Unconditional Election vs. Total Depravity

MennoSota · Sep 30, 2018

ttruscott said:
No!

Is it loving to save some from justice for no reason and not others? I don't think those passed over feel it is very loving to be damned for their sins since they are not being saved like the sinner right next to him. How do you explain that GOD is loving them when HE ignores them to be saved while HE saves the next guy for no reason? Would you want to be loved that way, passed over for salvation for your sins in the name of love while other sinners are elected to salvation for no reason for that same love?

My goodness....

It is extremely loving to die and take God's wrath to ransom a lawbreaker. If Jesus only died for one person it would be an example if extreme love.
What is unloving is to leave broken laws unpunished and turn your back on justice.
That is what you are demanding of God. It should shock you, but it doesn't.
If God justly sends me to hell for my lawbreaking, I have nothing to blame God about. It is a just decision.
If God chooses to random me, by placing my sin upon Jesus, then God has just been amazingly and supremely gracious because I did not deserve it.
Honestly, you are really twisted up to imagine you can blame God for your evil behavior.

ttruscott · Sep 30, 2018

MennoSota said:
It is extremely loving to die and take God's wrath to ransom a lawbreaker. If Jesus only died for one person it would be an example if extreme love.

What is unloving is to leave broken laws unpunished and turn your back on justice.

SAVING PEOPLE in Christ's love cannot be unjust! Does Christ saving them leave broken laws unpunished by turning the back on justice??? Of course not!!! So how does saving the non-elect in Christ leave broken laws unpunished by turning the back on justice?? Christ served justice in His death!!!

Is Christ's dying for us unjust? Then how is it unjust to save everyone from their sins for no reason like HE did for some???

That is what you are demanding of God. It should shock you, but it doesn't.
If God justly sends me to hell for my lawbreaking, I have nothing to blame God about. It is a just decision.

I got no problem with that; of course it was a just decision! But if HE saves some in Christ FOR NO REASON while leaving others in their sins to be damned, then I got a problem with the theology that claims this the truth, denying HIS love, denying HIS righteousness and denying HIS not wanting to see anyone die for their sins.

If God chooses to random me, by placing my sin upon Jesus, then God has just been amazingly and supremely gracious because I did not deserve it.

Nor did I deserve anything but hell yet HE brought me to Christ but no one has ever claimed to know why He apparently blesses some with this loving kindness but refused to bless everyone in the same way! If it is righteous to bless ONE sinner in Christ for no reason, then it is righteous to bless every sinner in Christ for no reason.

I contend that there is a very good reason why HE loves and saves some and passes over the others for election unto salvation and that reason is what makes HIS partiality to the elect proper, wise and righteous while the rejection of the eternally evil ones is also proper, wise and righteous. My fight is with the U in unconditional!!!!

Honestly, you are really twisted up to imagine you can blame God for your evil behavior.

Honestly you are really twisted up to imagine you think I blame GOD for my sins! I suppose you have shut down many with this ad hominem attack but I am a real, brought to death by my sins yet saved by the love of Christ kind of convert...you only embarrass yourself because there is nothing in what I've written in this argument to suggest this remark! Nothing! You've crossed a line, bud.

I know the ultimate disvalue of all my sins and the pain I've caused those I loved.

I also know the love of Christ.
I know that if HE can save someone, His love will save them.
I know that if some are not saved then His love cannot save them.
I know the unforgivable sin puts people outside of His loving grace.
And I know the unforgivable sin makes it so that that sinner cannot be elected to salvation even though that 'breaks His heart'!

I know that you know nothing of these things nor His love.

MennoSota · Sep 30, 2018

ttruscott said:
SAVING PEOPLE in Christ's love cannot be unjust! Does Christ saving them leave broken laws unpunished by turning the back on justice??? Of course not!!! So how does saving the non-elect in Christ leave broken laws unpunished by turning the back on justice?? Christ served justice in His death!!!

