savior. We have free will to repent

All of which are meaningless because the decision on salvation has already been made. Which, in that sense is not really free will, since it's of no consequence

Like dermdoc, I totally believe in the sovereignty of God. But I also believe that God wants all of us saved, and offers us that opportunity, free of charge.

We can accept or reject

To argue otherwise is to effectively argue that we have no free will. It's just meaningless gestures

Is this a fair summary?

Me: God has unlimited Sovereignty and I have limited Free Will
You: God has limited Sovereignty and I have unlimited Free Will

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Is this a fair summary?

Me: God has unlimited Sovereignty and I have limited Free Will
You: God has limited Sovereignty and I have unlimited Free Will

---

Uh nope. Your words not mine

God has unlimited sovereignty and has gifted us the opportunity to accept or reject him.

He can do as he pleases, and that includes gifting us that ability. Or not

Call it what you want

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Is this a fair summary?

Me: God has unlimited Sovereignty and I have limited Free Will
You: God has limited Sovereignty and I have unlimited Free Will

---

There is an easy, logical conclusion(s).
Scripture says God desires all men to be saved.
God is Sovereign.
All men are saved

Or Scripture says God desires to save all men.
God is Sovereign.
In His Sovereignty, God allows man free will to reject Him

Both of those retain God's character as a loving Father and His Sovereignty. If some are lost, it is their choice, not God's.

Calvinism says
God is Sovereign.
In His Sovereignty, He alone preordains who is saved and who is damned. So He knowingly creates people who are eternally damned. With no chance of salvation.

To me, it is completely illogical.
I have no idea how Calvinists interpret Scripture that state God desires all to be saved.
Or that God is love. And combine that with theology that states that this loving God creates people for eternal conscious torment. To show His glory.
Strange interpretation of "love" in my opinion.

But this is only my thought process. And I love and applaud my Calvinist brothers/sisters in Christ for their faith.
I can not go there and as I have said, maybe it is me.

There's a multitude of confessions and catechisms that explain it better than I ever could.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

There's a multitude of confessions and catechisms that explain it better than I ever could.

---

Agree my friend. But it all boils down to what the character of God is. Does He pre ordain people to hell or not? That is the crux of the issue.
And I totally agree with you He could. Where we disagree is the character of God.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

There's a multitude of confessions and catechisms that explain it better than I ever could.

---

And that begs another question.

Why are there no confessions from the last multiple centuries? Just food for thought.

dermdoc said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

There's a multitude of confessions and catechisms that explain it better than I ever could.

---

Agree my friend. But it all boils down to what the character of God is. Does He pre ordain people to hell or not? That is the crux of the issue.
And I totally agree with you He could. Where we disagree is the character of God.

---

I actually think we mostly agree on the character of God. We would both agree of his omnipotence and goodness.

I think where we disagree is on the character of man.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

There's a multitude of confessions and catechisms that explain it better than I ever could.

---

Agree my friend. But it all boils down to what the character of God is. Does He pre ordain people to hell or not? That is the crux of the issue.
And I totally agree with you He could. Where we disagree is the character of God.

---

I actually think we mostly agree on the character of God. We would both agree of his omnipotence and goodness.

I think where we disagree is on the character of man.

---

Maybe so.

I know God is all good and omnipotent. Scripture says He desires to save everyone.

Why do you believe He does not save everyone? And how does an all good God create people preordained for ECT hell?

I have no problem with monergism if it is universal monergism. If it is selective monergism, then by definition, God creates people knowing they will spend eternity in ECT hell. I do not see love there.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

CrackerJackAg said:

---

I hope you open your heart and don't use Calvinism to stop you from finding God.

---

Ah, yes, the Calvinist hating, free will loving, pull yourself up by your bootstraps mentality.

Ever been around sheep? I am always fascinated with the illustration as the Lord Jesus as the Good Shepherd and us as his sheep. They aren't really an animal that goes after and seeks out their shepherd when they are in need. They are almost wholly dependent on that shepherd to use that crook to bring them in when they go astray (not if they do, but when) and to not be consumed by countless threats. Sheep would literally die without their shepherd.

