Why do Calvinists debate?

[Arial]

So then there was a different standard from the God who changes not? We do not have to turn to God anymore. There is no call to repentance. We will not likewise perish even if we do not repent?

Off topic of the post it is responding to and not responding to the actual post.

 

[Arial]

This sounds like a way to make scriptures say what we want them to say. If they all referred to the church, then why would God be wishing? He has already chosen and rejected those set for bliss and those for fire. Peter should also have known better. Furthermore, why would Peter warn his readers to be careful of falling away if they were chosen from the foundation of the world?

God has never wished anything in His eternal existence. He does. And He does as it pleases Him for His purposes. Why change the subject from one thing to another? Why don't you try reading my post again with comprehension this time? And Peter was not warning anyone of the danger of falling away. You absolutely bring one belief from one place into another place it does not belong. Do you have a good study Bible that gives a thorough exposition of the date and occasion of the writing in the book prefaces? If so read it. He was dealing with specific issues in that letter. As was every writer of the epistles in every epistle. I know context is irrelevant according to another post, though I am sure it isn't in anything else you read, but it is crucially important.

 

[Arial]

I was responding to your statement which reads, "No one who is quickened to spiritual life refuses to believe the good news. They hear it, understand it, believe it."

What do you think spiritual life is? Partly alive? Eternal but still subject to not eternal? Your Bible seems to be promoting oxymoron right and left. Is believing something actually believing it or is it still deciding whether or not to believe it? Is eternal life only dangled in front of us, follow the carrot, or follow the thorn? There comes a time when a person needs to start using their head and not their feelings.

 

[Arial]

Soils in the natural world reflect the environment from which they are derived and are suitable for the set of plants that inhabit that region.

You missed the point. What else is new?

Probably assumptions are the biggest failing of debate forums.

The biggest problem on forums is that people call arguing debating and fail to follow anything that would be consistent with a legitimate debate. Well one side does, which always puts them on the losing side. They never address directly what is said to them in a manner that refutes it. Never present actual support for their premises except "proof texts" with no exegesis and removed from all context, change the subject, deflect, finally eventually usually make it personal etc. If they could do those things one has to wonder why they don't.

 

[Arial]

It is your perception that makes you say things like this. But in my experience when we are sure we speak for God we view those who disagree with us as disagreeing with God. Calvin himself fell into this trap. There are just as many people who would throw the same stone at you that you are now throwing.

What stone did I throw? And why this response instead of addressing the scriptures I quoted to refute them? And why such illogical logic used as a response, a complete logical fallacy? Sometimes people are speaking for God, that is, in accordance with what He says. It is possible to do and all it takes is vigilance and integrity. Sometimes disagreeing with someone is disagreeing with God. The difference is in the results of the work shown as to how one arrives at what they present. Which I do. Do you?

This is a discussion and not a condemnation. We are saved by believing in Jesus Christ period. The rest is conjecture. People can coral as many texts as they want to support their side and rationalize away the rest. But the bottom line is none of this affects salvation.

The rest is not conjecture unless you think that the Bible and its truth are unknowable and unimportant and that they do not all connect at every point from cover to cover.

 

[Arial]

No, but the implication is impossible to avoid.

That is all in your mind, not in my interpretation of the parable. I know this because it was not in my mind or in the interpretation.

No, it is the implication of the doctrine no matter who recites it.

If it is the implication of the doctrine then why is it that those who understand the doctrine do not see that implication? It is because they put all of the teachings together not try to make a decision or reach a conclusion all in one read through of each letter of the acronym.So no, the implication is in the ears of the hearer.

I understand what you said, but its implication is what captures my attention. If someone says to me, "Good news, your garage didn't burn down" They have my attention but not on what they said, it is on what they didn't say.

Poppycock.It is still your implication not the teaching.Maybe you should pay attention to what they say when you bring the question to their attention, instead of disregarding it as you do and cling to the implication in your mind as if they said nothing to the contrary.

This is too trying and fruitless and repetitive for me to go farther. Blessings.

 

[Arial]

@Mercy_Shown is assuming, I think, the mistaken notion that God sees all people the same, loves all equally, has equal hopes and plans concerning all. But, God is that much 'above' us that he is just to give to some and not to all, in whatever degree he sees fit, for his own purposes —even when it is not done for their good. WE are not the reason he created the universe and this 'temporal envelope' —HE is the reason. So, if it is valid to say, "he lit it up completely", it does not mean, "he lit it up evenly". When he took away the sins of the world, even if the eisegetical notion is accurate that it means 'everyone's sins', it is not necessary to assume that everyone's sins were taken away from them, but rather, that maybe they too are taken away with their sins. Do you see the universe breathing a huge sigh of relief after Christ died and was resurrected?

There is practically no end of mistakes to make from assuming God loves everyone equally in the same way, and does not have different purposes for each person.

You are exactly right. It is the belief that His love is His primary therefore supreme attribute and characteristic and it trumps justice and righteous judgement. Yet they do not look at love in that same way in their own lives, nor should they.

 

[Mercy_Shown]

That is all in your mind, not in my interpretation of the parable. I know this because it was not in my mind or in the interpretation.

Not your implication. The implication of the doctrine.

If it is the implication of the doctrine then why is it that those who understand the doctrine do not see that implication? It is because they put all of the teachings together not try to make a decision or reach a conclusion all in one read through of each letter of the acronym.So no, the implication is in the ears of the hearer.

