If salvation is predetermined, why pray for the salvation of others?

Theo1689

Well-known member
That’s because it goes over your head. I may not have the knowledge some other calvinists do here on CARM but I believe I do just fine.
I find it difficult to debate with you because you don’t understand.

I love how non-Calvinists, especially those antagonistic to our theology, think they can presume to tell Calvinists that they don't adequately undrestand Calvinism.

When the antagonistic non-Calvinist constantly MISREPRESENTS Calvinism, they are testifying that THEY are the ones who don't understand Calvinism.
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
When I ask you provide evidence from Calvinists you say you're not here to defend Calvinism.

I have NEVER said "I'm not here to defend Calvinism".
That's you are UNABLE to quote me saying it.

I said earlier that I'm not here to defend "John Calvin".

"John Calvin" is a DIFFERENT entity than "Calvinism".

When I ask you for Scripture you reference Calvinism.

No, when you ask for Scripture, I give you SCRIPTURE.
You simply label Scripture "Calvinism" as a way of rejecting the Scriptures you don't like.
 

Carbon

Well-known member
I love how non-Calvinists, especially those antagonistic to our theology, think they can presume to tell Calvinists that they don't adequately undrestand Calvinism.

When the antagonistic non-Calvinist constantly MISREPRESENTS Calvinism, they are testifying that THEY are the ones who don't understand Calvinism.
Yep, it’s simply amazing.
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
Theo1689 said:
It is just as clear to me that "all men" means "all KINDS/GROUPS of men".
It would be interesting to have you prove this.

I absolutely love the blatant double standard here.
The other poster can say, "it is clear to me that 'all men' means 'all individuals'", but he doesn't have to actually PROVE it, he only has to assert it.

But when I say the same thing from the other side, suddenly I'M the one with the burden of proof. This is what we always see in heretics. They never have to prove their view, but you have to blindly accept it. If you don't accept their unproven claim, YOU have to disprove it.

This is called, "shifting the burden of proof".
And it is fallacious.

Non-Calvinists are the ones proclaiming their proof-texts saying "all men" or "world" mean "every single individual". If they are actually "proof-texts", then that means you have to PROVE that only your interpretation is the correct one, and that other interpretations are impossible.

But nobody has ever been able to do that.

I've been watching the Kyle Rittenhouse trial, and IMO it's an absolute trainwreck. The prosecuting attorney is incompetent, and he's corrupt (he attempted to tamper with one of the witnesses). And one of the prosecution witnesses basically proved Kyle innocent. Okay.

The defense was talking with the coroner and having him agree that the evidence was "consistent" with their understanding of the incident which made Kyle not guilty. The prosecution came back and confirmed with the coroner that their understanding that made Kyle guilty was also "consistent" with the evidence.

But the prosecution can't simply say their view is "consistent" with the evidence.
They have to present a COMPELLING case to show that the defense's view is NOT possible, under a reasonable doubt.

That is EXACTLY what non-Calvinists are doing here. They are claiming that their view is "consistent" with Scripture, but they are unable to demonstrate that their view is the ONLY consistent view. And that is insufficient to convince anyone.

If you want to see evidence that "all men" or "world" does NOT necessarily mean "every single individual", I would point to a few instances off the top of my head. I'm sure given some more time, I could think of more, but right off the bat:

1) John 3:16, "God so loved the world", but He showed His love for the "world" by saving only those who believe, and condemning everyone else who made the wrong "choice". If giving eternal torment to someone you "love", just for making one bad decision, is still "love", that makes ZERO sense to me. If we applied that same scenario to a human being, everyone would agree the person was evil.

2) 2 Pet. 3:9 - The context is "beloved" (v. 8) and "us-ward" (v.9). That means "all" has been LIMITED in scope to the particular group under discussion. Ignoring the context and scope, every time you come across the word, "all" is NOT how language works.

3) John 6:44 - non-Calvinists like to link this to John 12:32, which is a completely DIFFERENT context. But even if you linked them, if God TRULY "drew" every single individual, it would be ridiculous to characterize this in the negative, "NO MAN can come to me...". Further, John 6:44 teaches that those who are drawn WILL BE RAISED UP, so if God drew "all individuals", then that leads to universalism, which the Bible proves false.

4) Luke 1:21 reads about a decree from Caesar to tax "all the world".
That clearly, historically, did NOT mean "every single individual".
 

Sethproton

Well-known member
I absolutely love the blatant double standard here.
The other poster can say, "it is clear to me that 'all men' means 'all individuals'", but he doesn't have to actually PROVE it, he only has to assert it.

But when I say the same thing from the other side, suddenly I'M the one with the burden of proof. This is what we always see in heretics. They never have to prove their view, but you have to blindly accept it. If you don't accept their unproven claim, YOU have to disprove it.

This is called, "shifting the burden of proof".
And it is fallacious.

Non-Calvinists are the ones proclaiming their proof-texts saying "all men" or "world" mean "every single individual". If they are actually "proof-texts", then that means you have to PROVE that only your interpretation is the correct one, and that other interpretations are impossible.

