Calvinism Vs Arminian

[MoreCoffee]

“Jesus died for only the elect and no others."
John 10:14-15

"God causes most to go to Hell."
Matthew 7:13-23

"God's grace is irresistible."
John 6:44-45

"One who has GENUINE faith at any point in their life will be saved no matter what."
John 10:26-30

IF anyone actually reads the verses, they see how the dogmas of TULIP are not taught in Scripture.

What atpollard's post does is show that MennoSota is far from being alone in defending TULIP.

What atpollard's post does not do is disprove TULIP.

Looking at the first in atpollard's list we have:

(John 10:7-18 [ESV2011])
[7] So Jesus again said to them, Truly, truly, I say to you, I am the door of the sheep. [8] All who came before me are thieves and robbers, but the sheep did not listen to them. [9] I am the door. If anyone enters by me, he will be saved and will go in and out and find pasture. [10] The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy. I came that they may have life and have it abundantly. [11] I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep. [12] He who is a hired hand and not a shepherd, who does not own the sheep, sees the wolf coming and leaves the sheep and flees, and the wolf snatches them and scatters them. [13] He flees because he is a hired hand and cares nothing for the sheep. [14] I am the good shepherd. I know my own and my own know me, [15] just as the Father knows me and I know the Father; and I lay down my life for the sheep. [16] And I have other sheep that are not of this fold. I must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice. So there will be one flock, one shepherd. [17] For this reason the Father loves me, because I lay down my life that I may take it up again. [18] No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again. This charge I have received from my Father. ​

atpollard claims that the underlined verses teach that Jesus died for only the elect and no others. Is that what they teach?

Presbyterian commentator, Albert Barnes, writes:

Verse 14. Know my sheep. Know my people, or my church. The word know here is used in the sense of affectionate regard or love. It implies such a knowledge of their wants, their dangers, and their characters, as to result in a deep interest in their welfare. Thus the word "knoweth," in Jn 10:15, is in Jn 10:17 explained by the word "loveth." Jesus knows the hearts, the dangers, and the wants of his people, and his kindness as their shepherd prompts him to defend and aid them.

Am known of mine. That is, he is known and loved as their Saviour and Friend. They have seen their sins, and dangers, and wants; they have felt their need of a Saviour; they have come to him, and they have found him and his doctrines to be such as they need, and they have loved him. And as a flock follows and obeys its kind shepherd, so they follow and obey him who leads them beside the still waters, and makes them to lie down in green pastures.

(l) "know my sheep" 2Ti 2:19 (m) "and am known of mine" 1Jn 5:20​

If Albert Barnes is correct then the verses do not make any comment about who is among the elect and for whom Christ's crucifixion is effective for salvation. Rather it is an indication of Christ's affection for his people and their affection for him.

I'd ask atpollard to explain why he sees Limited atonement in the passage and what sources he has that agree with him. I also ask why it is important for a Christian to believe the doctrine of Limited atonement?

 

[atpollard]

What atpollard's post does is show that MennoSota is far from being alone in defending TULIP.

What atpollard's post does not do is disprove TULIP.

Looking at the first in atpollard's list we have:

(John 10:7-18 [ESV2011])
[7] So Jesus again said to them, Truly, truly, I say to you, I am the door of the sheep. [8] All who came before me are thieves and robbers, but the sheep did not listen to them. [9] I am the door. If anyone enters by me, he will be saved and will go in and out and find pasture. [10] The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy. I came that they may have life and have it abundantly. [11] I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep. [12] He who is a hired hand and not a shepherd, who does not own the sheep, sees the wolf coming and leaves the sheep and flees, and the wolf snatches them and scatters them. [13] He flees because he is a hired hand and cares nothing for the sheep. [14] I am the good shepherd. I know my own and my own know me, [15] just as the Father knows me and I know the Father; and I lay down my life for the sheep. [16] And I have other sheep that are not of this fold. I must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice. So there will be one flock, one shepherd. [17] For this reason the Father loves me, because I lay down my life that I may take it up again. [18] No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again. This charge I have received from my Father. ​

atpollard claims that the underlined verses teach that Jesus died for only the elect and no others. Is that what they teach?

Presbyterian commentator, Albert Barnes, writes:

Verse 14. Know my sheep. Know my people, or my church. The word know here is used in the sense of affectionate regard or love. It implies such a knowledge of their wants, their dangers, and their characters, as to result in a deep interest in their welfare. Thus the word "knoweth," in Jn 10:15, is in Jn 10:17 explained by the word "loveth." Jesus knows the hearts, the dangers, and the wants of his people, and his kindness as their shepherd prompts him to defend and aid them.

