Arminianism provides an excuse for those in hell

[tulipbee]

​

Many has attempted to characterize the Calvinist limited atonement position as necessarily linking conversion to Christ with knowledge of our personal election.

Christians can refute this several ways. Not the least of which being that genuine conversion to Christ is (as John Calvin pointed out) de facto proof of election !

Whatever assurance we have of being
Elect, none is superior to the very fact
of our having been brought to sincere
repentance and genuine faith.

It can also be said that the doctrine of divine election, and the Gospel of Grace, are two separate and differentiated (albeit related) doctrines.

One can have Saving Faith and yet be entirely ignorant of divine election as a doctrine !

Put another way: We are saved by grace through faith ...NOT saved by familiarity with divine election and how it works.

While we'd argue that sanctification invariably follows conversion, and this sanctification involves knowledge of doctrines such as divine election, it's a post-conversion process.

Many of us who today have familiarity with the doctrine of divine election were in fact originally brought to Christ completely ignorance about election and how it works. We being saved by our faith ...a gifted faith... and NOT by how much we knew about election.

There's no necessity of knowing you
are Elect to be elected !

The doctrine of Limited Atonement certainly doesn't demand that one must know they're Elect to convert to Christ.

Some here seems to confuse sanctification with Jesus Christ atoning only for the Elect.

Post-conversion we are sanctified ...which is doctrinal in addition to moral. Those who aren't thusly being sanctified weren't converted to begin with !

But nowhere does Limited Atonement [atonement only for the Elect] require a prior knowledge of our personal election.

There's many important doctrines we learn about only after our conversion. Divine Election often being one !

All that's requisite for converting to Christ (and, hence, our justification before God) is sincere repentance and genuine faith. Only the Elect will have this because God the Holy Spirit only regenerates those who have been divinely elected.

But our knowing precisely how this [divine election] works is not immediately necessary. We can pick-up that later during our subsequent sanctification. Limited Atonement makes no demand for either a knowledge of election as doctrine, or knowledge of our own personal election.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Many has attempted to characterize the Calvinist limited atonement position as necessarily linking conversion to Christ with knowledge of our personal election.

Anyone posting on this forum? The issue in 'limited atonement' is whether or not Christ died ONLY for the elect, or JUST for the elect. That is the only issue. And Calvinism cannot prove it from Scripture. I tried to get them to show proof from Scripture from my thread on Heb 2:9, and all I got was finally an admission from one that it comes from "inference". Wow. But Scripture clearly states that He died for everyone.

Many of us who today have familiarity with the doctrine of divine election were in fact originally brought to Christ completely ignorance about election and how it works. We being saved by our faith ...a gifted faith... and NOT by how much we knew about election.

No, we are NOT "saved by our faith". We are saved by God alone. But He saves only those who believe. Our belief or faith doesn't save us. He does.

And, our action of believing the gospel is NOT a gift. You guys put the action of belief and the gift of eternal life in the same "gift bag", but the Bible never does that.

The Bible indicates that God gives the gift bag containing eternal life to those who believe.

Some here seems to confuse sanctification with Jesus Christ atoning only for the Elect.

Who would that be? I've never done that. Sanctification is totally apart from the atonement.

But nowhere does Limited Atonement [atonement only for the Elect] require a prior knowledge of our personal election.

I've not seen a single post from anyone who thinks this. Not sure why you are bringing it up.

 

[tulipbee]

​

CC #622 quotes Matthew 20:28 that
Christ "came to give his life as a ransom
for many".

Fascinating. When they actually quote the Scriptures, Christ died for "many".

Yet -as recently as CC #616- Rome was telling us He died for everybody ! And many times prior to that.


So, which is it ? Christ died for everyone ? Or, Christ died for "many" ? Can't be BOTH !

I don't think they even noticed the discrepancy. Rome supposes it's Teaching Magisterium makes whatever they say true ...even things that contradict each other.