Is Christ's dying for us unjust? Then how is it unjust to save everyone from their sins for no reason like HE did for some???

I got no problem with that; of course it was a just decision! But if HE saves some in Christ FOR NO REASON while leaving others in their sins to be damned, then I got a problem with the theology that claims this the truth, denying HIS love, denying HIS righteousness and denying HIS not wanting to see anyone die for their sins.

Nor did I deserve anything but hell yet HE brought me to Christ but no one has ever claimed to know why He apparently blesses some with this loving kindness but refused to bless everyone in the same way! If it is righteous to bless ONE sinner in Christ for no reason, then it is righteous to bless every sinner in Christ for no reason.

I contend that there is a very good reason why HE loves and saves some and passes over the others for election unto salvation and that reason is what makes HIS partiality to the elect proper, wise and righteous while the rejection of the eternally evil ones is also proper, wise and righteous. My fight is with the U in unconditional!!!!

Honestly you are really twisted up to imagine you think I blame GOD for my sins! I suppose you have shut down many with this ad hominem attack but I am a real, brought to death by my sins yet saved by the love of Christ kind of convert...you only embarrass yourself because there is nothing in what I've written in this argument to suggest this remark! Nothing! You've crossed a line, bud.

I know the ultimate disvalue of all my sins and the pain I've caused those I loved.

I also know the love of Christ.
I know that if HE can save someone, His love will save them.
I know that if some are not saved then His love cannot save them.
I know the unforgivable sin puts people outside of His loving grace.
And I know the unforgivable sin makes it so that that sinner cannot be elected to salvation even though that 'breaks His heart'!

I know that you know nothing of these things nor His love.

Is God obligated to ransom even one lawbreaker?
Is God unjust if he does not ransom a lawbreaker?
Is it unloving for God to execute justice on proven lawbreakers?

You wrote: "I know that if HE can save someone, His love will save them."

You must, therefore consider God to be extremely weak because many, many people die in their sins, unsaved.

Jesus tells us that all whom God gives him will be saved. Do you declare that all whom God does not save is because God could not save them?

How is it that you call God unloving because God does not save everyone?

Grosnick Marowbe · Oct 1, 2018

glorydaz said:
:rotfl:

Matthew 18:2-3
2 And Jesus called a little child unto him, and set him in the midst of them, 3 And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.

Do you think MS will EVER get anywhere above his ZERO Rep?

Clete · Oct 1, 2018

MennoSota said:
I don't even know what you mean by "John Calvin had his Calvinism right."

I, unlike most of the people around here, do not make naked assertions. I have quoted Calvin directly several times in this thread already. I've quoted him unequivocally stating that people are not condemned for any reason other than that God was pleased to condemn them. It's a rather common Calvinist belief actually.

Do you mean that Calvin observed God's means of salvation, as described in scripture, correctly?

What?

Just read the quotes and tell me if you agree with him or not!

Do you wonder how Spurgeon could have a different observation?

On the contrary, I don't wonder about any such thing. I quote him directly and let his own words say what he believed. My question isn't about what Spurgeon believed but whether it was consistent with the rest of his own doctrine, with what Calvin taught, and with the character of God and why or why not.

Both Calvin and Spurgeon recognized that God chose to ransom reprobate humans, not because reprobate humans merited the ransom, but solely because God chose to be gracious. Neither is in disagreement with one another on this issue.

Yes, I know that. One of them, however, is being consistent and the other is not. It seems like maybe you need to reread the OP.

Your assertion is odd to me. It seems you are attempting to create a conflict where none exists.

That's because you aren't reading my posts. Either that or you need to make the argument!

If I've set up a straw man, whether intentionally or through ignorance, then do something besides just make the assertion. MAKE THE ARGUMENT!!!! That's what we are all here for!

Clete

MennoSota · Oct 1, 2018

Clete said:
I, unlike most of the people around here, do not make naked assertions. I have quoted Calvin directly several times in this thread already. I've quoted him unequivocally stating that people are not condemned for any reason other than that God was pleased to condemn them. It's a rather common Calvinist belief actually.

