In Arminianism, God excludes some people from salvation

[Hammster]

There is no other language to use than to call this a lie. You have changed the definition of the word 'world' in relation to John 3:16 and who God loves. How do I know? Here's your evidence in this directory:

Please go back to #418 where you stated: 'It's not unjust for God to not love everyone. It would only be unjust if He was obligated to do so'.

Now go to #425 where you stated: 'Yes, God loves His CHOSEN people. That's the reformed view'.

In #430 you wrote: 'I have a biblical view that says God actually saves those He loves, not that He sends some that He loves to hell for disagreeing with Him'.

So you have misinterpreted 'world' in John 3:16 and made

1. world = not everyone (#418);
2. world = his CHOSEN people (#425);
3. world = those God actually saves and loves (#430).

Please don't kid us into believing that you haven't changed the meaning of 'world' and who god loves in John 3:16. I'm not falling for your tactics when you have provided the evidence to refute yourself.


Oz

I have not misrepresented "world" in John 3:16. I just disagree with your use of it. That's not the same thing as changing the definition. If I had said "world means Calvinists", or something similar, then you'd be correct.

 

[OzSpen]

I have not misrepresented "world" in John 3:16. I just disagree with your use of it. That's not the same thing as changing the definition. If I had said "world means Calvinists", or something similar, then you'd be correct.

No amount of calling it 'yes' when your posts have documented 'no' to God loving the whole world, will convince me that you have not misinterpret Scripture by adding to what is stated.

And have a guess what?

Another Calvinistic Reformed commentator, Don (D A) Carson, in his commentary on John's Gospel refutes your perspective on the meaning of 'world' as applying to God's chosen people in John 3:16. Of this verse, Carson wrote:

More than any New Testament writer, John develops a theology of the love relations between the Father and the Son, and makes it clear that, as applied to human beings, the love of God is not the consequence of their loveliness but of the sublime truth that ‘God is love’ (1 Jn. 4:16).
From this survey it is clear that it is atypical for John to speak of God's love for the world, but this truth is therefore made to stand out as all the more wonderful. Jews were familiar with the truth that God loved the children of Israel; here God’s love is not restricted by race. Even so, God’s love is to be admired not because the world is so big and includes so many people, but because the world is so bad: that is the customary connotation of kosmos (‘world’; cf. notes on 1:9). The world is so wicked that John elsewhere forbids Christians to love it or anything in it (1 Jn. 2:15-17). There is no contradiction between this prohibition and the fact that God does love it. Christians are not to love the world with the selfish love of participation; God loves the world with the self-less, costly love of redemption (Carson 1991:205, emphasis added).
​

Sincerely,
Oz

Works consulted
Carson, D A 1991. The Gospel according to John. Leicester, England / Grand Rapids, Michigan: Inter-Varsity Press / William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company

 

[Hammster]

No amount of calling it 'yes' when your posts have documented 'no' to God loving the whole world, will convince me that you have not misinterpret Scripture by adding to what is stated.

And have a guess what?

Another Calvinistic Reformed commentator, Don (D A) Carson, in his commentary on John's Gospel refutes your perspective on the meaning of 'world' as applying to God's chosen people in John 3:16. Of this verse, Carson wrote:

More than any New Testament writer, John develops a theology of the love relations between the Father and the Son, and makes it clear that, as applied to human beings, the love of God is not the consequence of their loveliness but of the sublime truth that ‘God is love’ (1 Jn. 4:16).
From this survey it is clear that it is atypical for John to speak of God's love for the world, but this truth is therefore made to stand out as all the more wonderful. Jews were familiar with the truth that God loved the children of Israel; here God’s love is not restricted by race. Even so, God’s love is to be admired not because the world is so big and includes so many people, but because the world is so bad: that is the customary connotation of kosmos (‘world’; cf. notes on 1:9). The world is so wicked that John elsewhere forbids Christians to love it or anything in it (1 Jn. 2:15-17). There is no contradiction between this prohibition and the fact that God does love it. Christians are not to love the world with the selfish love of participation; God loves the world with the self-less, costly love of redemption (Carson 1991:205, emphasis added).
​

Sincerely,
Oz

Works consulted
Carson, D A 1991. The Gospel according to John. Leicester, England / Grand Rapids, Michigan: Inter-Varsity Press / William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company

So I have to find commentaries that agree with me to make my point? Really?

 

[nobdysfool]

People who always refer to others for answering questions and making points show that they themselves have nothing to say. If one relies on outside sources to conduct a discussion, they show that they themselves do not have a position, and can be like those whom are referred to in scripture as "being tossed about by every wind of doctrine".

 

[OzSpen]

So I have to find commentaries that agree with me to make my point? Really?

It's about time you dealt with the content about which I write. I'm concluding that it is a waste of time responding to you with content to refute your position. No matter what the evidence that is piled up against your Calvinistic views of 'world' in John 3:16, you go on without taking notice.

Is that the way it has always been for you on CF? Has any comment ever caused you to change your mind theologically?