It is impossible to miss. God gives If God gives IG to a select group of people, it means that He withholds his Grace from a select group of people. Since God created all people, God created the people knowing that they were going to spend eternity in hell for the few years of sin on this planet.

Poppycock.It is still your implication not the teaching.Maybe you should pay attention to what they say when you bring the question to their attention, instead of disregarding it as you do and cling to the implication in your mind as if they said nothing to the contrary.

This is too trying and fruitless and repetitive for me to go farther. Blessings.

It certainly is not worth getting stressed over.

 

[Mercy_Shown]

You are exactly right. It is the belief that His love is His primary therefore supreme attribute and characteristic and it trumps justice and righteous judgement. Yet they do not look at love in that same way in their own lives, nor should they.

You wouldn't know how any individual looks at love but suffice it to say, God is different. God is love.

 

[Mercy_Shown]

God has never wished anything in His eternal existence. He does. And He does as it pleases Him for His purposes. Why change the subject from one thing to another? Why don't you try reading my post again with comprehension this time? And Peter was not warning anyone of the danger of falling away. You absolutely bring one belief from one place into another place it does not belong. Do you have a good study Bible that gives a thorough exposition of the date and occasion of the writing in the book prefaces? If so read it. He was dealing with specific issues in that letter. As was every writer of the epistles in every epistle. I know context is irrelevant according to another post, though I am sure it isn't in anything else you read, but it is crucially important.

That is not true. I never said context was unimportant. I just said that in the case of that specific phrase, it did not change the meaning. Context can also be used as an excuse to make something say what we want it to say.

 

[Mercy_Shown]

What do you think spiritual life is? Partly alive? Eternal but still subject to not eternal? Your Bible seems to be promoting oxymoron right and left. Is believing something actually believing it or is it still deciding whether or not to believe it? Is eternal life only dangled in front of us, follow the carrot, or follow the thorn? There comes a time when a person needs to start using their head and not their feelings.

Spiritual life gives us the freedom of choice. When we were dead in our sins and trespasses, we had no choice but when God makes us alive we do. SOme make the wrong choice and the bible refers to that as falling away.

 

[Mercy_Shown]

You missed the point. What else is new?

I don't think you would say that if you pondered what I wrote.

The biggest problem on forums is that people call arguing debating and fail to follow anything that would be consistent with a legitimate debate. Well one side does, which always puts them on the losing side. They never address directly what is said to them in a manner that refutes it. Never present actual support for their premises except "proof texts" with no exegesis and removed from all context, change the subject, deflect, finally eventually usually make it personal etc. If they could do those things one has to wonder why they don't.

That is a view that can be shared by both sides against each other. The heart is deceitful above all else, who can know it?

 

[Mercy_Shown]

What stone did I throw? And why this response instead of addressing the scriptures I quoted to refute them? And why such illogical logic used as a response, a complete logical fallacy? Sometimes people are speaking for God, that is, in accordance with what He says. It is possible to do and all it takes is vigilance and integrity. Sometimes disagreeing with someone is disagreeing with God. The difference is in the results of the work shown as to how one arrives at what they present. Which I do. Do you?

Each person views their way as the most relevant and proper. A person's ways are right in their own eyes.

The rest is not conjecture unless you think that the Bible and its truth are unknowable and unimportant and that they do not all connect at every point from cover to cover.

Is that why among the thousands of denominations only ourselves and those who agree with us are correct?

 

[Arial]

You wouldn't know how any individual looks at love but suffice it to say, God is different. God is love.

I know by what they say.

 

[Arial]

Spiritual life gives us the freedom of choice. When we were dead in our sins and trespasses, we had no choice but when God makes us alive we do. SOme make the wrong choice and the bible refers to that as falling away.

Choice isn't life.

 

[Mercy_Shown]

Choice isn't life.

No, it isn't but it results from spiritual life.

 

[His clay]

God has never wished anything in His eternal existence. He does. And He does as it pleases Him for His purposes. Why change the subject from one thing to another? Why don't you try reading my post again with comprehension this time? And Peter was not warning anyone of the danger of falling away. You absolutely bring one belief from one place into another place it does not belong. Do you have a good study Bible that gives a thorough exposition of the date and occasion of the writing in the book prefaces? If so read it. He was dealing with specific issues in that letter. As was every writer of the epistles in every epistle. I know context is irrelevant according to another post, though I am sure it isn't in anything else you read, but it is crucially important.

Failure to read with a basic level of comprehension is one of the most obvious tell tale signs of a troll. The poster was constantly misrepresenting me early in the thread, even after I explained something so basic as why I was bringing up getting the groceries. The poster still could not understand the process of getting groceries and how it related to the point I was making. Reminds me of possessing eyes, but cannot see; and having ears, but cannot hear. It's our job to make it abundantly clear, but only God can open the eyes.

 

[His clay]

No, it isn't but it results from spiritual life.

You've just made a case for regeneration logically preceding faith.

 

[Mercy_Shown]

You've just made a case for regeneration logically preceding faith.

How did you come to such a conclusion?

 

[Mercy_Shown]

Failure to read with a basic level of comprehension is one of the most obvious tell tale signs of a troll. The poster was constantly misrepresenting me early in the thread, even after I explained something so basic as why I was bringing up getting the groceries. The poster still could not understand the process of getting groceries and how it related to the point I was making. Reminds me of possessing eyes, but cannot see; and having ears, but cannot hear. It's our job to make it abundantly clear, but only God can open the eyes.

It may have been a clever analogy in your view but I found no connecting threads to Almighty God. Instead of laying a charge against me, why not try making a better analogy?