Am known of mine. That is, he is known and loved as their Saviour and Friend. They have seen their sins, and dangers, and wants; they have felt their need of a Saviour; they have come to him, and they have found him and his doctrines to be such as they need, and they have loved him. And as a flock follows and obeys its kind shepherd, so they follow and obey him who leads them beside the still waters, and makes them to lie down in green pastures.

(l) "know my sheep" 2Ti 2:19 (m) "and am known of mine" 1Jn 5:20​

If Albert Barnes is correct then the verses do not make any comment about who is among the elect and for whom Christ's crucifixion is effective for salvation. Rather it is an indication of Christ's affection for his people and their affection for him.

I'd ask atpollard to explain why he sees Limited atonement in the passage and what sources he has that agree with him. I also ask why it is important for a Christian to believe the doctrine of Limited atonement?

“I lay down my life for the sheep.” (John 10:15)

For whom did Jesus say He laid down his life?

 

[MoreCoffee]

“I lay down my life for the sheep.” (John 10:15)

For whom did Jesus say He laid down his life?

The sheep. But surely you do not mean for me to say merely what Jesus said. If I do that only then there is no proof for the doctrine that you want to prove.

 

[Josiah]

“I lay down my life for the sheep.” (John 10:15)

For whom did Jesus say He laid down his life?

The sheep. No one disputes that.

But as you note, the dogma of the "L" of TULIP is thus entirely, wholly, completely MISSING. There's no "ONLY." And "ONLY" is the dogma.

 

[atpollard]

The sheep. But surely you do not mean for me to say merely what Jesus said. If I do that only then there is no proof for the doctrine that you want to prove.

Sorry, I have no desire to prove anything. I simply answered questions asked and pointed to where you had overlooked the answer to the question asked.
The Bible says what it says. The doctrine is what it is. I am powerless to change either.

I happen to believe what so called “TULIP” teaches is true.

Men are “Totatally corrupted” and not still “partially sanctified” prior to salvation.
Men are “Unconditionally” saved by God and not due to some “innate merit” in the individual.
Jesus death was “Limited” to saving His sheep, He did not come to die for the “goats”.
Those whom the Father chooses are “Irresistably” drawn to Jesus, no man can thwart the will of God.
Those sealed with the Holy Spirit as a deposit guaranteeing their inheritance will “Persevere” to the end; none will slip from the hand of God and Jesus WILL raise them on the last day as he promised.

So, yes, I believe that T.U.L.I.P. is both true and biblical.
However, I am not God, so working out your salvation is between you and God, not between you and me.
Thus I need to prove nothing to anyone.

God Bless you on your journey.

 

[Josiah]

Regarding the dogma invented by a tiny few extreme Calvinists in the late 16th Century, that Jesus died ONLY, EXCLUSIVELY, SOLELY, JUST for a LIMITED few (and thus odds are, not you or me)....

Read the following....

1 John 2:2

Isaiah 53:6

Luke 19:10

2 Corinthians 5:14-15

Hebrews 2:9

John 1:29

1 John 4:14

John 4:42

1 Timothy 2:6

John 3:14-16 (see with Numbers 21 where the staff is for ALL who look upon it)

and so much more...

Contrast with the number of verses that state, "Jesus died for ONLY a few" (which are none).

 

[atpollard]

The sheep. No one disputes that.

But as you note, the dogma of the "L" of TULIP is thus entirely, wholly, completely MISSING. There's no "ONLY." And "ONLY" is the dogma.

I could go through John 10 verse by verse and break it all down for you, and I would gladly invest the time and effort if I thought for a moment that you would bother reading it and responding with something other than a diatribe about “a few radical 16th Century” ... something or other. However, we both know that you are not here for dialog.

That being the case, I will simply offer one thought ... the Good Shepherd protects his Father’s sheep, not the “goats” that belong to another herd that is not his. See John 10:26 and reread the whole chapter in that light.

(... or don’t.)

 

[atpollard]

Regarding the dogma invented by a tiny few extreme Calvinists in the late 16th Century, that Jesus died ONLY, EXCLUSIVELY, SOLELY, JUST for a LIMITED few (and thus odds are, not you or me)....

Read the following....

1 John 2:2

Isaiah 53:6

Luke 19:10

2 Corinthians 5:14-15

Hebrews 2:9

John 1:29

1 John 4:14

John 4:42

1 Timothy 2:6

John 3:14-16 (see with Numbers 21 where the staff is for ALL who look upon it)

and so much more...

