Sincere Call

[dreamaccount200]

According to Calvinsim is Does God call everyone to repent and be saved?
If so, is the call sincere?

[Anoetos]

According to Calvinsim is Does God call everyone to repent and be saved?
If so, is the call sincere?

Yes, and yes.

[john-philip]

Yes, and yes.


And if you look to your left ladies and gentleman you will see how the calvinist deals with philsophical tension... :wink:

[Anoetos]

lol

Well, you may have noticed that I've somewhat sidled away from 'strict calvinism' into the comfy beer and sausages of monergistic Lutheranism...

I was just answering as someone who has been a Calvinist and who still likes many of them.

[john-philip]

lol

Well, you may have noticed that I've somewhat sidled away from 'strict calvinism' into the comfy beer and sausages of monergistic Lutheranism...

I was just answering as someone who has been a Calvinist and who still likes many of them.
In fact, I can't say I did know that!

(Beer and sausages...:lol:....)

[Calvinist4Him]

According to Calvinsim is Does God call everyone to repent and be saved?

Yes of course...

If so, is the call sincere?

No it's insincere, merely in jest, purely for the purposes of mockery. :ahem: OF COURSE IT'S SINCERE! WHAT KIND OF QUESTION IS THAT? Let me guess, you're another non-Calvinist, who feels it's in his or her duty to judge the motives and hearts of Calvinists posting at Tweb. Well, get in line, because that club is growing fast.

Of course the call is sincere, no Calvinists knows the heart and minds of other people or the final state of their heart and mind.

"We found that God reveals Himself as not taking pleasure in or desiring the death of those who die but rather as taking pleasure in or desiring the repentance and life of the wicked. This will of God to repentance and salvation is universalized and reveals to us, therefore, that there is in God a benevolent lovingkindness towards the repentance and salvation of even those whom He has not decreed to save. This pleasure, will, desire is expressed in the universal call to repentance." - quote from the booklet "The Free Offer of the Gospel" by John Murray

[john-philip]

Yes of course...



No it's insincere, merely in jest, purely for the purposes of mockery. :ahem: OF COURSE IT'S SINCERE! WHAT KIND OF QUESTION IS THAT? Let me guess, you're another non-Calvinist, who feels it's in his or her duty to judge the motives and hearts of Calvinists posting at Tweb. Well, get in line, because that club is growing fast.

Of course the call is sincere, no Calvinists knows the heart and minds of other people or the final state of their heart and mind.

"We found that God reveals Himself as not taking pleasure in or desiring the death of those who die but rather as taking pleasure in or desiring the repentance and life of the wicked. This will of God to repentance and salvation is universalized and reveals to us, therefore, that there is in God a benevolent lovingkindness towards the repentance and salvation of even those whom He has not decreed to save. This pleasure, will, desire is expressed in the universal call to repentance." - quote from the booklet "The Free Offer of the Gospel" by John Murray

I don't think the OP is trying to judge calvinists in his questions (though I could be wrong), but what's ironic is how blatantly you did judge him in his motivations for asking the questions! :lol:

I think a better way of asking may be this: can you offer something to somebody sincerely knowing full well that it is logically impossible (given compatibilism) for them to accept it?

[Calvinist4Him]

I don't think the OP is trying to judge calvinists in his questions (though I could be wrong), but what's ironic is how blatantly you did judge him in his motivations for asking the questions! :lol:

The topic is sincerity...the act of questioning the sincerity of a group of people is an act of judgement. How did I judge him john-philip? Tell me more about my judgement, I want some details.

I think a better way of asking may be this: can you offer something to somebody sincerely knowing full well that it is logically impossible (given compatibilism) for them to accept it?

You would have to know who IS and IS NOT elect, would you not? No Calvinist I know of has that knowledge or claims to have that knowledge. So, your question is another example of either lack of understanding or ignorace or intended to cause people to stumble in their thinking and consideration.

[dreamaccount200]

Yes of course...