What?

Just read the quotes and tell me if you agree with him or not!

On the contrary, I don't wonder about any such thing. I quote him directly and let his own words say what he believed. My question isn't about what Spurgeon believed but whether it was consistent with what Calvin taught and with the character of God and why or why not.

Yes, I know that. One of them, however, is being consistent and the other is not. It seems like maybe you need to reread the OP.

That's because you aren't reading my posts. Either that or you need to make the argument!

If I've set up a straw man, whether intentionally or through ignorance, then do something besides just make the assertion. MAKE THE ARGUMENT!!!! That's what we are all here for!

Clete

Why would Spurgeon need to be exactly consistent with Spurgeon? Did Billy Graham need to be exactly consistent with Charles Finney?
Calvinism does not align itself with Calvin...it aligns itself with scripture, in which Calvin, like Augustine, made some excellent observations. Calvin was not perfect. He struggled with some of the prophetic books (ie Ezekiel), but he admitted it and merely wrote down his observation.
Spurgeon was his own person. He was not required to be an exact mirror of Calvin, nor should one expect him to be.
It seems you are fixated upon the men and not the scripture they observed.
I note you have not addressed the open and obvious Pelagian who has engaged this conversation.

Clete · Oct 1, 2018

MennoSota said:
Is God obligated to ransom even one lawbreaker?
Is God unjust if he does not ransom a lawbreaker?
Is it unloving for God to execute justice on proven lawbreakers?

This argument presupposes free will!!!!

It presupposes that it was NOT predestined that the lawbreaker in question become a lawbreaker before he ever existed! It presupposes that he chose to become a lawbreaker, which in turn presupposes that he could have done otherwise (or else there would have been no choice made).

This is Spurgeon's position and is in direct conflict with Calvin's writings (i.e. Calvinism proper) and is, in fact, incompatible with the most basic presuppositions of the Calvinist system, which is why Calvin said what he said, by the way. You simply cannot have it both ways. People are not able to choose their actions in a world where every event was predestined to happen by God before anyone existed. You, and Spurgeon before you, each have one foot set about ankle deep in the Arminian's swimming pool here.

Clete

Jerry Shugart · Oct 1, 2018

MennoSota said:
All humans are fearfully and wonderfully made. That does not remove the curse of sin that transfers from Adam to us. Read Romans 5.

Let's look at the "bold" in this verse:

"For this cause, even as by one man sin entered into the world, and by sin death; and thus death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned" (Ro.5:12).

What kind of "death" happens when a person sins? It's not physical death is it? Of course not because it "is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment" (Heb.9:27).

The "death" has to be a spiritual death. And the following verse speaks of men who were alive physically but dead in another sense:

"And you did he make alive, when ye were dead through your trespasses and sins" (Eph.2:1).

All people do not die physically when they sin because death will come to all regardless of anyone's sins. Instead, all people die spiritually when they sin. Now let us look at the following verse again:

"For this cause, even as by one man sin entered into the world, and by sin death; and thus death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned" (Ro.5:12).

All people die spiritually when they sin so that can only mean that "all people" at one time or another were alive spiritually. After all, no one can die spiritually unless they are first alive spiritually. And the only way that "all people" can be alive spiritually is because "all people" emerge from the womb spiritually alive.

And that by itself defeats and destroys the theory of Original Sin.

Clete · Oct 1, 2018

MennoSota said:
Why would Spurgeon need to be exactly consistent with Spurgeon? Did Billy Graham need to be exactly consistent with Charles Finney?

I presume you meant, "Why would Spurgeon need to be exactly consistent with Calvin?"