Contrast with the number of verses that state, "Jesus died for ONLY a few" (which are none).

No thank you.
You requested a verse that stated a specific doctrine, so I provided what you requested.
Shall we discuss whose sheep a shepherd protects, his sheep or the sheep (goats) of another owner’s flock?
You have missed the whole analogy.

 

[Josiah]

I happen to believe what so called “TULIP” teaches is true.

Men are “Unconditionally” saved by God and not due to some “innate merit” in the individual.

Agreed, but that's not the "U". The U is that God desires and causes most to go to hell. Predestination (to cause, to be solely responsible for, to make happen) is directly to ALL, to the saved and the unsaved.

Jesus death was “Limited” to saving His sheep, He did not come to die for the “goats”

A point never taught in Scripture and directly, verbatim contradictory to many Scriptures.

Those whom the Father chooses are “Irresistably” drawn to Jesus

... another point entirely missing in Scripture, something the Bible never remotely says.

Those sealed with the Holy Spirit as a deposit guaranteeing their inheritance will “Persevere” to the end; none will slip from the hand of God and Jesus WILL raise them on the last day as he promised.

A point that is contradicted by a great many Scriptures.




The basis here is sound.... monergism. But what we find from these tiny minority of extremist Calvinists in the late 16th Century is a tidal wave of speculation that simply takes things WAY too far, either with zero substantiation from Scripture or often in direct, verbatim contradiction of such. It's a prime example of not stopping where God does, of not knowing when to stop with the philosophical speculation. Odd... because Calvinism is born of a protest to scholasticism in Catholicism, of the RCC appointing itself to ask itself questions and itself answer them in a way that "makes sense" to it itself - REGARDLESS of what Scripture says and equally what it does not say. And yet, many conclude that hyper-Calvinism ends up doing EXACTLY what Calvinism originally protested. IMO, Catholicism's invention of Purgatory and Transubstantiation are far, far "milder" examples of such speculative extension and eisegesis than what we see in much of TULIP.


I realize, if we stick with Scripture, with solid ecumenical Tradition, with the Councils - we end up with some "loose ends" and at times a lack of clear answers to questions some might appoint themselves to ask. IMO, that's our problem, not Gods. No one may be smarter than God or the corrector of God or the "answer man" for God. We may not have all the "dots" or information.... our puny, fallen, sinful, human brains may not be able to totally wrap around all the things of God. IMO, speculations invented late by one denomination... are just that. And when they directly contradict Scripture) as some of TULIP does, that's a problem. And when they are unsupported by Scripture, that too is a problem.

I like Calvinism. I like the zeal for monergism. I like the concern for theology. But I think there is something at work very much like Catholic Scholasticism... with new divisive dogma invented, purely because they seem to "make sense" to the inventors in that denomination, irregardless of what Scripture actually states or what Christianity has embraced.






.

 

[MennoSota]

@Andrew wrote:
Are the goats believers/atoned for? No they are rejectors.

Your statement here is exactly what I say. Jesus atonement is limited to the sheep, not to the goats.
The sheep and the goats have been known by God from before the foundation of the world. It is not that all humans are atoned for...but time and experience removes the atonement for those who never believed. No. If that were true then then Jesus sacrifice was in vain and failed to accomplish the will of God. (The mis-quoted 1Peter 3:9, "God is not willing that all should perish", becomes a failure of God's will. But, God's will never fails.) Instead, it is biblically accurate to state that Jesus atoned for the sheep and not for the goats, just as you correctly stated.

 

[Josiah]

Jesus atonement is limited to the sheep

But isn't it interesting, you can't find a single verse in Scripture that REMOTELY says that.

You are simply imposing one of the silliest, most illogical arguments ever used: That if something is true in one case, ERGO it CANNOT be true in any other. So, by your apologetic, because I'm an American Citizen you can't be. Because I'm a male, you cannot be.

Yes, you can find a verse that says Jesus died for His sheep. No Christian denies that. But the "L" is not that, at all. The "U" of TULIP is that Jesus died ONLY, EXCLUSIVELY, SOLELY, JUST for that limited minority. And you can't find any verse in Scripture, you can't find any Tradition (outside a small minority in your own singular denomination), you can't find any Ecumenical Council, you can'd find anything outside your own late denominational tradition that says that.