There's not even an attempt at logical consistency. In it's arrogance, Rome wants mindless faith -not in Christ- but in whatever they're saying at a given moment !

Thus they don't even bother to reconcile Matthew 20:28 with their previous Universal Atonement exegesis of other verses.

 

[FreeGrace2]

CC #622 quotes Matthew 20:28 that
Christ "came to give his life as a ransom
for many".

Fascinating. When they actually quote the Scriptures, Christ died for "many".

Yet -as recently as CC #616- Rome was telling us He died for everybody ! And many times prior to that.


So, which is it ? Christ died for everyone ? Or, Christ died for "many" ? Can't be BOTH !

Let's see how the apostle Paul used the word "many". In Rom 5:15 --
But the free gift is not like the transgression. For if by the transgression of the one the many died, much more did the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abound to the many.

So, how 'many' was Paul referring to regarding spiritual death? Everyone, obviously.

I don't think they even noticed the discrepancy. Rome supposes it's Teaching Magisterium makes whatever they say true ...even things that contradict each other.

Why are you bringing in RCC claims. I haven't seen any of them arguing here.

 

[tulipbee]

The Reformed Theology isn't that every reprobate receives the Gospel Invitation.

It's a demonstrable fact that billions have died without even a chance of hearing the Gospel.

Yet, billions have heard the Gospel and rejected it. [ In fact, every reprobate who has heard it. ]

Enough to establish that the reprobate WON'T respond to the Gospel.

As Calvinists we must maintain BOTH that God decreed individual reprobation and that no one is forced to be reprobate.

Yes, the Lord made certain men to send them to Hell.

No, the Lord didn't cause them to sin (and hence be reprobatable).

People sin because they like sinning !

We must never allow Reformed Theology to be depicted as the Most High creating men sinners to have someone to put in Hell.

There's no one forced to steal, covet, murder, commit adultery, hate God or hate his fellow man, or any other sin.

We do this on our own.

Sure, the Supreme Being arranged the circumstances where we could sin.

However, He also arranged the circumstances where we can refrain from sinning.

That the Lord foreknew we would sin is immaterial regarding culpability.

God being no more responsible for the opportunity to sin than banks are for bank robbery !

 

[FreeGrace2]

The Reformed Theology isn't that every reprobate receives the Gospel Invitation.

To be clear, reformed theology is that the gospel isn't for everyone. Yet Mark 16:15 is clear; preach the gospel to every creature. It is for everyone.

It's a demonstrable fact that billions have died without even a chance of hearing the Gospel.

They are still without excuse because they were created to seek God (Acts 17:26-27) and He has revealed His existence to everyone (Rom 1:19-20). To those who do seek Him, find Him. That is a Bible promise. Your point is irrelevant.

Yet, billions have heard the Gospel and rejected it. [ In fact, every reprobate who has heard it. ]

According to reformed theology, the "reporbate" can't understand it because God didn't choose to regenerate them. Gives them an excuse. However, your point affirms freedom of choice. God made a promise about eternal life; man is free to accept or reject God's promise.

Enough to establish that the reprobate WON'T respond to the Gospel.

This is disingenuous. Reformed theology teaches that God chooses who to save inilaterally, unconditionally, and without explainable reason. As such, God chooses who will believe. So your point is irrelevant.

To be honest with your theology, you should have said that the "reprobate" CAN'T respond to the gospel. That is really your theology.

As Calvinists we must maintain BOTH that God decreed individual reprobation and that no one is forced to be reprobate.

A great example of total internal contradiction. If God decrees anyone to reprobation, then "force" is the issue. If God decrees it, it IS forced on them.

Yes, the Lord made certain men to send them to Hell.

Only because He didn't choose them, but chose other sinners who go to heaven.

No, the Lord didn't cause them to sin (and hence be reprobatable).

Excuse me, but you just admitting that reformed theology teaches that God decrees reprobation. That IS cause.

People sin because they like sinning !