No it's insincere, merely in jest, purely for the purposes of mockery. :ahem: OF COURSE IT'S SINCERE! WHAT KIND OF QUESTION IS THAT? Let me guess, you're another non-Calvinist, who feels it's in his or her duty to judge the motives and hearts of Calvinists posting at Tweb. Well, get in line, because that club is growing fast.

Of course the call is sincere, no Calvinists knows the heart and minds of other people or the final state of their heart and mind.

"We found that God reveals Himself as not taking pleasure in or desiring the death of those who die but rather as taking pleasure in or desiring the repentance and life of the wicked. This will of God to repentance and salvation is universalized and reveals to us, therefore, that there is in God a benevolent lovingkindness towards the repentance and salvation of even those whom He has not decreed to save. This pleasure, will, desire is expressed in the universal call to repentance." - quote from the booklet "The Free Offer of the Gospel" by John Murray

Asking a question is judgeing? Why do you get so defensive when someone questions you about your theology?
Do you beleive that Christ died for everyone including the non-elect?

[john-philip]

The topic is sincerity...the act of questioning the sincerity of a group of people is an act of judgement. How did I judge him john-philip? Tell me more about my judgement, I want some details.

He didn't question your sincerity or any calvinist. Don't take everything so personally. :ahem: Second, if it's simply a philosophical question, give an honest answer...and if you feel it cannot be answered (i.e. it is loaded) then explain why. It's not that hard.

Your judgement of him was in saying that he was another non-calvinist who is wanting to judge and assign motivations to all calvinists who post on TWeb - and you got this from two simple questions! I'm not saying you should or should not have made the judgement, but I will say 1) it is irrelevant to answering the question and 2) the irony of it strikes me as funny. :smile:



You would have to know who IS and IS NOT elect, would you not? No Calvinist I know of has that knowledge or claims to have that knowledge. So, your question is another example of either lack of understanding or ignorace or intended to cause people to stumble in their thinking and consideration.

Or perhaps you need to reread the OP since the question was about God, and obviously you wouldn't deny Him of the knowledge of who is and isn't elect. The question I asked was simply analogous to the OP. If you had knowledge that it was impossible for somebody to accept something, would you offer it to them and would it be sincere if you did?

[Assistant Junior Deputy Janitor Analogman]

Well, you may have noticed that I've somewhat sidled away from 'strict calvinism' into the comfy beer and sausages of monergistic Lutheranism... :rofl:


C4H -
Is the call for all to repent and be saved sincere from God's perspective? If God has already determined who is damned and who is saved by an unknown eternal decree, how is that possible?

[Calvinist4Him]

He didn't question your sincerity or any calvinist. Don't take everything so personally. :ahem:

Did you not read the original post? He asked the following: "According to Calvinsim is Does God call everyone to repent and be saved? If so, is the call sincere?" I AM a Calvinist, and I take theology I adhere to personally, the doctines of grace are not dry theological doctrine to me.


Second, if it's simply a philosophical question, give an honest answer...and if you feel it cannot be answered (i.e. it is loaded) then explain why. It's not that hard.

WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? I gave an honest answer for crying out loud!!!

Your judgement of him was in saying that he was another non-calvinist who is wanting to judge and assign motivations to all calvinists who post on TWeb - and you got this from two simple questions!

No, that came from roughly two years of posting at Tweb. I'm sick and tired of being judged by other Christians. I am on the verge of leaving because of it.

I'm not saying you should or should not have made the judgement, but I will say 1) it is irrelevant to answering the question and 2) the irony of it strikes me as funny. :smile:

What I said had a basis. What I said was based on the questions of the original post. Can you not see the basis for what I said? It strikes you as funny?

Or perhaps you need to reread the OP since the question was about God, and obviously you wouldn't deny Him of the knowledge of who is and isn't elect. The question I wasked was simply analogous to the OP. If you had knowledge that it was impossible for somebody to accept something, would you offer it to them?

Your ranting above has nothing to do with answering the OP.

How is my question intended to cuase people to stumble, given that you think it is a question of ignorance? :huh:

I said OR ignorance, in other words, I am not sure why you asked the question the way you did. But it would seem you've loaded another question, why, I do not know. I thought your question "poisoned the well" if you will, to anybody considering a Calvinist response.

