B
Bengoshi
Guest
Well, admitedly, it is a pasted post.This entire post is almost all entirely a strawman and does not even come close to addressing my points. Is this “boilerplate” that you got off a calvinist web site? I did not mention a single thing about God using a random criteria for electing some to salvation. That’s your fabrication - sorry wrong rebuttal. Try cutting and pasting the right apologist canned response that addresses my points - God does NOT predestine anyone to hell.
This is what we call a mystery (Deut. 29:29).As for freewill Calvinist might claim they don’t deny free will but they render it inoperative by claiming that God does not grant those destined to hell any grace. What good is freewill if one can not choose the greatest thing in all of Creation - God?
Being depraved does not mean that we are unable to think. Our reason is still operative, however, we are not infallible or perfect.You are correct in asserting that Calvinists beleive in total depravity. But you can’t come up with a rational explanation how totally depraved men could invent a new theology that was perfectly correct? How do any of know that Calvinists are not doomed to suffer their own defective theology that comes out of the defective minds of those destined for hell?![]()
God gave the biblical authors the grace that they needed to infallibly write down Scripture. The canon is closed. No person can add to what has already been written.BTW next time you quote St. Paul ( Romans 3:10) as an example of how all men are defective take note of the fact that St. Paul does not exempt himself from that condition. How do you even know St. Paul was telling the truth when he called all men liars but didn’t exempt himself from being a liar?[answer: because the Catholic Church told Calvin that the scripture he used was inspired and inerrant]
That is why nobody is forcing you to believe Calvinism. We have pastors who are Arminians and we see no problem in that. The problem arises when one person declares himself to be infallible.A simply childish and incomplete reading of scripture that is propagated as truth but becomes a lie in the repetition. Again, how is it that totally depraved men can interpret the scripture in one way in the first century then in an entirely different way in the 16th century? Is it because truth changed or because the reformers (i.e. Calvin) were as defective as they admitted they were?![]()
Agreed!The unbeliever is a slave to sin. But God is not held hostage to sinners and is free to give His grace to all men since He desires that all men be saved (ref. 1 Tim 2:4). Actual grace makes it possible for unbelievers to hear the truth and respond to it. After that they can accept it or reject it. All men are given an opportunity to choose God or to reject God by the fact that God gives them life.
This is a usual argument against Reformed Theology, that it makes God responsible for men’s sin, which is not true. We do agree on this.But I never said that God is responsible for men’s choosing to sin. I said the exact opposite. Its sad that we have to argue and debate over things we agree on. What gives?![]()
Oops! You went too far in saying that fallen man can not freely choose to follow God. This is a demonic teaching and a lie. If this were true then EVERYONE would be saved by the grace won on the cross since Jesus died for all men:
* 2 Cor 5:15 And he died for all, that those who live should no longer live for themselves but for him who died for them and was raised again.*
This is a question of Common Grace vs. Effectual Grace. The grace that Christ provided on the cross is definitely sufficient for all; but it is not effective for all.