Why I am not a Pelagian

I don't see the security factor at all even relevant. Bible first, and if the Bible deals with the security factor, then so be it. But to say that we put the cart before the horse and that my desire for security leads to a Calvinistic interpretation seems to me to be conspiracy theory at best and profoundly uncharitable slander at worst.

If God revealed to me that I was one of the reprobate, doomed to eternal torment, I would still believe Calvinism, since that is what the Bible teaches.

So much for the "security" excuse.
 

Of course.
There is no contradiction, of course.
We "wonder", because we necessarily don't have 100% exhaustive knowledge of all things.

So I fail to see why this is any indication of "why Calvinism can't be a true workable reality in what it says God does".

IMO, you're trying too hard to attack Calvinism.
And it shows.


Yes, because we "know in part".
What's the problem?


Wrong.
Stop projecting.


Not at all.
The only "point" I'm getting is that you hate God's truth so much that you will strain at gnats to try to argue against it.


Questions are not valid arguments.
We wonder, because we don't have 100% exhaustive knowledge.
There are holes in our understanding.
That doesn't mean God doesn't ordain everything.


And your prayer life is contrary to your theology.


Well, it does.


You are wrong.


Well, if you want to make the comparison (and obviously you do), in my experience non-Calvinists are (I'm trying to be realistic here) about three times as nasty as Calvinists. So I don't think you want to use that standard as the way to truth.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

And here you go again, insulting posters instead of exegeting Scripture.
You're right, of course. And one of the reasons I'm assured that I'm elect is that I understand Spiritual truth, not to mention that I abhor my sins, and love God. But be that as it may, you seem to be intentionally trying to miss the point. The typical reprobate would not understand Spiritual truth. But even with my understanding, I would continue to embrace Calvinism as Biblical truth, as it IS precisely what the Bible teaches.

And if I were reprobate, that assurance in the theology would NOT be for "security" purposes.

But you go on, and continue to try to defend straw-men, if it makes you happy.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Nay this does not preclude us from wondering why as to specifics. God has means to his ends, and we don't always know the means.
Nor do we know exactly why God does one thing instead of another.
I did not go amiss in what I said. If you believe the WCF then there's nothing in you that should wonder why somebody believes and acts a certain way. You say God ordains everything. "....of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass..."
 
I did not go amiss in what I said. If you believe the WCF then there's nothing in you that should wonder why somebody believes and acts a certain way. You say God ordains everything. "....of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass..."
But what about our Agency Rockson?
 
I did not go amiss in what I said. If you believe the WCF then there's nothing in you that should wonder why somebody believes and acts a certain way. You say God ordains everything. "....of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass..."
You are incorrect.

If someone else jumps off a bridge, I can wonder their reason for doing it, knowing full well God ordained it.

There is absolutely nothing inconsistent about that.
 
I can't speak for others. But when people have wrong thoughts I know that God ordained it.
But I often still might ponder what went on in their lives to bring them to this point. Again nothing inconsistent about that.


As for people getting mad about wrong thoughts, I think for the most part that doesn't happen. It's more getting mad because of perceived slights and insults or perceived intentional evasion. And the ridiculing happens because we calvinists are sinners and forget to show grace sometimes.

All of this is personal flaws usually and totally unrelated to the theology.

Surely Calvinists being sinners like all others doesn't negate the theology.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Why?
You haven't identified any "problem".
And further, nobody's forcing you to accept it, since we don't believe you have to be Calvinist to be saved. So I'm curious as to why you are so obsessed with the idea. If you don't believe Calvinism is true, you don't have to believe it. It's as simple as that.


I've personally never seen that.
And if anything, the "mad" and "ridicule" only comes from your side of the aisle. But why does it even matter? It sounds like you're trying to mud-sling against Calvinists since you can't provide any BIBLICAL arguments.


You haven't demonstrated any evidence of any Calvinist "be even upset with them".

Again my point. Calvinism doesn't add up not when one takes the wraps off of it.

It adds up perfectly to me.
I guess that's why you have to make up false claims in order to try to argue against it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
No, I don't wonder anymore why some give in to Calvinism.

Calvinism gives a sinful source of security, and we all deeply want that.

I've been thinking about this response for a while, and there are so many reasons why it is just plain wrong, on so many levels.

1) It is outright uncharitable. It invents an "excuse" that is shallow and mocking, and presents Calvinism as shallow.

2) The poster has not demonstrated his claim that it is a "sinful" source of security.

3) It is incredibly uncharitable to assume that any Christian would reject truth for "security", since how can there be any security outside of truth? Yet this is how the poster wishes to represent Calvinists.

4) The main reason people "give in to Calvinism" is because we are thoroughly convinced, beyond ANY reasonable doubt, that it is what the Bible teaches. No more, no less. And as I have shared many times, Calvinism makes God a million times more holy, a million times more just, a million times more loving, a million times more merciful, a million times more gracious, and a million times more amazing!

5) Further, we don't need to "give in" to Calvinism to feel secure, since Southern Baptists are Arminian in their soteriology, and believe "once saved, always saved", and achieve security that way. Even though it doesn't jive with the rest of their soteriology, the SBC's recognize that eternal security (in one form or other) is Biblical. So there is no need to "give in" to Calvinism if "security was the main concern.

6) If the key to "security" in Christianity rests in Calvinism, does that mean that non-Calvinists are "insecure" in their confidence in being heaven-bound?
 

You haven't demonstrated any problems with Calvinism.
You simply IMAGINE them.


Nothing but worthless rhetoric.

Misrepresenting Calvinism.


Personal attacks.


Misrepresenting Calvinism.


So do Calvinists.


So do Calvinists.


Then you reject the Bible.


We don't have 100% exhaustive knowledge, we "only know in part".
Therefore, we don't have the capability to answer all the "why" questions that God hasn't given the answers to. Such criticism is necessarily fallacious.


Nope.


We reject your flawed opinion.


More misrepresentation by you without ANY evidence.
Mudslinging, pure and simple.


Misrepresenting Calvinists isn't cool.


Nothing DOES make us "mad".
You have presented ZERO evidence for your bankrupt and uncharitable accusations.


Who's getting mad?
Provide EVIDENCE.


We do.
That's why we're Calvinists.
Calvinism is truth.
I'm sorry you reject the truth.


Yes, He is.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I would agree wirh the idea God doesn't want men to sin. Some Calvinists might disagree and I think they are wrong.

But even you have to admit God wants something more than for men to be perfect, or for all men to go to heaven.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
To fulfill another desire. You believe God desires all men saved. Yet obviously you believe He desires something else more, or else all men woukd be saved.

Well, if men beig perfect was God's greatest desire, then give that he is all powerful and nothing could stop him, al men would be perfect. So obviously he has other desires in play. Even in your view that trump this desire.

I read the scripture as saying otherwise.

You claim God loves all men, even ones he tortures for eternity. But you can complain about my view not making sense? Really?

I think there is difficulty humanly speaking either way. Your bias only sees the one side of it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Back
Top