[Calvinist4Him]

Is the call for all to repent and be saved sincere from God's perspective?

I'll let you be the judge.

If God has already determined who is damned and who is saved by an unknown eternal decree, how is that possible?

:sigh: Would you know a loaded question if you read one?

[dreamaccount200]

I'll let you be the judge.



:sigh: Would you know a loaded question if you read one?

Did Christ die for everyone including the non-elect?

[john-philip]

Did you not read the original post? He asked the following: "According to Calvinsim is Does God call everyone to repent and be saved?
If so, is the call sincere?" I AM a Calvinist, and I take theology I adhere to personally, the doctines of grace are not dry theological doctrine to me.

:huh: I've read the OP several times now. I fail to see how he said anything about you personally, or why you had to make the post personal. He asked if the call is sincere knowing that God has determined already who will be saved and it is impossible for the rest to be saved. It isn't even a loaded question! Just answer it and quit yer bellyachin'




WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? I gave an honest answer for crying out loud!!!

While simultaneously (and hypocritically, I might add) assigning him irrelevant motivations in asking the question. Your typing in caps and exclamation points doesn't help the case that you are able to answer the question over making matters irrelevantly personal.



No, that came from roughly two years of posting at Tweb. I'm sick and tired of being judged by other Christians. I am on the verge of leaving because of it.

IOW, you are taking out two years worth of frustration on someone who just asked an honest question. Shame on you. (BTW, before making any irrational decisions to leave TWeb, just call out the ones who are judging you, ignore them, and respons to the plethora of reasonable, charitable folk who post on here.)



What I said had a basis. What I said was based on the questions of the original post. Can you not see the basis for what I said? It strikes you as funny?

Face it, you were annoyed at him because you thought he was judging you, and then you went on a little tantrum and effectively did what you accused dreamaccount of. Further, no, I do not see a basis for what you said. You had no reason to assign such motivations to two questions which, at this point, could still have been comopletely honest, though challenging, philosophical questions. If you think that is judging you no wonder you are ready to leave.



Your ranting above has nothing to do with answering the OP.

What a stupid response. :smile: My 'rant' was simply a rephrasing of the question. Everything else in my post is sideline material. I will ask yet again: If you had knowledge that it was impossible for somebody to accept something, would you offer it to them?

C4H, if you respond to nothing else in my post respond to the question in bold, because everything else is irrelevant. I am simply rephrasing the question in my own words. It has everything to do with the OP.



I said OR ignorance, in other words, I am not sure why you asked the question the way you did. But it would seem you've loaded another question, why, I do not know. I thought your question "poisoned the well" if you will, to anybody considering a Calvinist response.

lol, actually I misread your question, thus I edited my post. My apologies.

[Assistant Junior Deputy Janitor Analogman]

Ok, just explain how the call, by God, is sincere. Explain to me how my question was loaded, and if I misrepresented your viewpoint.

Sincerely, A-man

[Calvinist4Him]

Did Christ die for everyone including the non-elect?

Although His atonement was sufficient for all, it's not effective for all, Christ didn't die for anybody who will be in Hell. His atonement was effective for everyone who will be in Heaven...be they Jew or Gentile, red, yellow, black, or white.

[Assistant Junior Deputy Janitor Analogman]

Ok C4H, explain to me how it is sincere. Please explain to me how I misrepresented your viewpoint.

Regards, A-man

[Calvinist4Him]

:huh: I've read the OP several times now. I fail to see how he said anything about you personally, or why you had to make the post personal. He asked if the call is sincere knowing that God has determined already who will be saved and it is impossible for the rest to be saved. It isn't even a loaded question! Just answer it and quit yer bellyachin'

While simultaneously (and hypocritically, I might add) assigning him irrelevant motivations in asking the question. Your typing in caps and exclamation points doesn't help the case that you are able to answer the question over making matters irrelevantly personal.