The answer is that it isn't about being consistent with Calvin so much as it is about just being consistent - period. Calvin was, if nothing else, very consistent. Any rational worldview must be consistent with itself. You simply don't get to pick and choose which doctrines you're going to accept or reject based on what you happen to like or dislike. You don't get to believe that every event was immutably predestined by God before time began AND believe that people can choose their actions. I mean, I suppose one could do that, people can believe in anything they want but you don't get to do so and claim that you're being rational. And if you're fine with being irrational then what's the point of picking any one thing to believe in the first place? If someone wants to be irrational then they can believe that Unicorns come on Salvation Day and if you're lucky enough to touch one, you get to go to paradise and live with the aliens from Alpha Centuri.

Calvinism does not align itself with Calvin...it aligns itself with scripture, in which Calvin, like Augustine, made some excellent observations. Calvin was not perfect. He struggled with some of the prophetic books (ie Ezekiel), but he admitted it and merely wrote down his observation.

Of course! Look, do yourself a favor and assume that I know more about Calvinism than you do, okay? It'll save us a lot of time.

I have not quoted Calvin on his observations in an obscure passage in the book of Nahum. What I have quoted is NORMAL Calvinist doctrine. I even had a thread where I ask whether there was any Calvinist who rejected what Calvin said in any of these quotes. There was not one single Calvinist who disagreed with a syllable of what I quoted or would put the slightest sliver of light between what Calvin wrote and what they believed.

Not only is it normal Calvinist doctrine, it is consistent Calvinist doctrine. It is not one of Calvin's errors (according to Calvinists that is). If you accept the basic premisses of Calvinism then the things I've quoted Calvin saying follow rationally from those premises. (e.g. things like immutability, impassibility, "sovereignty", etc.)

Spurgeon was his own person. He was not required to be an exact mirror of Calvin, nor should one expect him to be.

It isn't about being actaly anything. Calvinism itself is an irrational system. It isn't possible to be perfectly consistent with it in the first place. The problem is that Spurgeon wasn't beling consistent with his own doctrine, a point I made pretty clear in the OP.

It seems you are fixated upon the men and not the scripture they observed.

That's because you aren't reading my posts, you're reading INTO them.

I note you have not addressed the open and obvious Pelagian who has engaged this conversation.

What?

I started this thread. I started the conversation. What are you taking about?

Cltee

Jerry Shugart · Oct 1, 2018

Clete said:
This argument presupposes free will!!!!

It presupposes that it was NOT predestined that the lawbreaker in question become a lawbreaker before he ever existed! It presupposes that he chose to become a lawbreaker, which in turn presupposes that he could have done otherwise (or else there would have been no choice made).

The Scriptures declare that people have the ability to keep the Lord's commandments and therefore people can chose their own actions:

"If thou shalt hearken unto the voice of the LORD thy God, to keep his commandments and his statutes which are written in this book of the law, and if thou turn unto the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul. For this commandment which I command thee this day, it is not hidden from thee, neither is it far off. It is not in heaven, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it? Neither is it beyond the sea, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go over the sea for us, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it? But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou may do it" (Deut.30:10-14).

Grosnick Marowbe · Oct 1, 2018

No one comes out of the womb 'Spiritually alive.' In order for someone to be 'Spiritually alive,' one must have the indwelling, sealing, and baptism into the 'Body of Christ.'(That process can only be done by the presence of the Holy Spirit.) In other words, to be Spiritually alive, one must have the Holy Spirit. That's how it works today in this 'Dispensation of Grace.'

Grosnick Marowbe · Oct 1, 2018

Clete said:
The answer is that it isn't about being consistent with Calvin so much as it is about just being consistent - period. Calvin was, if nothing else, very consistent. Any rational worldview must be consistent with itself. You simply don't get to pick and choose which doctrines you're going to accept or reject based on what you happen to like or dislike. You don't get to believe that every event was immutably predestined by God before time began AND believe that people can choose their actions. I mean, I suppose one could do that, people can believe in anything they want but you don't get to do so and claim that you're being rational. And if you're fine with being irrational

It isn't about being actaly anything. Calvinism itself is an irrational system. It isn't possible to be perfectly consistent with it in the first place.