Ezekiel 34:11
For thus says the Lord God: Behold, I, I myself will search for my sheep and will seek them out.

---

I can't even tell what you're saying.

I think you're attributed something to my statement and belief system that doesn't exist

I think it probably says something more about the way you think than the way I think

dermdoc said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

There's a multitude of confessions and catechisms that explain it better than I ever could.

---

Agree my friend. But it all boils down to what the character of God is. Does He pre ordain people to hell or not? That is the crux of the issue.
And I totally agree with you He could. Where we disagree is the character of God.

---

I actually think we mostly agree on the character of God. We would both agree of his omnipotence and goodness.

I think where we disagree is on the character of man.

---

Maybe so.

I know God is all good and omnipotent. Scripture says He desires to save everyone.

Why do you believe He does not save everyone? And how does an all good God create people preordained for ECT hell?

I have no problem with monergism if it is universal monergism. If it is selective monergism, then by definition, God creates people knowing they will spend eternity in ECT hell. I do not see love there.

---

Under this premise, you and 10andBOUNCE aren't particularly different. You remove free will from mankind.

You just use it for one extreme, he uses it for another.

AgLiving06 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

There's a multitude of confessions and catechisms that explain it better than I ever could.

---

Agree my friend. But it all boils down to what the character of God is. Does He pre ordain people to hell or not? That is the crux of the issue.
And I totally agree with you He could. Where we disagree is the character of God.

---

I actually think we mostly agree on the character of God. We would both agree of his omnipotence and goodness.

I think where we disagree is on the character of man.

---

Maybe so.

I know God is all good and omnipotent. Scripture says He desires to save everyone.

Why do you believe He does not save everyone? And how does an all good God create people preordained for ECT hell?

I have no problem with monergism if it is universal monergism. If it is selective monergism, then by definition, God creates people knowing they will spend eternity in ECT hell. I do not see love there.

---

Under this premise, you and 10andBOUNCE aren't particularly different. You remove free will from mankind.

You just use it for one extreme, he uses it for another.

---

Agree. But we have completely different concepts of the character of God. Which is the crux of the issue. I do not believe God preordains people He created to hell.

dermdoc said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

There's a multitude of confessions and catechisms that explain it better than I ever could.

---

Agree my friend. But it all boils down to what the character of God is. Does He pre ordain people to hell or not? That is the crux of the issue.
And I totally agree with you He could. Where we disagree is the character of God.

---

I actually think we mostly agree on the character of God. We would both agree of his omnipotence and goodness.

I think where we disagree is on the character of man.

---

Maybe so.

I know God is all good and omnipotent. Scripture says He desires to save everyone.

Why do you believe He does not save everyone? And how does an all good God create people preordained for ECT hell?

I have no problem with monergism if it is universal monergism. If it is selective monergism, then by definition, God creates people knowing they will spend eternity in ECT hell. I do not see love there.

---

Under this premise, you and 10andBOUNCE aren't particularly different. You remove free will from mankind.

You just use it for one extreme, he uses it for another.

---

Agree. But we have completely different concepts of the character of God. Which is the crux of the issue. I do not believe God preordains people He created to hell.

---

I don't think that's the crux of the issue.

The crux of this debate, like most debates surrounding Scripture, comes down to what people want God to be or say, as opposed to what Scripture actually says God is and says.

In this debate, I'd argue that you both ignore the Scripture you dislike to reach the conclusions yall come to. Scripture that is rather clear in its teaching.

AgLiving06 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

There's a multitude of confessions and catechisms that explain it better than I ever could.

---

Agree my friend. But it all boils down to what the character of God is. Does He pre ordain people to hell or not? That is the crux of the issue.
And I totally agree with you He could. Where we disagree is the character of God.

---

I actually think we mostly agree on the character of God. We would both agree of his omnipotence and goodness.

I think where we disagree is on the character of man.

---

Maybe so.

I know God is all good and omnipotent. Scripture says He desires to save everyone.