IOW, you are taking out two years worth of frustration on someone who just asked an honest question. Shame on you. (BTW, before making any irrational decisions to leave TWeb, just call out the ones who are judging you, ignore them, and respons to the plethora of reasonable, charitable folk who post on here.)

Face it, you were annoyed at him because you thought he was judging you, and then you went on a little tantrum and effectively did what you accused dreamaccount of. Further, no, I do not see a basis for what you said. You had no reason to assign such motivations to two questions which, at this point, could still have been comopletely honest, though challenging, philosophical questions. If you think that is judging you no wonder you are ready to leave.

What a stupid response. :smile: My 'rant' was simply a rephrasing of the question. Everything else in my post is sideline material. I will ask yet again: If you had knowledge that it was impossible for somebody to accept something, would you offer it to them?

C4H, if you respond to nothing else in my post respond to the question in bold, because everything else is irrelevant. I am simply rephrasing the question in my own words. It has everything to do with the OP.

lol, actually I misread your question, thus I edited my post. My apologies.

Matthew 5:7 "Blessed are the merciful, for they shall receive mercy."

And with that, john-philip earns a position on my ever growing ignore list.

[dreamaccount200]

Although His atonement was sufficient for all, it's not effective for all, Christ didn't die for anybody who will be in Hell. His atonement was effective for everyone who will be in Heaven...be they Jew or Gentile, red, yellow, black, or white.

If Chirst did not die for those who will be in hell and if the non-elect will be in hell then the call is not sincere.
There was never any provision for the non-elect.
If there is no provison then the call is not sincere

[Calvinist4Him]

Ok C4H, explain to me how it is sincere. Please explain to me how I misrepresented your viewpoint.

So you're not willing to accept that it is sincere?

The question you asked is as follows: "If God has already determined who is damned and who is saved by an unknown eternal decree, how is that possible?"

You are implying a double predestination in which God actively saves AND damns. That is not my position. My position is that God saves many and passes over others. That is how I resolve the sovereignty of God and the responsibility of man which are both biblical, which everyone who dares to venture into the deep things of God has to deal with at some point or another.

[john-philip]

Matthew 5:7 "Blessed are the merciful, for they shall receive mercy."

And with that, john-philip earns a position on my ever growing ignore list.

Nice knowing ya.

You must have a huge ignore list if you ignore everyone who tries to reason with you :shrug:

______________________

The calvinist still has to answer this question:

If you had knowledge that it was impossible for somebody to accept something, would you offer it to them?

[dreamaccount200]

So you're not willing to accept that it is sincere?

The question you asked is as follows: "If God has already determined who is damned and who is saved by an unknown eternal decree, how is that possible?"

You are implying a double predestination in which God actively saves AND damns. That is not my position. My position is that God saves many and passes over others. That is how I resolve the sovereignty of God and the responsibility of man which are both biblical, which everyone who dares to venture into the deep things of God has to deal with at some point or another.

If there is no provison for them and if God giving irrestable grace is the only way they can come and he refuses to do that then the call is not sincere. Its that simple.

[Calvinist4Him]

If Chirst did not die for those who will be in hell and if the non-elect will be in hell then the call is not sincere.
There was never any provision for the non-elect.
If there is no provison then the call is not sincere

1 Corinthians 1:18 "For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19 For it is written, "I WILL DESTROY THE WISDOM OF THE WISE, AND THE CLEVERNESS OF THE CLEVER I WILL SET ASIDE." 20 Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21 For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not come to know God, God was well-pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe. 22 For indeed Jews ask for signs and Greeks search for wisdom; 23 but we preach Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling block and to Gentiles foolishness, 24 but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God."

*emphasis mine*

[Assistant Junior Deputy Janitor Analogman]

You are implying a double predestination in which God actively saves AND damns. That is not my position. My position is that God saves many and passes over others. That is how I resolve the sovereignty of God and the responsibility of man which are both biblical, which everyone who dares to venture into the deep things of God has to deal with at some point or another.

Thanks.

My position is that God saves many and passes over others.

How is the call sincere to those He passes over?