That's because you aren't reading my posts, you're reading INTO them.

What?

I started this thread. I started the conversation. What are you taking about?

Cltee

I chose the parts that 'stuck out to me.' I have long believed that Calvinism is not logical. It not only changes the character of God, it also changes the Scriptures to fit the 'Calvinist belief SYSTEM.'

MennoSota · Oct 1, 2018

Clete said:
This argument presupposes free will!!!!

It presupposes that it was NOT predestined that the lawbreaker in question become a lawbreaker before he ever existed! It presupposes that he chose to become a lawbreaker, which in turn presupposes that he could have done otherwise (or else there would have been no choice made).

This is Spurgeon's position and is in direct conflict with Calvin's writings (i.e. Calvinism proper) and is, in fact, incompatible with the most basic presuppositions of the Calvinist system, which is why Calvin said what he said, by the way. You simply cannot have it both ways. People are not able to choose their actions in a world where every event was predestined to happen by God before anyone existed. You, and Spurgeon before you, each have one foot set about ankle deep in the Arminian's swimming pool here.

Clete

Clete said:
This argument presupposes free will!!!!

Not at all.

It presupposes that it was NOT predestined that the lawbreaker in question become a lawbreaker before he ever existed! It presupposes that he chose to become a lawbreaker, which in turn presupposes that he could have done otherwise (or else there would have been no choice made).

No. You are presenting a Pelagian argument. No human has ever accused Calvin or Spurgeon of teaching a Pelagian heresy.

This is Spurgeon's position and is in direct conflict with Calvin's writings (i.e. Calvinism proper) and is, in fact, incompatible with the most basic presuppositions of the Calvinist system, which is why Calvin said what he said, by the way.

No it's not Spurgeon's position. Spurgeon never taught Pelagian heresy. There are a number of your colleagues teaching Pelagian heresy, but Spurgeon was not one of them.

You simply cannot have it both ways. People are not able to choose their actions in a world where every event was predestined to happen by God before anyone existed.

You struggle with God allowing choices to be acted upon by his ordained will, yet these choices do not constitute free will. You seem to oppose God when He tells us that we are either slaves to sin or slaves to righteousness. Freedom is not a third option.

You, and Spurgeon before you, each have one foot set about ankle deep in the Arminian's swimming pool here.

No. You just have no clue regarding the Sovereign grace of God and therefore you struggle to comprehend what Spurgeon is talking about. You pick and choose a couple of quotes while missing the whole. It is a very common tactic, usually used by intra-biblical cult members.

MennoSota · Oct 1, 2018

Jerry Shugart said:
Let's look at the "bold" in this verse:

"For this cause, even as by one man sin entered into the world, and by sin death; and thus death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned" (Ro.5:12).

What kind of "death" happens when a person sins? It's not physical death is it? Of course not because it "is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment" (Heb.9:27).

The "death" has to be a spiritual death. And the following verse speaks of men who were alive physically but dead in another sense:

"And you did he make alive, when ye were dead through your trespasses and sins" (Eph.2:1).

All people do not die physically when they sin because death will come to all regardless of anyone's sins. Instead, all people die spiritually when they sin. Now let us look at the following verse again:

"For this cause, even as by one man sin entered into the world, and by sin death; and thus death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned" (Ro.5:12).

All people die spiritually when they sin so that can only mean that "all people" at one time or another were alive spiritually. After all, no one can die spiritually unless they are first alive spiritually. And the only way that "all people" can be alive spiritually is because "all people" emerge from the womb spiritually alive.

And that by itself defeats and destroys the theory of Original Sin.

You ignore the rest of Romans 5. Why is that? Oh...yeah... that's because it teaches original sin.