Or are you telling those who disagree with you not to bother with responding to you because you are going to come back to them with the kind of comment you gave me here and not care about dealing with the evidence piled up against your position?

 

[OzSpen]

People who always refer to others for answering questions and making points show that they themselves have nothing to say. If one relies on outside sources to conduct a discussion, they show that they themselves do not have a position, and can be like those whom are referred to in scripture as "being tossed about by every wind of doctrine".

That really is a false statement, brother. You rely on outside sources. Let's not kid yourself. You have not moved from Arminianism to Calvinism without the influence of outside sources.

I have a very solid position that I'm defending and I'm using other sources because they support my view. Nothing more and nothing less.

Please quit building your straw man about my theological views.

Oz

 

[Hammster]

It's about time you dealt with the content about which I write. I'm concluding that it is a waste of time responding to you with content to refute your position. No matter what the evidence that is piled up against your Calvinistic views of 'world' in John 3:16, you go on without taking notice.

Is that the way it has always been for you on CF? Has any comment ever caused you to change your mind theologically?

Or are you telling those who disagree with you not to bother with responding to you because you are going to come back to them with the kind of comment you gave me here and not care about dealing with the evidence piled up against your position?

Actually, I just asked a question.

 

[OzSpen]

"No, the heart is that God created the human race antagonistic to Him,"

This is not the heart of Calvinism. That you think so shows that, despite all your time here on CF, you still only know your straw man view of Calvinism. I honestly cannot see how trying to correct you further will be of any benefit. You may continue to call this a dodge. I frankly do not care.

FreeGrace2 wrote, "No, the heart is that God created the human race antagonistic to Him" (#441).

You responded:

This is not the heart of Calvinism. That you think so shows that, despite all your time here on CF, you still only know your straw man view of Calvinism. I honestly cannot see how trying to correct you further will be of any benefit. You may continue to call this a dodge. I frankly do not care.​

That is factually untrue for some Calvinists. It is the heart of Calvinism for some like John Piper, the double-predestinarian Calvinist, when he stated this?

'It's right for God to slaughter women and children anytime he pleases. God gives life and he takes life. Everybody who dies, dies because God wills that they die. God is taking life every day. He will take 50,000 lives today. Life is in God's hand. God decides when your last heartbeat will be, and whether it ends through cancer or a bullet wound. God governs.
So God is God! He rules and governs everything. And everything he does is just and right and good. God owes us nothing.
If I were to drop dead right now, or a suicide bomber downstairs were to blow this building up and I were blown into smithereens, God would have done me no wrong. He does no wrong to anybody when he takes their life, whether at 2 weeks or at age 92' ('What Made It OK for God to Kill Women, Children in Old Testament?', The Christian Post, February 6, 2012, emphasis added).

​

By application, is it right for God to slaughter 3,000 people and leave 3,000 victims on September 11, 2001 in the USA? What about the cause of all rapes of children around the world? How about the suicide bombers and the deaths caused by Muslims? Who is the cause of these 'calamities'? Is it right for God to do this 'anytime he pleases' (Piper's words)?

So did God slaughter all those people on September 11, 2001? What about the carnage that is going on today in Syria and the South Sudan? What about the children who are being raped by paedophiles in your country and mine? Is it right for God to do these things 'anytime he pleases' (to use John Piper's words)?

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

Actually, I just asked a question.

Please deal with the content of what I wrote. I've given lots of content today, but I'm wasting my time in responding to you. You love your one liners!

 

[Hammster]

FreeGrace2 wrote, "No, the heart is that God created the human race antagonistic to Him" (#441).

You responded:

This is not the heart of Calvinism. That you think so shows that, despite all your time here on CF, you still only know your straw man view of Calvinism. I honestly cannot see how trying to correct you further will be of any benefit. You may continue to call this a dodge. I frankly do not care.​

That is factually untrue for some Calvinists. It is the heart of Calvinism for some like John Piper, the double-predestinarian Calvinist, when he stated this?

'It's right for God to slaughter women and children anytime he pleases. God gives life and he takes life. Everybody who dies, dies because God wills that they die. God is taking life every day. He will take 50,000 lives today. Life is in God's hand. God decides when your last heartbeat will be, and whether it ends through cancer or a bullet wound. God governs.
So God is God! He rules and governs everything. And everything he does is just and right and good. God owes us nothing.
If I were to drop dead right now, or a suicide bomber downstairs were to blow this building up and I were blown into smithereens, God would have done me no wrong. He does no wrong to anybody when he takes their life, whether at 2 weeks or at age 92' ('What Made It OK for God to Kill Women, Children in Old Testament?', The Christian Post, February 6, 2012, emphasis added).

​

By application, is it right for God to slaughter 3,000 people and leave 3,000 victims on September 11, 2001 in the USA? What about the cause of all rapes of children around the world? How about the suicide bombers and the deaths caused by Muslims? Who is the cause of these 'calamities'? Is it right for God to do this 'anytime he pleases' (Piper's words)?