To be clear, reformed theology teaches that God decrees reprobation, so whether or not a reprobate likes to sin isn't the issue. They were decreed to it, so your point is irrelevant.

We must never allow Reformed Theology to be depicted as the Most High creating men sinners to have someone to put in Hell.

But that is exactly what reformed theology leads to. Denying its obvious conclusion doesn't make it go away.

There's no one forced to steal, covet, murder, commit adultery, hate God or hate his fellow man, or any other sin.

According to reformed theology, they were DECREED to reprobation, and have no other options.

We do this on our own.

To be honest, reformed theology teaches that God DECREES men to reprobation. So your point is wrong.

Sure, the Supreme Being arranged the circumstances where we could sin.

To be clear, He DECREED that the reprobate would sin.

However, He also arranged the circumstances where we can refrain from sinning.

Oh, sure. He cherry-picks a few to save; regenerates them so they can and will believe, and then takes them to heaven.

That the Lord foreknew we would sin is immaterial regarding culpability.

How can anyone of the reprobate be culpable when God DECREED their reprobation? Your points don't make sense.

God being no more responsible for the opportunity to sin than banks are for bank robbery !

If God DECREED reprobation, then God IS responsible.

The only way God is NOT responsible for sin is found in the fact that God created mankind with total freedom to either accept His promises or reject them. Freely. NOT being decreed by Him.

 

[Section10]

This is so grim. I cannot find any good news here. If I believed God operated in a Calvinist fashion, I'd abandon Christianity. No wonder people are so fed up with churches and their gospel-less gospels. Good news my foot!

 

[tulipbee]

This is so grim. I cannot find any good news here. If I believed God operated in a Calvinist fashion, I'd abandon Christianity. No wonder people are so fed up with churches and their gospel-less gospels. Good news my foot!

Calvinism shows why you might abandon christainity. Once you know why, then you'll appreciate the truths. I rather be an atheist than to be an arminian. Both are reprobates, anyway. Why not party like you.

 

[Section10]

I'll not call myself Arminian, but why would they be reprobates? I believe in free will when it comes to salvation. Without free will, God gets too strange for me. And what association do I have with a partier?

 

[tulipbee]

I'll not call myself Arminian, but why would they be reprobates? I believe in free will when it comes to salvation. Without free will, God gets too strange for me. And what association do I have with a partier?

I use my free will to thank God for personally choosing me while He passes over others on purpose. I discovered I already had the gift of faith while some never had it or never will while God will make sure some never will even get the chance to be an elect.

 

[Section10]

That's a narrow gospel. So the Jews who died in the holocaust are sitting in hell roasting right alongside Hitler and his henchmen who murdered them. And that seems fitting to you.

 

[FreeGrace2]

I use my free will to thank God for personally choosing me while He passes over others on purpose.

On what basis did he choose to save you? On the basis of faith.

1 Corinthians 1:21
For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not come to know God, God was well-pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe.

I discovered I already had the gift of faith while some never had it or never will

The Bible teaches that salvation and eternal life are gifts. Not faith.

while God will make sure some never will even get the chance to be an elect.

Strange comment, given that God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked. Eze 18:23, 33:11.

Or that He wants everyone to repent. 2 Pet 3:9

Which points to the problems of RT. The claims aren't supported by Scripture, and in fact, are refuted by Scripture.

 

[Foghorn]

The Bible teaches that salvation and eternal life are gifts. Not faith.

Oh yes it absolutely does teach faith is a gift.

 

[Foghorn]

I discovered I already had the gift of faith while some never had it or never will while God will make sure some never will even get the chance to be an elect.

The elect were chosen before the creation of the world. God is immutable, therefore nothing can change. The elect are not elect because they chose to believe, that's just silly and logically ridicules.

The elect are elect because God elected them unto salvation before the creation of the world.

Hope this helps.

 

[FreeGrace2]

The elect were chosen before the creation of the world.