Why do you believe He does not save everyone? And how does an all good God create people preordained for ECT hell?

I have no problem with monergism if it is universal monergism. If it is selective monergism, then by definition, God creates people knowing they will spend eternity in ECT hell. I do not see love there.

---

Under this premise, you and 10andBOUNCE aren't particularly different. You remove free will from mankind.

You just use it for one extreme, he uses it for another.

---

Agree. But we have completely different concepts of the character of God. Which is the crux of the issue. I do not believe God preordains people He created to hell.

---

I don't think that's the crux of the issue.

The crux of this debate, like most debates surrounding Scripture, comes down to what people want God to be or say, as opposed to what Scripture actually says God is and says.

In this debate, I'd argue that you both ignore the Scripture you dislike to reach the conclusions yall come to. Scripture that is rather clear in its teaching.

---

And I could say the same to you.

Tell me what Scriptures tell you about the character of God.

AgLiving06 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

There's a multitude of confessions and catechisms that explain it better than I ever could.

---

Agree my friend. But it all boils down to what the character of God is. Does He pre ordain people to hell or not? That is the crux of the issue.
And I totally agree with you He could. Where we disagree is the character of God.

---

I actually think we mostly agree on the character of God. We would both agree of his omnipotence and goodness.

I think where we disagree is on the character of man.

---

Maybe so.

I know God is all good and omnipotent. Scripture says He desires to save everyone.

Why do you believe He does not save everyone? And how does an all good God create people preordained for ECT hell?

I have no problem with monergism if it is universal monergism. If it is selective monergism, then by definition, God creates people knowing they will spend eternity in ECT hell. I do not see love there.

---

Under this premise, you and 10andBOUNCE aren't particularly different. You remove free will from mankind.

You just use it for one extreme, he uses it for another.

---

Agree. But we have completely different concepts of the character of God. Which is the crux of the issue. I do not believe God preordains people He created to hell.

---

I don't think that's the crux of the issue.

The crux of this debate, like most debates surrounding Scripture, comes down to what people want God to be or say, as opposed to what Scripture actually says God is and says.

In this debate, I'd argue that you both ignore the Scripture you dislike to reach the conclusions yall come to. Scripture that is rather clear in its teaching.

---

And I value and respect your opinion. I want to learn. What are your thoughts on free will vs TULIP?

My feeling is that if Scripture is so clear on this, why has it been debated for centuries?

LOL, Doc I appreciate you still trying to understand 'the other side' in earnest. It comes down to what parts of the Bible people want to put full trust in, and whether their hermeneutics are correct about the meaning, or if they are literalists etc. Link.

Quote:

---

In Arminianism there is no actual admission that the will of man is enslaved by nature to serve the Devil. Yet the Scriptures say that man's will is unable by itself to choose Christ. "Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be. So then, those who are in the flesh cannot please God" (Rom. 8:7, 8 emphasis mine). The word "flesh" here does not refer to the physical body, but the sinful nature which we inherit from Adam, as opposed to the "spiritual" nature which we are given by the Holy Spirit of God (cf. Rom. 8:1).

It is the Arminian position that sin has "hurt" man's original state badly, but the will of man has escaped this total sinful corruption. So, within man there is a strange mixture of good and evil, each with an equal opportunity to win out. Hence, we hear the expression even in reference to the unregenerate person, "There's a little bit of good in everyone." They interpret Romans 7:16ff., not as the life of a believer (as Paul was when he wrote this), but as the life of someone struggling to become a believer. Man, then, is not dead in sin (Eph. 2:1ff.), but he is just very sicksick unto death, but not dead in sin. They claim that man still has the ears to hear and the eyes to see, despite what the Scriptures say.

We should add here that man does indeed have a will after the Fall. He is still a free moral agent; able to make choices in his life. The problem is not an absence of a will, but the total depravity of the will which makes it prone to all evil in all things. Man's will always chooses to serve himself and not God until he receives the Holy Spirit. "He is prone to hate God and his neighbor." (Heidelberg Catechism Q. 5) What may appear to be a good work in man's eyes, is not a good work in God's eyes unless it proceeds out of true faith, is performed according to the Law of God, and is done for the glory of God (Heidelberg Catechism Q. 91).