And you simply must ignore or twist 180 degrees a long, long list of Scriptures that directly, verbatim, flat-out contradict this invention of a tiny few extreme Calvinists in the late 16th Century, this "ONLY a limited few."




1 John 2:2

Isaiah 53:6

Luke 19:10

2 Corinthians 5:14-15

Hebrews 2:9

John 1:29

1 John 4:14

John 4:42

1 Timothy 2:6

John 3:14-16 (see with Numbers 21 where the staff is for ALL who look upon it)

and so much more...




.

 

[Josiah]

You requested a verse that stated a specific doctrine, so I provided what you requested.

... and friend, what is undeniable and unavoidable, none of them state the dogma you suggest. I think that was very obvious. Frankly, honestly, I was surprised that you suggested them.


These are tight, closed, interconnected "logical" constructs.... a very radical construction of a few CORRECT things pushed to what seems to a very tiny minority of Christians to be "the logical conclusion." And the apologetic, I've found, is simply closed ("A" is right because B is right".... "B is right because A is right" ".... "C is right because A and B are right") - some of the worse logic ever, lol. It's just radical, extreme speculation. Now, a lot of Calvinists water all this WAY down into something probably acceptable by simply dailing all this way back to the starting point (and this TULIP looses all it's points).


I'm more understanding than you might think. This often happens. It did in Catholicism (and it's what the Protestants protested).... There were several radical outgrowths of Lutheranism, too. Luther and Calvin both decried over-reaching inventions. IMO, TULIP is simply one of these.... and virtually every Calvinist personally known to me quickly admits this. Calvinism is something I hold in high regard.... especially its passionate embrace of monergism. But TULIP simply "dumps" Sola Gratia- Solus Christus - Sola Fide... it renders the divine gift of faith largely irrelevant... it creates a terrible God who is solely at fault for every sin, wrong and person in hell... it means no one can even guess if they are saved.... it means no one can tell anyone (least of all self) that they are forgiven or that Jesus is their Savior. Yes, I know well, Calvinist wiggle their best to avoid these but they are unavoidable. It's not only unbiblical (or at some points, simply abiblical) and untraditional - but makes all Christianity totally uncertain. What I'm SURE these tiny number of latter-day Calvinists MEANT to do in repudiating radical Arminianism actually ended up doing the opposite.


Theology requires humility.... And fortunately, that's wonderfully common place in most of Calvinism, which is why I think SO many of them reject the radical speculations of TULIP. Why most are happy to stay with Scripture and historic, orthodox, biblical Christianity. I like those Calvinists who still hold to Sola Gratia - Solus Christus - Sola Fide and to monergism, rather than these radical speculations CLAIMED to be "logical" in view of the other radical speculations. For people who stress the soverignty of God more than any other, they SHOULD bow before Him - rather than trying SO hard to correct Scripture, "connect dots" God left unconnected, and "finish" His teachings by taking them where God never did.



- Josiah




.

 

[Andrew]

Your statement here is exactly what I say. Jesus atonement is limited to the sheep, not to the goats.
The sheep and the goats have been known by God from before the foundation of the world. It is not that all humans are atoned for...but time and experience removes the atonement for those who never believed. No. If that were true then then Jesus sacrifice was in vain and failed to accomplish the will of God. (The mis-quoted 1Peter 3:9, "God is not willing that all should perish", becomes a failure of God's will. But, God's will never fails.) Instead, it is biblically accurate to state that Jesus atoned for the sheep and not for the goats, just as you correctly stated.

I never disagreed with this. You denied that we ever agreed on this earlier but let's just let that slide..
The sheep and the goat are complete opposites of each other.. the elect verses the damned...
This world is not our friend, how God chooses to save the world is a complete mystery to many, but 'who' God chooses is a matter of faith, thus preach to all and be fruitful!

 

[MoreCoffee]

Sorry, I have no desire to prove anything. I simply answered questions asked and pointed to where you had overlooked the answer to the question asked.
The Bible says what it says. The doctrine is what it is. I am powerless to change either.

I believe that it may have been Josiah who asked for verses.

I happen to believe what so called “TULIP” teaches is true.

Yes, that is evident and I thought it was helpful to know because Josiah appears to think TULIP is an abberation accepted by a tiny minority of Calvinist Christians. I do not share his point of view about that.

Men are “Totatally corrupted” and not still “partially sanctified” prior to salvation.
Men are “Unconditionally” saved by God and not due to some “innate merit” in the individual.
Jesus death was “Limited” to saving His sheep, He did not come to die for the “goats”.
Those whom the Father chooses are “Irresistably” drawn to Jesus, no man can thwart the will of God.
Those sealed with the Holy Spirit as a deposit guaranteeing their inheritance will “Persevere” to the end; none will slip from the hand of God and Jesus WILL raise them on the last day as he promised.