6 When we were utterly helpless, Christ came at just the right time and died for us sinners. 7 Now, most people would not be willing to die for an upright person, though someone might perhaps be willing to die for a person who is especially good. 8 But God showed his great love for us by sending Christ to die for us while we were still sinners.9 And since we have been made right in God’s sight by the blood of Christ, he will certainly save us from God’s condemnation.10 For since our friendship with God was restored by the death of his Son while we were still his enemies, we will certainly be saved through the life of his Son. 11 So now we can rejoice in our wonderful new relationship with God because our Lord Jesus Christ has made us friends of God.
12 When Adam sinned, sin entered the world. Adam’s sin brought death, so death spread to everyone, for everyone sinned. 13 Yes, people sinned even before the law was given. But it was not counted as sin because there was not yet any law to break. 14 Still, everyone died—from the time of Adam to the time of Moses—even those who did not disobey an explicit commandment of God, as Adam did. Now Adam is a symbol, a representation of Christ, who was yet to come. 15 But there is a great difference between Adam’s sin and God’s gracious gift. For the sin of this one man, Adam, brought death to many. But even greater is God’s wonderful grace and his gift of forgiveness to many through this other man, Jesus Christ.16 And the result of God’s gracious gift is very different from the result of that one man’s sin. For Adam’s sin led to condemnation, but God’s free gift leads to our being made right with God, even though we are guilty of many sins. 17 For the sin of this one man, Adam, caused death to rule over many. But even greater is God’s wonderful grace and his gift of righteousness, for all who receive it will live in triumph over sin and death through this one man, Jesus Christ.

18 Yes, Adam’s one sin brings condemnation for everyone, but Christ’s one act of righteousness brings a right relationship with God and new life for everyone. 19 Because one person disobeyed God, many became sinners. But because one other person obeyed God, many will be made righteous.

MennoSota · Oct 1, 2018

Clete said:
I presume you meant, "Why would Spurgeon need to be exactly consistent with Calvin?"

The answer is that it isn't about being consistent with Calvin so much as it is about just being consistent - period. Calvin was, if nothing else, very consistent. Any rational worldview must be consistent with itself. You simply don't get to pick and choose which doctrines you're going to accept or reject based on what you happen to like or dislike. You don't get to believe that every event was immutably predestined by God before time began AND believe that people can choose their actions. I mean, I suppose one could do that, people can believe in anything they want but you don't get to do so and claim that you're being rational. And if you're fine with being irrational then what's the point of picking any one thing to believe in the first place? If someone wants to be irrational then they can believe that Unicorns come on Salvation Day and if you're lucky enough to touch one, you get to go to paradise and live with the aliens from Alpha Century.

Of course! Look, do yourself a favor and assume that I know more about Calvinism than you do, okay? It'll save us a lot of time.

I have not quoted Calvin on his observations in an obscure passage in the book of Nahum. What I have quoted is NORMAL Calvinist doctrine. I even had a thread where I ask whether there was any Calvinist who rejected what Calvin said in any of these quotes. There was not one single Calvinist who disagreed with a syllable of what I quoted or would put the slightest sliver of light between what Calvin wrote and what they believed.

Not only is it normal Calvinist doctrine, it is consistent Calvinist doctrine. It is not one of Calvin's errors (according to Calvinists that is). If you accept the basic premisses of Calvinism then the things I've quoted Calvin saying follow rationally from those premises. (e.g. things like immutability, impassibility, "sovereignty", etc.)

It isn't about being actaly anything. Calvinism itself is an irrational system. It isn't possible to be perfectly consistent with it in the first place. The problem is that Spurgeon wasn't beling consistent with his own doctrine, a point I made pretty clear in the OP.

That's because you aren't reading my posts, you're reading INTO them.

What?

I started this thread. I started the conversation. What are you taking about?

Cltee

There is no contradiction between predestination and God ordaining the choices humans make every day, indeed every moment of the day. This seems to perplex you greatly in that you cannot wrap your head around it.
You make a false equivalency that you, making a decision, equals free will.
Again, I will ask you, what does God mean when He says you are either a slave to sin or a slave to righteousness?