---

My highlights in the last paragraph. The full series of blog posts based on the book is here. This one in particular breaking down total depravity:freed will vs. free will is of note.

nortex97 said:

---

LOL, Doc I appreciate you still trying to understand 'the other side' in earnest. It comes down to what parts of the Bible people want to put full trust in, and whether their hermeneutics are correct about the meaning, or if they are literalists etc. Link.

Quote:

---

In Arminianism there is no actual admission that the will of man is enslaved by nature to serve the Devil. Yet the Scriptures say that man's will is unable by itself to choose Christ. "Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be. So then, those who are in the flesh cannot please God" (Rom. 8:7, 8 emphasis mine). The word "flesh" here does not refer to the physical body, but the sinful nature which we inherit from Adam, as opposed to the "spiritual" nature which we are given by the Holy Spirit of God (cf. Rom. 8:1).

It is the Arminian position that sin has "hurt" man's original state badly, but the will of man has escaped this total sinful corruption. So, within man there is a strange mixture of good and evil, each with an equal opportunity to win out. Hence, we hear the expression even in reference to the unregenerate person, "There's a little bit of good in everyone." They interpret Romans 7:16ff., not as the life of a believer (as Paul was when he wrote this), but as the life of someone struggling to become a believer. Man, then, is not dead in sin (Eph. 2:1ff.), but he is just very sicksick unto death, but not dead in sin. They claim that man still has the ears to hear and the eyes to see, despite what the Scriptures say.

We should add here that man does indeed have a will after the Fall. He is still a free moral agent; able to make choices in his life. The problem is not an absence of a will, but the total depravity of the will which makes it prone to all evil in all things. Man's will always chooses to serve himself and not God until he receives the Holy Spirit. "He is prone to hate God and his neighbor." (Heidelberg Catechism Q. 5) What may appear to be a good work in man's eyes, is not a good work in God's eyes unless it proceeds out of true faith, is performed according to the Law of God, and is done for the glory of God (Heidelberg Catechism Q. 91).

---

My highlights in the last paragraph. The full series of blog posts based on the book is here. This one in particular breaking down total depravity:freed will vs. free will is of note.

---

This is very, very wrong. Arminians believe in prevenient grace. People are totally lost, but God offers His grace to everyone in order for them to be capable of belief. God works first. Both sides agree on that.

The difference is Arminians would believe His grace to be resistible. Calvinists would say His grace is not resistible, and He will force you into believing in Him. This is why Doc's univeralism stance is actually Calvinism, just with single predestination to heaven (although he says some may have to go to hell first)

The addition of a third class in the Arminian view of people is real, but it's really a silly point to debate to me.

"Prevenient Grace" is a term that was used in the Remonstrance, a seventeenth century document formulated by Jacobus Arminius and others, to protest the Calvinistic soteriology of the Reformers. The term itself simply means "grace that comes before"; but the Remonstrance cast it in terms of the grace of God given to all mankind without exception, which enables all men to respond to God's invitation and believe in the gospel. This greatly decreases God's power vs. the Reformed teachings.

Prevenient grace, is not irresistible for the elect (or anyone else); it is merely persuasive and enabling, but may freely be accepted or rejected by arbitrary choice and in contraventions of the verses I cited above (end of my post). This doctrine of resistible, indiscriminate prevenient grace for all men is held today in many Arminian/Wesleyan theologies and denominations.

However, the doctrine of finds no support from scripture. It is true of course, that the regenerating grace of God must come before faith, and so in that sense it is prevenient, but this biblical prevenient grace goes far beyond the Arminian conception; when God grants his quickening grace to unbelievers, it does not merely give them the option to be alive, it makes them alive (Eph. 2:1-5; Ezek. 37:3-6, 11-14; John 1:11-13, 3:3-8; 5:21; Jam. 1:18; 1 Pet, 1:3; 1 John 5:1), it irresistibly draws them all without exception (John 6:37-40, 45; Psalm 65:4 Rom. 9:15).