Basically, this statement says that "the elect were elected". Is that what God did: elect those who have been elected?

This suggests 2 elections. That God elects the elected. So, what's the first one based on?

God is immutable, therefore nothing can change.

No one argues that God isn't immutable. How is change an issue?

The elect are not elect because they chose to believe, that's just silly and logically ridicules.

Ridicules what? And why is it silly? Please explain.

I've just shown that your opening statement was rather silly, "that God elects the elected". Or how about this: God chose the chosen.

Which of these statements isn't silly?

The elect are elect because God elected them unto salvation before the creation of the world.

Please direct me to the verse that says so. Eph 1:4 sure doesn't say that.

Hope this helps.

Nope. God didn't chose the chosen. Nor did He elect the elected. That's just silly.

God elected believers. That is what Eph 1:4 says.

 

[Foghorn]

Basically, this statement says that "the elect were elected". Is that what God did: elect those who have been elected?

IMO your in denial. You knew exactly what that means. But just in case you don't and are not familiar with this part of scripture.......... God chose a particular people that Christ would pay the penalty for, these Christ did die for, and these the Holy Spirit gathers. But I think you know that and are just being silly.

 

[Foghorn]

I've just shown that your opening statement was rather silly, "that God elects the elected". Or how about this: God chose the chosen.

You have shown your being silly.

Please direct me to the verse that says so. Eph 1:4 sure doesn't say that.


Nope. God didn't chose the chosen. Nor did He elect the elected. That's just silly.

God elected believers. That is what Eph 1:4 says.

Last I checked this thread was not about Eph 1:4. Is that the only verse you read?

 

[FreeGrace2]

You have shown your being silly.

Last I checked this thread was not about Eph 1:4. Is that the only verse you read?

Now trying to dodge your silly statement about Eph 1:4, that "God elected the elect"??

That's just as silly as saying 'God chose the chosen'.

They only become elect or chosen AFTER He elects/chooses them.

 

[FreeGrace2]

IMO your in denial.

Not at all. Seems rather that you'd rather dodge the silly statement regarding Eph 1:4.

You knew exactly what that means.

I know exactly what your post said, which was this:
The elect were chosen before the creation of the world.

The elect are elect because God elected them unto salvation before the creation of the world.

Again, your post SAID: 'the elect were chosen'. Why not say 'the elect were elected'. Of course anyone who has been elected or chosen can be called the elect or the chosen. But that's NOT what Eph 1:4 says. Paul never SAID that God chose the elect, as your post basically claims.

For God to "choose" the "elect", that means He was choosing those who were already in that category of being elect/chosen. That is really silly.

Only AFTER God does the electing or choosing can they be called elect. Not before. Eph 1:4 is about WHEN He chose. If He chose the elect, that means they were already in that category. This is so simple. I cannot imagine that anyone would not understand this.

But just in case you don't and are not familiar with this part of scripture.......... God chose a particular people that Christ would pay the penalty for, these Christ did die for, and these the Holy Spirit gathers. But I think you know that and are just being silly.

Great eisegesis there. Except Paul never said anything like that. He wrote: God chose us. Paul, as a believer, was addressing believers. Therefore, he was telling believers that God chose believers.

Paul even defines "us" for us in 1:19. "us who believe". I suspect the Holy Spirit informed Paul that various false doctrines would spring up in the middle ages which would twist his words in 1:4. So he clarified in 1:19 as to who the "us" really are.

Bottom line: it is silly to claim that God chose the chosen, or that God elected the elect. That's just meaningless repetition.

 

[Daniel924927]

In Arminianism, those in hell can say "God, you didn't effectually save me!"

They have an excuse. God could have saved them, but didn't.

If God decided they would not be given salvation then he is powerless to ever change his mind , that means he can not save then rendering him inept .

In other words he can not save the un- savable and therefore something is imposable for him to do ..
in addition by being sinners they are only carrying out his will .