If the following is true:

Leatherneck0311

Leatherneck0311

Well-known member
If the following is true:

John Smith is deliberately foreordained to commit sin

Is hated by God before he is born

Is predestined to go to hell before he is born

Cannot repent because God deliberately refuses to give him the gift of repentance

Cannot believe because God deliberately refuses to give him the gift of faith

Was not, is not and never will be loved by God in the slightest degree

Was deliberately excluded from the group of people Jesus died for on the cross so that salvation was intentionally and for ever put completely out of his reach:

Then, how is it John Smith’s fault that he will end up burning forever in the Lake of Fire? https://www.timefortruth.co.uk/errors-of-calvinism/​
 
Leatherneck0311 said:
If the following is true:

John Smith is deliberately foreordained to commit sin

Is hated by God before he is born

Is predestined to go to hell before he is born

Cannot repent because God deliberately refuses to give him the gift of repentance

Cannot believe because God deliberately refuses to give him the gift of faith

Was not, is not and never will be loved by God in the slightest degree

Was deliberately excluded from the group of people Jesus died for on the cross so that salvation was intentionally and for ever put completely out of his reach:

Then, how is it John Smith’s fault that he will end up burning forever in the Lake of Fire? https://www.timefortruth.co.uk/errors-of-calvinism/​
Click to expand...
I read some of the responses on your last Thread, which was deleted. I think that those who commented on it should consider that what you present here excludes the Agency of the Sinner...

One of my biggest problems with Propositional Logic is that often an argument is presented as if it is complete and perfect as it is Presented. For someone who believes in the Free Will of the Sinning Agent, you need to include it as a Proposition, and factor into their Syllogism. If you go to the Secular Atheism boards, you will see that your argument is much like that of an Atheist. An Atheist will blame God just as you blamed God regarding John Smith. You don't blame God in your own paradigm, and neither do we. What you are doing is saying that our Calvinistic Syllogism excludes the Agency of a Sinner, something we don't exclude from the Syllogism...
 
Last edited:
God loves everything he made, he is maximally loving.

Sin is the problem, and sin is the responsibility of creation, not Creator.

If those two propositions are agreed on, than definitionally it's Arminianism.
 
Leatherneck0311 said:
If the following is true:

John Smith is deliberately foreordained to commit sin

Is hated by God before he is born

Is predestined to go to hell before he is born

Cannot repent because God deliberately refuses to give him the gift of repentance

Cannot believe because God deliberately refuses to give him the gift of faith

Was not, is not and never will be loved by God in the slightest degree

Was deliberately excluded from the group of people Jesus died for on the cross so that salvation was intentionally and for ever put completely out of his reach:

Then, how is it John Smith’s fault that he will end up burning forever in the Lake of Fire? https://www.timefortruth.co.uk/errors-of-calvinism/​
Click to expand...
He can repent, he can believe and is free to do so. He simply won't.
 
The old "not free" free will, gotta love it.

That's not a proper definition of what "free" means, lol.

Free means options are truly available, not that one's nature or abilities impel a certain choice.
 
Reformedguy said:
He can repent, he can believe and is free to do so. He simply won't.
Click to expand...
And like the other poster just asked is he free from unconditional predetermination to do so? Your teaching is he's ordained not to! So if you're really saying he's free to then I guess you're saying ALL men have the capacity to repent after all. I guess you're saying he can break through the ordaining process as found in your WCF. But then you say nope God doesn't want or desire for him to do that for he was made to be a vessel of wrath. But then it seems you actually turn against Calvinism (actually good for you) and announce, "He can repent" and you add on "He can believe"

Now forget about what you say later,



So if you're sincere in what you've said it seems to me and plus I'm sure to many readers that you've left Calvinistic thinking! That position has always been that Edit per mod He doesn't have the ability to according to what you once did think. I'd say then Reformedguy that is good....you're making progress!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Rockson said:
And like the other poster just asked is he free from unconditional predetermination to do so? Your teaching is he's ordained not to! So if you're really saying he's free to then I guess you're saying ALL men have the capacity to repent after all. I guess you're saying he can break through the ordaining process as found in your WCF. But then you say nope God doesn't want or desire for him to do that for he was made to be a vessel of wrath. But then it seems you actually turn against Calvinism (actually good for you) and announce, "He can repent" and you add on "He can believe"

Now forget about what you say later, "He simply won't"

Forget about that for now and focus on what you said he actually CAN DO, CAN DO, CAN DO! You might want to say to yourself a hundred times or even a thousand times, what you said,

"He can repent and he can believe! He can repent and he can believe! He can repent and he can believe! He can repent and he can believe! He can repent and he can believe! He can repent and he can believe! He can repent and he can believe! He can repent and he can believe! He can repent and he can believe!