Regards,
A-man

[Calvinist4Him]

If there is no provison for them and if God giving irrestable grace is the only way they can come and he refuses to do that then the call is not sincere. Its that simple.

You're assuming that in order for a call to be sincere, it must be effective for all hearers of the call. Read the Old Testament...read of God's sincere calls...and of what happened to the hearers of those calls. Why did God part the Red Sea, knowing that generation would never enter the promised land? Why did God continue to call them back, knowing they would turn to idolatry (read the book of Judges)?

[dreamaccount200]

You're assuming that in order for a call to be sincere, it must be effective for all hearers of the call. Read the Old Testament...read of God's sincere calls...and of what happened to the hearers of those calls. Why did God part the Red Sea, knowing that generation would never enter the promised land? Why did God continue to call them back, knowing they would turn to idolatry (read the book of Judges)?

Wrong, I do not beleive that the call must be effective to be sincere.
I believe there must be provison for the call to be sincere. There is no provison for the non-elect therefore the call is not sincere.
Please explain how the call can be sincere when there is no provison.

[Assistant Junior Deputy Janitor Analogman]

C4H - Would you please reply to post #25 in this thread?

Thanks,
A-man

[dreamaccount200]

C4H - Would you please reply to post #25 in this thread?

Thanks,
A-man

And # 27

[Pereynol of Sheer Dread]

No, that came from roughly two years of posting at Tweb. I'm sick and tired of being judged by other Christians. I am on the verge of leaving because of it.


Hey C4H,
Though you and I are often on opposite sides of things, I think it would be a shame if you left. I do hope you decide to stay.

I also believe that this thread raises a pertinent question which is worth discussing---even though it's set up here in a way unflattering to Calvinism. (Everyone knows that Calvinists themselves don't think God's offer of salvation to the reprobate "insincere," but something here can certainly appear odd to someone attempting to make sense of Calvinism.) Anyway, I'm not posting here much right now because my computer's down. I have been enjoying the shout box, though....

[Nang]

According to Calvinsim is Does God call everyone to repent and be saved?


No.

Only "many" are called, but few are chosen." Matthew 22:14

Note: "Many" are called; not all.

Multitudes of mankind have died in their sins without ever hearing a gospel call from God.


If so, is the call sincere?

The call is sincere; especially to those chosen few who will believe the Gospel due to the intervention and resurrection power of the Holy Spirit who gives sinners new life and faith in Jesus Christ.

However, even to those who hear the call but do not believe, the call is sincere. It is sincere judgment and proof, that unless God intervenes with His power and grace, the gospel "remains veiled to those who are perishing." (II Cor. 4:3&4)

For the "call" is the Gospel message (good news) of Jesus Christ. This "call" consists of the Word of God, which is biblically taught and defined as a "two-edged sword." The Gospel call either blesses with new life from above, or it further hardens the already hard, unbelieving heart of the unrepentant listener.

Both salvation blessing from God and/or just judgment from God is sincere, indeed!

Nang

[micah4]

No.

The call is sincere; especially to those chosen few who will believe...


So if it is "especially" sincere to those few, I guess it's not especially sincere to the others...


However, even to those who hear the call but do not believe, the call is sincere. It is sincere judgment and proof, that unless God intervenes with His power and grace, the gospel "remains veiled to those who are perishing." (II Cor. 4:3&4)


Supposing that it were "sincere judgment', it seems to me that sincere judgment is something quite different than a sincere offer of salvation.



Both salvation blessing from God and/or just judgment from God is sincere, indeed!


But God doesn't say, "don't look to me and be judged, all you ends of the earth", he says "look to me and be saved"; and again not, "God commands all men everywhere to be judged for their unrepentance", but "God commands all men everywhere to repent".

If you have to change the subject of what we are talking about from a sincere call to be saved to a "sincere judgment", then it seems to me that you must have found a need to change the object of discussion due to having some trouble affirming a universally sincere call to salvation.

[Nang]

So if it is "especially" sincere to those few, I guess it's not especially sincere to the others...