It does not merely make them able to choose good if they choose, but rather causes them to walk in God's chosen path (Deut. 30:6; Ezek. 11:19-20; 36:26-27; Jer. 31:33; 32:40).

Against the Arminian doctrine of prevenient grace, the bible teaches that there are only two classes of people: those whom the Father has chosen and given to the Son, all of whom without exception will come to him (John 6:37-40, 45); and those whom the Father has not given to the Son, and who are thus not of his sheep, and who therefore cannot believe (John 6:65; 10:26; 12:37-41).

There is no room, or at least no Biblical/textual basis for a third class of people who have been given God's drawing grace but who do not choose to accept it.

The only exception(s) I am aware of would be in Revelation primarily, which provides that 'every knee shall bow' when the final trumpet sounds, or where Rev. 11:15 states, "The kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord." This could signify the transition to God's reign, suggesting that all will eventually recognize His sovereignty. (This stuff is above my pay grade, full disclosure.). The trumpet and the two groups also from 1 Thes 5:8-9.

The Banned said:

---

This is very, very wrong. Arminians believe in prevenient grace. People are totally lost, but God offers His grace to everyone in order for them to be capable of belief. God works first. Both sides agree on that.

---

Just digging in a bit more here...is the prevenient grace equal among everyone? Or do different people get different amounts?

nortex97 said:

---

The addition of a third class in the Arminian view of people is real, but it's really a silly point to debate to me.

"Prevenient Grace" is a term that was used in the Remonstrance, a seventeenth century document formulated by Jacobus Arminius and others, to protest the Calvinistic soteriology of the Reformers. The term itself simply means "grace that comes before"; but the Remonstrance cast it in terms of the grace of God given to all mankind without exception, which enables all men to respond to God's invitation and believe in the gospel. This greatly decreases God's power vs. the Reformed teachings.

Prevenient grace, is not irresistible for the elect (or anyone else); it is merely persuasive and enabling, but may freely be accepted or rejected by arbitrary choice and in contraventions of the verses I cited above (end of my post). This doctrine of resistible, indiscriminate prevenient grace for all men is held today in many Arminian/Wesleyan theologies and denominations.

However, the doctrine of finds no support from scripture. It is true of course, that the regenerating grace of God must come before faith, and so in that sense it is prevenient, but this biblical prevenient grace goes far beyond the Arminian conception; when God grants his quickening grace to unbelievers, it does not merely give them the option to be alive, it makes them alive (Eph. 2:1-5; Ezek. 37:3-6, 11-14; John 1:11-13, 3:3-8; 5:21; Jam. 1:18; 1 Pet, 1:3; 1 John 5:1), it irresistibly draws them all without exception (John 6:37-40, 45; Psalm 65:4 Rom. 9:15).

It does not merely make them able to choose good if they choose, but rather causes them to walk in God's chosen path (Deut. 30:6; Ezek. 11:19-20; 36:26-27; Jer. 31:33; 32:40).

Against the Arminian doctrine of prevenient grace, the bible teaches that there are only two classes of people: those whom the Father has chosen and given to the Son, all of whom without exception will come to him (John 6:37-40, 45); and those whom the Father has not given to the Son, and who are thus not of his sheep, and who therefore cannot believe (John 6:65; 10:26; 12:37-41).

There is no room, or at least no Biblical/textual basis for a third class of people who have been given God's drawing grace but who do not choose to accept it.

The only exception(s) I am aware of would be in Revelation primarily, which provides that 'every knee shall bow' when the final trumpet sounds, or where Rev. 11:15 states, "The kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord." This could signify the transition to God's reign, suggesting that all will eventually recognize His sovereignty. (This stuff is above my pay grade, full disclosure.). The trumpet and the two groups also from 1 Thes 5:8-9.

---

With that theology, how do you interpret Scripture that says God desires to save all men?