So, yes, I believe that T.U.L.I.P. is both true and biblical.
However, I am not God, so working out your salvation is between you and God, not between you and me.
Thus I need to prove nothing to anyone.

Fair enough.

God Bless you on your journey.

Thank you. God bless you too atpollard.

 

[atpollard]

But isn't it interesting, you can't find a single verse in Scripture that REMOTELY says that.

Actually I can, but I find it fascinating that you obsess over the least relevant point of refutation of the 5 Remonstrances of Arminianism.
Ultimately, Jesus died for whomever GOD says He died for. We are powerless to add or subtract from such a decision.

No one here is arguing for Universal Salvation because “ALL SINS WERE FORGIVEN ON THE CROSS”, so everyone here believes that the forgiveness of Sin is SOMEHOW “Limited”. We simply disagree on the source of the limitation.

You believe that God punishes the same sin TWICE for sinners, first in Christ on the Cross and then on the Sinner in Hell.
Calvinists believe that God punishes every sin only ONCE ... either in Christ on the Cross (for those destined for eternal life) or on the Sinner in Hell (for those destined for the lake of fire).

 

[atpollard]

The "U" of TULIP is that Jesus died ONLY, EXCLUSIVELY, SOLELY, JUST for that limited minority.

Sorry, that is not what UNCONDITIONAL ELECTION is about at all. It means that God choose us to be saved [in the Golden Chain] for reasons known only to God and having nothing to do with any innate merit in us. We were not chosen for salvation because we deserved it.

That is what the U is about and stands in direct contrast with CONDITIONAL ELECTION.

And you simply must ignore or twist 180 degrees a long, long list of Scriptures that directly, verbatim, flat-out contradict this invention of a tiny few extreme Calvinists in the late 16th Century, this "ONLY a limited few."

1 John 2:2

I’ve neither the time nor interest for a LONG LIST of scripture, but let’s take a peek at just your first example.

1 John 2:1-2
[1Jo 2:1-2 NASB] 1 My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous; 2 and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for [those of] the whole world.

A. Looking at the whole paragraph rather than just one sentence fragment, John is addressing his comments to “my little children” and includes himself (‘we’ and ‘our’) among the listeners. It is addressed to BELIEVERS and it is about BELIEVERS.

B. “Propitiation” = G2434 = from hilasmos = Propitiation means “the removal of wrath by the offering of a gift” ( International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, 1986, “Propitiation”) ... so Jesus himself is the propitiation that removes the wrath of God from us.

C. If the wrath of God has been removed from each and every individual man, woman and child (as you are advocating by offering this as a refutation of Limited Atonement), then is each and every individual man, woman and child saved (one of ‘us’ as John describes it) for whom Jesus stands to make intercession before God? Why or why not?

D. How can Universalism then be avoided as the message of this verse?

 

[Josiah]

Sorry, that is not what UNCONDITIONAL ELECTION is about at all. It means that God choose us to be saved [in the Golden Chain] for reasons known only to God and having nothing to do with any innate merit in us. We were not chosen for salvation because we deserved it.

Of course, that's fine. It's just not predestination.

It's Lutherans (and most Calvinists, Anglicans and even OFFICIALLY Catholics) who teach God's unconditional ELECTION of the SAVED. And for 400+ years, extreme Calvinists have pointed to the "U" to note their protest: "God is soveriegn, and God CAUSES most to go to hell and some to go to heaven."

Remember: Predestination = to CAUSE, to make happen. It doesn't mean "foreknowledge" and it doesn't mean "standing back and doing nothing." If God predestines ALL - and that means most to go to hell (and that IS what the U is about), then God CAUSES it and is solely responsible for most being in hell. Most Calvinists, in my experience, just repudiate the U entirely (and take the Lutheran position) OR change the U to say "God predestines those who end up in heaven AND equally "passes over" the majority - not CAUSING them to go to hell but not giving them faith." Interesting but then they are repudiating the U as well since "passing over" is not predestination and the U is predestination of ALL - most to hell, some to heaven.




TULIP is a radical invention of a few latter-day extreme Calvinists, in a point-by-point repudiation of an equally radical invention of a few latter-day extreme Arminianists. Both are tight, interconnected creations said to be "logical" (IF all the points are true!) but clearly are not biblical or traditional. The whole construct BEGINS with truth... but then that's twisted, pushed to extremes that end up being new inventions that are either abiblical (entirely without substantiation from Scripture or anything else for that matter) or verbatim, flat-out in direct contradiction of Scripture.