Well, you guess wrong. (I use the word "especially" in the sense of "particularly," btw.)



Supposing that it were "sincere judgment', it seems to me that sincere judgment is something quite different than a sincere offer of salvation.

Two sides of the same sword.




But God doesn't say, "don't look to me and be judged, all you ends of the earth", he says "look to me and be saved"; and again not, "God commands all men everywhere to be judged for their unrepentance", but "God commands all men everywhere to repent".

Duh . . .God says so because mankind has already been judged with a curse and sentence of death.

Yes, God commands repentance, but no man on his own volition will or can repent. Even repentance is a grant from God. (See II Timothy 2:25, Acts 5:31, 11:18)

If you have to change the subject of what we are talking about from a sincere call to be saved to a "sincere judgment", then it seems to me that you must have found a need to change the object of discussion due to having some trouble affirming a universally sincere call to salvation.

Not changing the subject. I am giving biblical answer to the subject.

Without having to guess.

Nang

[micah4]

Duh . . .


nice vocabulary.


God says so because mankind has already been judged with a curse and sentence of death.


God says "look to me and be saved" because mankind has already been judged with the sentence of death?


Yes, God commands repentance, but no man on his own volition will or can repent.


So predictable. Ignore the difficulty, recite the mantra. ZZZzzzzzzz...

[Nang]

So predictable. Ignore the difficulty, recite the mantra. ZZZzzzzzzz...


No mantra recited.

"Difficulty" (that exists in your mind alone) answered . . .with . . .

Holy Scripture which apparently puts you to sleep.

Posters such as you do not belong on a theology board.

No answers. Just insults and silly replies.

Ugh.

Nang
(Where are the "Theology" moderators, anyway?)

[micah4]

"Difficulty" (that exists in your mind alone) answered . . .with . . .
Holy Scripture

From Holy Scripture, really? Then perhaps you could give the book, chapter, and verse where it is written that God says "Look to me and be saved" to people because, as you answered, "mankind has already been judged with the sentence of death".


Posters such as you do not belong on a theology board....(Where are the "Theology" moderators, anyway?)

If you're going to be thin-skinned then perhaps you shouldn't come on here blasting away at the evil arminians with an upturned nose.

[Assistant Junior Deputy Janitor Analogman]

:bump:
Need an answer to post #25 please, C4H.

[Calvinist4Him]

:bump:
Need an answer to post #25 please, C4H.

Ok, we didn't define what "the call" entails, did we? No we rushed into conclusions without even considering the thought of defining our terms. The call is TO eternal life OR to eternal death. Does this help?

[Calvinist4Him]

Wrong, I do not beleive that the call must be effective to be sincere.

Ok

I believe there must be provison for the call to be sincere.

You also believe that man, in his fallen state, can please God. I do not think you have a proper understadning of "the call". Doesn't "the call" to salvation also entail consequences for rejecting God's provision?

There is no provison for the non-elect therefore the call is not sincere.

The call to eternal damnation is quite sincere.

Please explain how the call can be sincere when there is no provison.

I have explained, and non-acceptance of my explaination will not make it any less of an explaination.

[Assistant Junior Deputy Janitor Analogman]

Fine, lets define our terms, then. Let us first look at your first post in this thread.


Quote: Originally posted by dreamaccount200

According to Calvinsim is Does God call everyone to repent and be saved?


Yes of course...

Quote: Originally posted by dreamaccount200

If so, is the call sincere?


No it's insincere, merely in jest, purely for the purposes of mockery. OF COURSE IT'S SINCERE! WHAT KIND OF QUESTION IS THAT? Let me guess, you're another non-Calvinist, who feels it's in his or her duty to judge the motives and hearts of Calvinists posting at Tweb. Well, get in line, because that club is growing fast.

Of course the call is sincere, no Calvinists knows the heart and minds of other people or the final state of their heart and mind.


So you, C4H are stating the call by God is "everyone to repent and be saved" and its a serious call. Do you need to define call any further? How is it that the ones God passes over are recipients of this serious call to repent and be saved?