The classical answer is that God wishes to save all/both as classes, not individuals. (Usually this is in reference to 1 Tim. 2-4). Calvin:

Quote:

---

In short, as the calling is a proof of the secret election, so they whom God makes partakers of his gospel are admitted by him to possess salvation; because the gospel reveals to us the righteousness of God, which is a sure entrance into life. Hence we see the childish folly of those who represent this passage to be opposed to predestination. "If God" say they, "wishes all men indiscriminately to be saved, it is false that some are predestined by his eternal purpose to salvation, and others to perdition." They might have had some ground for saying this, if Paul were speaking here about individual men; although even then we should not have wanted the means of replying to their argument; for, although the: will of God ought not to be judged from his secret decrees, when he reveals them to us by outward signs, yet it does not therefore follow that he has not determined with himself what he intends to do as to every individual man. But I say nothing on that subject, because it has nothing to do with this passage; for the Apostle simply means, that there is no people and no rank in the world that is excluded from salvation; because God wishes that the gospel should be proclaimed to all without exception. Now the preaching of the gospel gives life; and hence he justly concludes that God invites all equally to partake salvation. But the present discourse relates to classes of men, and not to individual persons; for his sole object is, to include in this number princes and foreign nations.

---

Luther:

Quote:

---

"God desires all men to be saved" (1 Tim. 2:4), and He gave His Son for us men and created man for eternal life. Likewise: All things exist for man, and he himself exists for God that he may enjoy Him, etc.39 These points and others like them can be refuted as easily as the first one. For these verses must always be understood as pertaining to the elect only, as the apostle says in 2 Tim. 2:10 "everything for the sake of the elect." For in an absolute sense Christ did not die for all, because He says: "This is My blood which is poured out for you" and "for many"He does not say: for all"for the forgiveness of sins" (Mark 14:24, Matt 26:28) (Luther's Works Volume 25.376)

---

Personally, I find it incredibly (to say the least, but uninterested in a long derail/debate) unlikely 1 Timothy was actually written by Paul, and largely dismiss the letter in any case, but that's the standard reformed view, as I have understood it.

nortex97 said:

---

The addition of a third class in the Arminian view of people is real, but it's really a silly point to debate to me.

"Prevenient Grace" is a term that was used in the Remonstrance, a seventeenth century document formulated by Jacobus Arminius and others, to protest the Calvinistic soteriology of the Reformers. The term itself simply means "grace that comes before"; but the Remonstrance cast it in terms of the grace of God given to all mankind without exception, which enables all men to respond to God's invitation and believe in the gospel. This greatly decreases God's power vs. the Reformed teachings.

Prevenient grace, is not irresistible for the elect (or anyone else); it is merely persuasive and enabling, but may freely be accepted or rejected by arbitrary choice and in contraventions of the verses I cited above (end of my post). This doctrine of resistible, indiscriminate prevenient grace for all men is held today in many Arminian/Wesleyan theologies and denominations.

However, the doctrine of finds no support from scripture. It is true of course, that the regenerating grace of God must come before faith, and so in that sense it is prevenient, but this biblical prevenient grace goes far beyond the Arminian conception; when God grants his quickening grace to unbelievers, it does not merely give them the option to be alive, it makes them alive (Eph. 2:1-5; Ezek. 37:3-6, 11-14; John 1:11-13, 3:3-8; 5:21; Jam. 1:18; 1 Pet, 1:3; 1 John 5:1), it irresistibly draws them all without exception (John 6:37-40, 45; Psalm 65:4 Rom. 9:15).

It does not merely make them able to choose good if they choose, but rather causes them to walk in God's chosen path (Deut. 30:6; Ezek. 11:19-20; 36:26-27; Jer. 31:33; 32:40).

Against the Arminian doctrine of prevenient grace, the bible teaches that there are only two classes of people: those whom the Father has chosen and given to the Son, all of whom without exception will come to him (John 6:37-40, 45); and those whom the Father has not given to the Son, and who are thus not of his sheep, and who therefore cannot believe (John 6:65; 10:26; 12:37-41).

There is no room, or at least no Biblical/textual basis for a third class of people who have been given God's drawing grace but who do not choose to accept it.