So did God slaughter all those people on September 11, 2001? What about the carnage that is going on today in Syria and the South Sudan? What about the children who are being raped by paedophiles in your country and mine? Is it right for God to do these things 'anytime he pleases' (to use John Piper's words)?

Oz

Talk about a red herring. You post has nothing to do with what I said. But if you'd like to start a thread on the subject, I'll be happy to contribute.

 

[Hammster]

Please deal with the content of what I wrote. I've given lots of content today, but I'm wasting my time in responding to you. You love your one liners!

The content of what you wrote had nothing to do with my question. You quoted some commentaries on John 3:16 to support your view. I was wondering if that is what it would take to support my view as there are commentaries that do so.

 

[nobdysfool]

That really is a false statement, brother. You rely on outside sources. Let's not kid yourself. You have not moved from Arminianism to Calvinism without the influence of outside sources.

Hmmm...my outside sources were the Bible and the Holy Spirit. I don't know of any better....

I have a very solid position that I'm defending and I'm using other sources because they support my view. Nothing more and nothing less.

I'll agree that you have a position you're defending with outside sources. It's solidity is a matter of opinion.

Please quit building your straw man about my theological views.

That cuts both ways. It would be nice if you just let some things go rather than the continual bleating about straw men and logical fallacies. They come off as attacks and diversionary tactics..

 

[OzSpen]

Talk about a red herring. You post has nothing to do with what I said. But if you'd like to start a thread on the subject, I'll be happy to contribute.

This is a false accusation. You were the one who did not want to identify this statement from FreeGrace 2 to you as a Reformed perspective, ' "No, the heart is that God created the human race antagonistic to Him" (#441)'.

I provided you with evidence from John Piper and your accuse me of a red herring. Evidence is what sunk your not wanting it to be identified with Calvimism/Reformed.

 

[OzSpen]

Hmmm...my outside sources were the Bible and the Holy Spirit. I don't know of any better....

I'll agree that you have a position you're defending with outside sources. It's solidity is a matter of opinion.

That cuts both ways. It would be nice if you just let some things go rather than the continual bleating about straw men and logical fallacies. They come off as attacks and diversionary tactics..

So are you telling me that you moved from Arminianism to Calvinism without any contact with information from outside Calvinistic-Reformed sources? Not a single contact with anyone who believed Calvinism???

 

[Hammster]

This is a false accusation. You were the one who did not want to identify this statement from FreeGrace 2 to you as a Reformed perspective, ' "No, the heart is that God created the human race antagonistic to Him" (#441)'.

I provided you with evidence from John Piper and your accuse me of a red herring. Evidence is what sunk your not wanting it to be identified with Calvimism/Reformed.

They aren't the same thing. God "creating the human race antagonistic to him" (a false view of Calvinism) is not the same thing as God being sovereign over all events. God created the human race "good". That's what it says in my bible.

 

[OzSpen]

They aren't the same thing. God "creating the human race antagonistic to him" (a false view of Calvinism) is not the same thing as God being sovereign over all events. God created the human race "good". That's what it says in my bible.

Agreed that God created the human race and everything else as 'good'. However, who created the first sin in your Reformed understanding?

 

[Hammster]

Agreed that God created the human race and everything else as 'good'. However, who created the first sin in your Reformed understanding?

Created the first sin? I'm unfamiliar with that terminology.

 

[nobdysfool]

So are you telling me that you moved from Arminianism to Calvinism without any contact with information from outside Calvinistic-Reformed sources? Not a single contact with anyone who believed Calvinism???

Yes that is precisely what I'm telling you. There was one individual in another forum who drove me to the Word and I spent much time praying and asking God to open my understanding to what I saw in scripture. That person didn't tell me anything, he merely challenged what I believed, and sent me to the Word. All he was, was a catalyst. My understanding came from the Word, and, I believe, from the Holy Spirit. I am not a Calvinist in the traditional sense, there are certain parts I disagree with, the Gifts being one of them.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

I provided you with evidence from John Piper and your accuse me of a red herring. Evidence is what sunk your not wanting it to be identified with Calvimism/Reformed.

John Piper is a Baptist and continualist, he is a Calvinist, but not Reformed, not in the historical sense of the word by any means. If he holds to a Covenent Theology which is a primary distinction of the Reformed, it is a modified CT, similar to John Gill's CT. As respected and appreciated as John Piper is, he is not the be all end all among Calvinists/Reformed, in fact nobody is, Scripture alone is our final authority in all matters.

That point aside, the problem is in the extrapolation of Piper's words that you are insisting upon. John Piper recognizes distinctions in causality. He knows and recognizes a difference between his own actions and the actions of God, he certainly does not equivocate causes like you're doing without saying it for the sake of personal agenda.

Your whole argument hinges on no distinction and equivocation, your argument is in opposition to Biblical logic.

 

[OzSpen]

Created the first sin? I'm unfamiliar with that terminology.

Never heard of original sin? Who created it if God created all things good in the beginning?