I’ve neither the time nor interest for a LONG LIST of scripture

Interesting, IMO, to see the violence done to very clear Scripture..... I think I might have more openness IF there was just one Scripture, maybe 2, that flat-out contradicted this new dogma. But the reality, friend, is that over and over and over and over again, in verse after verse, all over the NT, we find the clear teaching that Jesus died for all. And what don't we EVER find? Not once? Not ever? ANYTHING that says Jesus died ONLY for the church (and that "ONLY" is the entirety of this new dogma).

As for your "interpretation" I note for you as I did for MennoSota, you have to change the words to even begin to make the spin you do. Isn't that every thing what Protestantism protested in Catholicism? But subjection of Scripture to the invented dogmas of Catholic Scholasticism, the clear subjection of Scripture to the "logical" inventions of that one denomination?

B. “Propitiation” = G2434 = from hilasmos = Propitiation means “the removal of wrath by the offering of a gift” ( International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, 1986, “Propitiation”) ... so Jesus himself is the propitiation that removes the wrath of God from us.

C. If the wrath of God has been removed from each and every individual man, woman and child (as you are advocating by offering this as a refutation of Limited Atonement), then is each and every individual man, woman and child saved (one of ‘us’ as John describes it) for whom Jesus stands to make intercession before God? Why or why not?


D. How can Universalism then be avoided as the message of this verse?

.... this is always central to the apologetics of radical Calvinism, this absolute elimination of faith as having any relevance to justification; it's just entirely deleted.


You probably know that Universalism is an out-growth of radical Calvinism. If you visit New England for example, you will find many Universalist churches existing to this day.... and a little investigation will discover they all began as radical Calvinist churches - including the most famous Universalist Church in the USA, in Plymouth MASS, the one founded by the Pilgrims. WHY? Because of the point you are making: the absolute deleting of faith from justification. It's just most Calvinists discovered that the Bible contradicts the "L" and since they deleted faith, they were left with universalism.


Friend, this is probably central to TULIP's disagreement with historic, orthodox Christianity and probably 99% of Christians today (and every Calvinists personally known to me).... I don't eliminate faith. I hold to Sola Gratia - Solus Christus - Sola Fide. I hold to John 3:16. The reason some go to heaven is the presence of faith. This is why until some latter-day Calvinists, "Election" was connected to faith. And why the Bible calls us to faith, not calls on Jesus to be less stingy, less limited. Why doesn't the work of Jesus benefit all? Simple. Not all have faith. Faith is what apprehends/embraces/trusts/relies on what Christ did - connects it with the individual - and thus benefits from it. Now, the error of the Arminianists is they credited self with the existence of such faith.... the equal error of TULIP is they eliminated faith entirely and make Jesus' Cross the reason. Both are illogical and unbiblical.


Your "why" questions disappear the moment you stop deleting faith.



I hope that helps.



- Josiah




.

 

[psalms 91]

Therein lies my problem with this theology (Bad in my opinion). God causes people to go to hell, I dont think so, it is our individual choices that cause that not God

 

[Andrew]

Therein lies my problem with this theology (Bad in my opinion). God causes people to go to hell, I dont think so, it is our individual choices that cause that not God

Right? Not only that but God made Hitler do what he did, even worse God causes the devil to do what he does because as Menno puts it... he is Sovereign over ALL his creation.. none are excluded.

 

[MennoSota]

Therein lies my problem with this theology (Bad in my opinion). God causes people to go to hell, I dont think so, it is our individual choices that cause that not God

Josiah wrote:

And for 400+ years, extreme Calvinists have pointed to the "U" to note their protest: "God is soveriegn, and God CAUSES most to go to hell and some to go to heaven."

Of course, Josiah has uttered a completely false statement and you have bought it as truth.
How did God cause humans to sin and break covenant with God and thus send people to hell? Please, either you or [MENTION=13]Josiah[/MENTION], quote a Calvinist who says that God causes humans to go to hell. You won't find Sproul, Piper, MacArthur, Moehler, Spurgeon or any actual Calvinist who says what Josiah claims.
What we have here is Josiah being purposefully false in an attempt to avoid the conflict he embraces between unconditional atonement and the obvious connection of universal salvation. The two are married, but you and Josiah deny the marriage by claiming a double jeopardy by God himself.