The only exception(s) I am aware of would be in Revelation primarily, which provides that 'every knee shall bow' when the final trumpet sounds, or where Rev. 11:15 states, "The kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord." This could signify the transition to God's reign, suggesting that all will eventually recognize His sovereignty. (This stuff is above my pay grade, full disclosure.). The trumpet and the two groups also from 1 Thes 5:8-9.

---

You originally posted this

Quote:

---

It is the Arminian position that sin has "hurt" man's original state badly, but the will of man has escaped this total sinful corruption.

---

This is very much at odds with everything you posted this time. This one is a much more accurate description of the difference between the Arminian view and the Calvinistic one.

I completely disagree that bible teaches that the grace is irresistible, as it's warns time and time again against falling away. What a worthless warning to give if falling away is impossible. Not to mention all the times Jesus blames people for refusing to believe. "You don't believe because God didn't choose you, but it's still your fault!" It's nonsensical. He's just berating people for something they have no control of. A total waste of breath and ink

I'm not going to get into a showdown of prooftexts, as I know it won't sway you at all. But I did feel the need to show your original characterization of the Arminian (and the traditional view of Christians everywhere prior to the reformation) is flawed.

ETA: Prevenient grace goes back to the beginning of Christianity. It's first called prevenient grace by augustine. It is not a 17th century invention

10andBOUNCE said:

---

The Banned said:

---

This is very, very wrong. Arminians believe in prevenient grace. People are totally lost, but God offers His grace to everyone in order for them to be capable of belief. God works first. Both sides agree on that.

---

Just digging in a bit more here...is the prevenient grace equal among everyone? Or do different people get different amounts?

---

God gives sufficient prevenient grace to all. Grace in general would be larger or smaller (Mary for example) but prevenient grace specifically? I don't know if the Church has ever expounded upon that. I have something to research

The Banned said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

The addition of a third class in the Arminian view of people is real, but it's really a silly point to debate to me.

"Prevenient Grace" is a term that was used in the Remonstrance, a seventeenth century document formulated by Jacobus Arminius and others, to protest the Calvinistic soteriology of the Reformers. The term itself simply means "grace that comes before"; but the Remonstrance cast it in terms of the grace of God given to all mankind without exception, which enables all men to respond to God's invitation and believe in the gospel. This greatly decreases God's power vs. the Reformed teachings.

Prevenient grace, is not irresistible for the elect (or anyone else); it is merely persuasive and enabling, but may freely be accepted or rejected by arbitrary choice and in contraventions of the verses I cited above (end of my post). This doctrine of resistible, indiscriminate prevenient grace for all men is held today in many Arminian/Wesleyan theologies and denominations.

However, the doctrine of finds no support from scripture. It is true of course, that the regenerating grace of God must come before faith, and so in that sense it is prevenient, but this biblical prevenient grace goes far beyond the Arminian conception; when God grants his quickening grace to unbelievers, it does not merely give them the option to be alive, it makes them alive (Eph. 2:1-5; Ezek. 37:3-6, 11-14; John 1:11-13, 3:3-8; 5:21; Jam. 1:18; 1 Pet, 1:3; 1 John 5:1), it irresistibly draws them all without exception (John 6:37-40, 45; Psalm 65:4 Rom. 9:15).

It does not merely make them able to choose good if they choose, but rather causes them to walk in God's chosen path (Deut. 30:6; Ezek. 11:19-20; 36:26-27; Jer. 31:33; 32:40).

Against the Arminian doctrine of prevenient grace, the bible teaches that there are only two classes of people: those whom the Father has chosen and given to the Son, all of whom without exception will come to him (John 6:37-40, 45); and those whom the Father has not given to the Son, and who are thus not of his sheep, and who therefore cannot believe (John 6:65; 10:26; 12:37-41).

There is no room, or at least no Biblical/textual basis for a third class of people who have been given God's drawing grace but who do not choose to accept it.