But nobody has ever been able to do that.

I've been watching the Kyle Rittenhouse trial, and IMO it's an absolute trainwreck. The prosecuting attorney is incompetent, and he's corrupt (he attempted to tamper with one of the witnesses). And one of the prosecution witnesses basically proved Kyle innocent. Okay.

The defense was talking with the coroner and having him agree that the evidence was "consistent" with their understanding of the incident which made Kyle not guilty. The prosecution came back and confirmed with the coroner that their understanding that made Kyle guilty was also "consistent" with the evidence.

But the prosecution can't simply say their view is "consistent" with the evidence.
They have to present a COMPELLING case to show that the defense's view is NOT possible, under a reasonable doubt.

That is EXACTLY what non-Calvinists are doing here. They are claiming that their view is "consistent" with Scripture, but they are unable to demonstrate that their view is the ONLY consistent view. And that is insufficient to convince anyone.

If you want to see evidence that "all men" or "world" does NOT necessarily mean "every single individual", I would point to a few instances off the top of my head. I'm sure given some more time, I could think of more, but right off the bat:

1) John 3:16, "God so loved the world", but He showed His love for the "world" by saving only those who believe, and condemning everyone else who made the wrong "choice". If giving eternal torment to someone you "love", just for making one bad decision, is still "love", that makes ZERO sense to me. If we applied that same scenario to a human being, everyone would agree the person was evil.

2) 2 Pet. 3:9 - The context is "beloved" (v. 8) and "us-ward" (v.9). That means "all" has been LIMITED in scope to the particular group under discussion. Ignoring the context and scope, every time you come across the word, "all" is NOT how language works.

3) John 6:44 - non-Calvinists like to link this to John 12:32, which is a completely DIFFERENT context. But even if you linked them, if God TRULY "drew" every single individual, it would be ridiculous to characterize this in the negative, "NO MAN can come to me...". Further, John 6:44 teaches that those who are drawn WILL BE RAISED UP, so if God drew "all individuals", then that leads to universalism, which the Bible proves false.

4) Luke 1:21 reads about a decree from Caesar to tax "all the world".
That clearly, historically, did NOT mean "every single individual".
It wa a simple question, Theo. You claim a meaning for "all" Can you prove it?
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
It wa a simple question, Theo. You claim a meaning for "all" Can you prove it?

Why do I have to?
It's the anti's who claim that it means "every single individual".

Why don't THEY have to prove THEIR claim?
That's the double standard you keep engaging in.

You see, I'm not trying to change people's minds and force them to be Calvinists. I couldn't care less what they believe, you can still be saved while rejecting Calvinism. Since I'm not trying to "convince" anyone of anything, I have no obligation to "prove" anything.

But the anti's keep coming here trying to claim that it MUST mean "all individuals". They seem like they're trying to change our minds. So THEY are the ones with the burden of proof, not me.

And I guess you missed my comments on John 3:16, 2 Pet. 3:9, John 6:44, and Luke 1:21. Your view of Scripture makes God an irrational monster. Mine doesn't. But nice selective reading on your part.
 

Sethproton

Well-known member
Why do I have to?
It's the anti's who claim that it means "every single individual".

Why don't THEY have to prove THEIR claim?
That's the double standard you keep engaging in.

You see, I'm not trying to change people's minds and force them to be Calvinists. I couldn't care less what they believe, you can still be saved while rejecting Calvinism. Since I'm not trying to "convince" anyone of anything, I have no obligation to "prove" anything.

But the anti's keep coming here trying to claim that it MUST mean "all individuals". They seem like they're trying to change our minds. So THEY are the ones with the burden of proof, not me.

And I guess you missed my comments on John 3:16, 2 Pet. 3:9, John 6:44, and Luke 1:21. Your view of Scripture makes God an irrational monster. Mine doesn't. But nice selective reading on your part.
You are the one who made a claim about what the word means, go ahead and prove it.
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
yes. I did learn some things about the reputation of this site in the online Christian community. I doubt I could speak about what I learned without being banned.

So you want to imply bad things about this site, but making excuses so you don't have to prove it? Once again demonstrating your blatant double standard.

Why do Calvinists have to "prove" our claims, but you and other anti's never have to "prove" anything?

And btw, you know who's part of the "CARM community"?
You, TomFL, etc., etc., etc.
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
You are the one who made a claim about what the word means, go ahead and prove it.

No, I was RESPONDING to ANOTHER POSTER.
You demand I prove my view, but you don't demand the other poster prove HIS view.
(Especially since it's HIS "proof-text").
Therein lies the double standard.
 
G

guest1

Guest
Wow you really do not even know the meaning of Calvinism or Arminianism .

Im not a Calvinist
Yes it seems he is in denial just like with his false ideas about Jesus. So don’t feel bad since he misrepresents Jesus all the time on this forum. You are in good company. When he opposes you just know it’s because you know the truth which he rejects .
 
Top