Jerry Shugart · Oct 1, 2018

MennoSota said:
You ignore the rest of Romans 5. Why is that? Oh...yeah... that's because it teaches original sin.

Of course you fail to address what I said about Romans 5:12. And please tell me why the rest of Romans 5 proves that what I said about all people dying spiritually when they sin means that all people must first be alive spiritually.

You can start by answering a question. What kind of "death" do you think Paul is speaking about at Romans 5:12 and what evidence can you give to support your answer?

Grosnick Marowbe · Oct 1, 2018

Do Calvinists consider Noah and his family to be the ONLY members of the Elect at that particular period of time? Is that why God destroyed the rest of humanity and preserved only Noah and his family?

MennoSota · Oct 1, 2018

Jerry Shugart said:
Of course you fail to address what I said about Romans 5:12. And please tell me why the rest of Romans 5 proves that what I said about all people dying spiritually when they sin means that all people must first be alive spiritually.

You can start by answering a question. What kind of "death" do you think Paul is speaking about at Romans 5:12 and what evidence can you give to support your answer?

The rest of the passage answers your question. Because of Adam we die both spiritually and physically.

I will let the passage itself support my answer.

12 When Adam sinned, sin entered the world. Adam’s sin brought death, so death spread to everyone, for everyone sinned. 13 Yes, people sinned even before the law was given. But it was not counted as sin because there was not yet any law to break. 14 Still, everyone died—from the time of Adam to the time of Moses—even those who did not disobey an explicit commandment of God, as Adam did. Now Adam is a symbol, a representation of Christ, who was yet to come. 15 But there is a great difference between Adam’s sin and God’s gracious gift. For the sin of this one man, Adam, brought death to many. But even greater is God’s wonderful grace and his gift of forgiveness to many through this other man, Jesus Christ.16 And the result of God’s gracious gift is very different from the result of that one man’s sin. For Adam’s sin led to condemnation, but God’s free gift leads to our being made right with God, even though we are guilty of many sins. 17 For the sin of this one man, Adam, caused death to rule over many. But even greater is God’s wonderful grace and his gift of righteousness, for all who receive it will live in triumph over sin and death through this one man, Jesus Christ.

18 Yes, Adam’s one sin brings condemnation for everyone, but Christ’s one act of righteousness brings a right relationship with God and new life for everyone. 19 Because one person disobeyed God, many became sinners. But because one other person obeyed God, many will be made righteous.

ttruscott · Oct 1, 2018

MennoSota said:
You wrote: "I know that if HE can save someone, His love will save them."
You must, therefore consider God to be extremely weak because many, many people die in their sins, unsaved.

HIS love cannot save them. By choosing to sin the unforgivable sin they are outside of HIS loving mercy.

Jesus tells us that all whom God gives him will be saved. Do you declare that all whom God does not save is because God could not save them?

Yes.

How is it that you call God unloving because God does not save everyone?

I do not!

I call the Calvinist doctrine that HE could have elected everyone for no reason as unloving to those HE did not elect for no reason. I know HE is loving so if HE could have saved everyone HE would have as per 1 Timothy 2:4-6. HIS choice to pass over some for election was not unloving as Calvinism suggests but was based upon the condition, the reason, that they chose to reject HIM as an evil person, a false god and a liar, thus sinning the unforgivable sin and putting themselves outside of HIS love and HIS mercy.

ttruscott · Oct 1, 2018

Grosnick Marowbe said:
Do Calvinists consider Noah and his family to be the ONLY members of the Elect at that particular period of time? Is that why God destroyed the rest of humanity and preserved only Noah and his family?

Mmmmm, I don't think so. Elect people are born to die too, once HIS promise of election is fulfilled in them.

Unconditional Election vs. Total Depravity

New member

Well-known member

New member

New member

Truth Smacker

New member

Truth Smacker

Well-known member

Truth Smacker

Well-known member

New member

New member

New member

New member

New member

Well-known member

New member

New member

Well-known member

Well-known member