So if you're sincere in what you've said it seems to me and plus I'm sure to many readers that you've left Calvinistic thinking! That position has always been that HE CAN'T, HE CAN'T, HE CAN'T, HE CAN'T! He doesn't have the ability to according to what you once did think. I'd say then Reformedguy that is good....you're making progress!
Click to expand...

They seem to want to try to MAKE others repent to not being. (Calvinists)

Not an expert by any means, but seems to be the crux of the debate.
 
Leatherneck0311 said:
If the following is true:

John Smith is deliberately foreordained to commit sin

Is hated by God before he is born

Is predestined to go to hell before he is born

Cannot repent because God deliberately refuses to give him the gift of repentance

Cannot believe because God deliberately refuses to give him the gift of faith

Was not, is not and never will be loved by God in the slightest degree

Was deliberately excluded from the group of people Jesus died for on the cross so that salvation was intentionally and for ever put completely out of his reach:

Then, how is it John Smith’s fault that he will end up burning forever in the Lake of Fire? https://www.timefortruth.co.uk/errors-of-calvinism/​
Click to expand...
Obviously a joke from one who does not understand Calvinism. Shameful misrepresentation of reformed theology.
 
Rockson said:
And like the other poster just asked is he free from unconditional predetermination to do so? Your teaching is he's ordained not to! So if you're really saying he's free to then I guess you're saying ALL men have the capacity to repent after all. I guess you're saying he can break through the ordaining process as found in your WCF. But then you say nope God doesn't want or desire for him to do that for he was made to be a vessel of wrath. But then it seems you actually turn against Calvinism (actually good for you) and announce, "He can repent" and you add on "He can believe"

Now forget about what you say later, "He simply won't"

Forget about that for now and focus on what you said he actually CAN DO, CAN DO, CAN DO! You might want to say to yourself a hundred times or even a thousand times, what you said,

"He can repent and he can believe! He can repent and he can believe! He can repent and he can believe! He can repent and he can believe! He can repent and he can believe! He can repent and he can believe! He can repent and he can believe! He can repent and he can believe! He can repent and he can believe!

So if you're sincere in what you've said it seems to me and plus I'm sure to many readers that you've left Calvinistic thinking! That position has always been that HE CAN'T, HE CAN'T, HE CAN'T, HE CAN'T! He doesn't have the ability to according to what you once did think. I'd say then Reformedguy that is good....you're making progress!
Click to expand...
You are misrepresenting what was said. And Civic (or whatever he calls himself now) has gone along with you.

Here are his words:

POST 10,796 written by civic.



@4Him

Please delete my account, threads, posts etc.....

I'm over the censorship here at CARM.

I treat people better now and get banned when as a calvinist you looked passed it and even gave me reps like all the other calvinists did on this board.

You are the reason I created my own forum where we have freedom of our religious beliefs.

The exceptions here with the calvinists are reverend, clay and josh. All the others have been hateful towards me and I do not attak anyone here just the teaching of calvin and get banned. Yet the calvinsits can mock arminians and non calvinists and never get banned. hypocrisy

But thanks its been a good 20 years overall and has allowed me to know what I want in a forum for christians and what I do not want. For that I am thankful.

Good- bye CARM !

edit If I see him questioning moderation again, I will report it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Rockson said:
And like the other poster just asked is he free from unconditional predetermination to do so? Your teaching is he's ordained not to! So if you're really saying he's free to then I guess you're saying ALL men have the capacity to repent after all. I guess you're saying he can break through the ordaining process as found in your WCF. But then you say nope God doesn't want or desire for him to do that for he was made to be a vessel of wrath. But then it seems you actually turn against Calvinism (actually good for you) and announce, "He can repent" and you add on "He can believe"

Now forget about what you say later, "He simply won't"

Forget about that for now and focus on what you said he actually CAN DO, CAN DO, CAN DO! You might want to say to yourself a hundred times or even a thousand times, what you said,

"He can repent and he can believe! He can repent and he can believe! He can repent and he can believe! He can repent and he can believe! He can repent and he can believe! He can repent and he can believe! He can repent and he can believe! He can repent and he can believe! He can repent and he can believe!