The only exception(s) I am aware of would be in Revelation primarily, which provides that 'every knee shall bow' when the final trumpet sounds, or where Rev. 11:15 states, "The kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord." This could signify the transition to God's reign, suggesting that all will eventually recognize His sovereignty. (This stuff is above my pay grade, full disclosure.). The trumpet and the two groups also from 1 Thes 5:8-9.

---

You originally posted this

Quote:

---

It is the Arminian position that sin has "hurt" man's original state badly, but the will of man has escaped this total sinful corruption.

---

This is very much at odds with everything you posted this time. This one is a much more accurate description of the difference between the Arminian view and the Calvinistic one.

I completely disagree that bible teaches that the grace is irresistible, as it's warns time and time again against falling away. What a worthless warning to give if falling away is impossible. Not to mention all the times Jesus blames people for refusing to believe. "You don't believe because God didn't choose you, but it's still your fault!" It's nonsensical. He's just berating people for something they have no control of. A total waste of breath and ink

I'm not going to get into a showdown of prooftexts, as I know it won't sway you at all. But I did feel the need to show your original characterization of the Arminian (the the traditional view of Christian everywhere prior to the reformation) is flawed.

---

This is close to an unhealthy response imho as now you are essentially positing I am dishonest here. I appreciate Dermdoc's curiosity (long running) as to the Calvinist perspective and don't mean to give a treatise as to the Arminian/Wesleyan views. The longer form answer as I understand it I provided second.

The debate centers as it always has around whether God is to blame for some being 'damned' ("God is mean") or if man is more sovereign in his ability to resist God's grace (by whatever definition), or God's reaching out. It's that simple. Then come the debates as to who wrote what books, when, and what they meant.

This is why the Sovereignty of God is often considered the greater topic among high Calvinists in particular. I also disagree as to your assertion that the Arminian views represent a universally accepted/traditional view of Christians everywhere prior to the protestant reformation. I think that's just historically absurd, but whatever.

Orthodoxy vs. Heterodoxy long predates the Reformation, which to some degree represented a course correction from the RCC post-schism. If anyone is interested, James white and William Lane Craig had a decent debate on the "Unbelievable?" Podcast back in Dec 2021 about Calvinism vs. Molinism. I think most Arminians want to focus on the problem of evil, so might find it entertaining.

nortex97 said:

---

This is close to an unhealthy response imho as now you are essentially positing I am dishonest here. I appreciate Dermdoc's curiosity (long running) as to the Calvinist perspective and don't mean to give a treatise as to the Arminian/Wesleyan views. The longer form answer as I understand it I provided second.

The debate centers as it always has around whether God is to blame for some being 'damned' ("God is mean") or if man is more sovereign in his ability to resist God's grace (by whatever definition), or God's reaching out. It's that simple. Then come the debates as to who wrote what books, when, and what they meant.

This is why the Sovereignty of God is often considered the greater topic among high Calvinists in particular. I also disagree as to your assertion that the Arminian views represent a universally accepted/traditional view of Christians everywhere prior to the protestant reformation. I think that's just historically absurd, but whatever.

Orthodoxy vs. Heterodoxy long predates the Reformation, which to some degree represented a course correction from the RCC post-schism. If anyone is interested, James white and William Lane Craig had a decent debate on the "Unbelievable?" Podcast back in Dec 2021 about Calvinism vs. Molinism. I think most Arminians want to focus on the problem of evil, so might find it entertaining.

---

Sorry if I sounded accusatory. I don't think you're trying to be dishonest. I was pointing out, from my perspective, the second way you worded it was more accurate than the first. Apologies.

The ability for man to resist God's grace, either prior to belief or after, is pretty universal. Augustine is as close as you can get to Calvin's view, but it's not the same at all, and his quasi- double predestination beliefs were rejected at the second council of Orange. So maybe I can't say "universally" but we only find one guy writing on it, and that aspect of his teachings were rejected, so it's as close to "universally" as I think we can get.

I don't know why the freedom of choice has to trample on the sovereignty of God. God is 100% in control. If He deigns to let us participate and have a choice in the matter, He's still 100% in control because He chose to let us do that. We didn't wrestle control away from Him and leave Him with 95% sovereignty.