[Calvinist4Him]

So you, C4H are stating the call by God is "everyone to repent and be saved" and its a serious call. Do you need to define call any further? How is it that the ones God passes over are recipients of this serious call to repent and be saved?

Umm...do I hear an echo...is the record broken...did somebody click the repeat button?

I believe Nang was correct when she said that many have died without ever hearing the gospel. First of all, do you believe in the sovereignty of God? Second of all, do you believe it's God's will that certain people not hear the gospel?

What's funny is that you believe in a "two wills of God" theory, if you believe that it's 'not God's will that anyone should perish', and yet it's His will to allow people the freedom to do just that. Maybe I should be asking you the same question you continue to ask me?

Btw, I was reading one of your responses in another thread: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1178554&postcount=3

I couldn't help but think; "what a terrible thing to say to someone, especially a Christian brother".

[Assistant Junior Deputy Janitor Analogman]

I see you are continually avoiding answering the question and now resort to mockery. I don't care what Nang said, I asked you the question. Zipperhead may be your brother, I don't know if he's mine. I'l leave that to God. I guess you think his constant judgement of damnation to all who are not hyper-calvinists is just fine. I quite frankly hope he does leave.

Last chance:

The "call" is for all to repent and believe the Gospel. How is the call sincere to those who God passes over?

[Calvinist4Him]

I see you are continually avoiding answering the question and now resort to mockery.

I wasn't mocking, but I see you avoided the question when turned back to you.

I don't care what Nang said, I asked you the question.

And I stated MY agreement with Nang, so you should care what she said.

Zipperhead may be your brother, I don't know if he's mine.

By extension, do you not consider Calvinists to be your brothers? Is Reformed theology sending us to hell?

I'l leave that to God. I guess you think his constant judgement of damnation to all who are not hyper-calvinists is just fine. I quite frankly hope he does leave.

What a hypocrite you are. I don't see you standing up for Calvinists when Ormly or infide or other non-Calvinists express veiled judgement of damnation to those whom love Reformed theology. I don't see you standing up for Calvinists when we're misrepresented, mocked, or bombarded with strawmen.

The "call" is for all to repent and believe the Gospel. How is the call sincere to those who God passes over?

Because God sincerely desires for the gospel to be preached. The sincerity is a matter of perspective, mans perspective and God's perspective. But your question assumes "everyone must be given a chance" in order for the call to be sincere. But as Nang first pointed out, and I agree, everyone has not been given a chance to hear the gospel. Does that nulify the sincerity of the call to everyone?

If God would have said; "preach only to the elect", do you not see any problem with that given man's knowledge?

[Assistant Junior Deputy Janitor Analogman]

I wasn't mocking, but I see you avoided the question when turned back to you.

I think you were, but it doesn't matter.
Is that how you answer specific, repeated questions, by asking one? How nice.

By extension, do you not consider Calvinists to be your brothers? Is Reformed theology sending us to hell?

I do. No, it is not. People like Zipperhead are another story.

What a hypocrite you are. I don't see you standing up for Calvinists when Ormly or infide or other non-Calvinists express veiled judgement of damnation to those whom love Reformed theology. I don't see you standing up for Calvinists when we're misrepresented, mocked, or bombarded with strawmen.

Just because you don't see it, doesn't mean I don't do it. If you would have looked at my post, TONIGHT in the Limited Atonement thread, you would see me correcting a certain misrepresentation of calvinism. I am not a hypocrite, it is not my job to correct every twebber if they misrepresent calvinism. Is that what you would like for me to do?

Because God sincerely desires for the gospel to be preached. The sincerity is a matter of perspective, mans perspective and God's perspective. But your question assumes "everyone must be given a chance" in order for the call to be sincere.

My question does not assume that. You are attempting to put words into my mouth. The opening question DID NOT assume it was refering to those who did not hear. Are you saying that only the ones who are not saved are the ones who do not hear? Of course not.

How is it the call is sincere to those who God has passed over, C4H?

But as Nang first pointed out, and I agree, everyone has not been given a chance to hear the gospel. Does that nulify the sincerity of the call to everyone?