So if you're sincere in what you've said it seems to me and plus I'm sure to many readers that you've left Calvinistic thinking! That position has always been that HE CAN'T, HE CAN'T, HE CAN'T, HE CAN'T! He doesn't have the ability to according to what you once did think. I'd say then Reformedguy that is good....you're making progress!
Click to expand...
No. In our world God is soverign. God is our creator. He could have created a world where all believe or that no one believes.

You have the ability to believe. You have a choice to make. You simply wont because you do not desire to choose to believe unless drawn, given understanding of Spiritual things.

Glad I could help
 
Reformedguy said:
You mean from God our creator? Nope
Click to expand...
God our Creator; and our Sustainer...

Are we free from our fathers and mothers who sustain us? We shall leave our mother and father and cleave to our wives; but are we then free from our wife who then sustains us?
 
Last edited:
Dizerner said:
edit image violation


This reminds of the time Dr. White, in his debate, stated "When you read Romans 9, you have a choice to make."

The bizarre and humorous lack of self-awareness could not fail to strike me.

Under his interpretation, when I read Romans 9, I have absolutely no choice to make, a choice has already been made for me.

Logical consistency is not a strong suit when it comes to those preaching EDD, the divine decree of all things.
Click to expand...
Would you allow for the Holy Spirit under the preaching of the word, to give a person the ability to choose? If so, then why do you think he was being hypocritical? If you don't believe it, it's still okay for Dr White to believe it; isn't it?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
ReverendRV said:
Would you allow for the Holy Spirit under the preaching of the word, to give a person the ability to choose? If so, then why do you think he was being hypocritical? If you don't believe it, it's still okay for Dr White to believe it; isn't it?
Click to expand...

Dr. White and all who embrace EDD, the divine decree of all things, believe choice means "the nature that impels you unalterably to one decision made by the unilateral decree of God."

You know what that essentially is doing, RV?

It's making "free" to mean "not free" and "choice" to mean "no choice."

It must be some kind of supernatural blindness when people can't see something that seems so obvious.
 
Dizerner said:
Dr. White and all who embrace EDD, the divine decree of all things, believe choice means "the nature that impels you unalterably to one decision made by the unilateral decree of God."

You know what that essentially is doing, RV?

It's making "free" to mean "not free" and "choice" to mean "no choice."

It must be some kind of supernatural blindness when people can't see something that seems so obvious.
Click to expand...
I have found that whenever people get into discussions over the will, eventually people will agree that there is no such thing as 100% libertarian free will, and there is no such thing as 100% bound will. It is a futile argument in my opinion. I think that whenever you are arguing for a free choice without God, after a while you will agree there is no free choice without God even for you. You believe in total depravity, so how could you believe in an Unbound will which is free?

You have said that if someone was 99.9% righteous, they would still deserve hell. I tell you, that if someone was 99.9% free, they do not have the free will they think they do...
 
Dizerner said:
princess-bride-you-keep-using-that-word.gif



This reminds of the time Dr. White, in his debate, stated "When you read Romans 9, you have a choice to make."

The bizarre and humorous lack of self-awareness could not fail to strike me.

Under his interpretation, when I read Romans 9, I have absolutely no choice to make, a choice has already been made for me.

Logical consistency is not a strong suit when it comes to those preaching EDD, the divine decree of all things.
Click to expand...
God does not choose for you.

Lets say I have determined for you to slap yourself in the head. I yell there is a spider on your head knowing full well what you will do. So I yell there is a spider in your hair and you slap yourself in the head. Did you freely choose to slap yourself in the head? Even though I had determined you do so?
 
Sketo said:
What’s more “gross” than the Crucifixion of Christ?

…
Click to expand...
Which was a one time unique event in human history . The exception is not the rule . What God does one time is not a universal truth applied to all people at all times . That is eisegesis not biblical exegesis.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top