How is it that the call is sincere to those who hear, but God passes over anyway?

[Calvinist4Him]

I think you were, but it doesn't matter.
Is that how you answer specific, repeated questions, by asking one? How nice.

Even if I was mocking, that doesn't take away from your burdon to answer the question which you didn't.

I do. No, it is not. People like Zipperhead are another story.

That's good to hear, whether you're sincere or not I'll never know.

Just because you don't see it, doesn't mean I don't do it. If you would have looked at my post, TONIGHT in the Limited Atonement thread, you would see me correcting a certain misrepresentation of calvinism. I am not a hypocrite, it is not my job to correct every twebber if they misrepresent calvinism. Is that what you would like for me to do?

Likewise, ask Zipper if I've ever tried to clear up what I perceived to be misrepresentation of arminianism. Even so, can you quote me ever saying; "leave, I wish you would go, or why are you here?" to a Christian who has misrepresented Calvinism? You need to put Zipper on ignore and pay less attention to him if he bothers you that much.

My question does not assume that. You are attempting to put words into my mouth. The opening question DID NOT assume it was refering to those who did not hear. Are you saying that only the ones who are not saved are the ones who do not hear? Of course not.

How is it the call is sincere to those who God has passed over, C4H?

Yes, your question does assume that.

How is it that the call is sincere to those who hear, but God passes over anyway?

God sincerely wants His people to sincerely preach to "the world". His people sincerely do not know who God will pass over and who God will choose. Is that a direct enough answer? Now it's my turn to ask a question...

...has God, and does God "pass over" those whom have never heard the gospel of Jesus Christ?

[Assistant Junior Deputy Janitor Analogman]

Even if I was mocking, that doesn't take away from your burdon to answer the question which you didn't.

Why on earth would I be under any burden to answer anything from you when you avoided my questions several times? What planet are you from?

That's good to hear, whether you're sincere or not I'll never know.


Questioning my honesty now? If you already knew the answer, why did you ask?

Likewise, ask Zipper if I've ever tried to clear up what I perceived to be misrepresentation of arminianism. Even so, can you quote me ever saying; "leave, I wish you would go, or why are you here?" to a Christian who has misrepresented Calvinism? You need to put Zipper on ignore and pay less attention to him if he bothers you that much.

So I wish he would leave, so what, I never denied it. I haven't read any non-calvinist who stated if people didn't completely agree with their doctrine they were damned. Thats absurd. Like many hyper-calvinists that have posted here. You assume he is a Christian, I refrain from judgement. You accused me of never correcting anyone concerning calvinism. I proved you wrong, so you back peddle.

God sincerely wants His people to sincerely preach to "the world". His people sincerely do not know who God will pass over and who God will choose. Is that a direct enough answer?


No, it doesn't! Read the opening post: According to Calvinsim is Does God call everyone to repent and be saved?
If so, is the call sincere?

The poster didn't ask if God wanted his people to sincerely preach to the World.
The poster didn't ask if His people do or do not know who God will pass over.

The poster asked if GOD called everyone to repent and be saved!
You answeredYes of course....

So how is it that God sincerely calls EVERYONE to repent and be saved, when he passes over some?

[dreamaccount200]

Ok



You also believe that man, in his fallen state, can please God. I do not think you have a proper understadning of "the call". Doesn't "the call" to salvation also entail consequences for rejecting God's provision?
I think faith is what pleases God and faith comes by hearing



The call to eternal damnation is quite sincere.
Please give scripture that shows a call to eternal damnation.
My question was is the call to repent and be saved a sincere call to everyone and you said yes. Now you are changing your story.



I have explained, and non-acceptance of my explaination will not make it any less of an explaination.

No, you have not explained anything.

[dreamaccount200]

Umm...do I hear an echo...is the record broken...did somebody click the repeat button?

I believe Nang was correct when she said that many have died without ever hearing the gospel. First of all, do you believe in the sovereignty of God? Second of all, do you believe it's God's will that certain people not hear the gospel?
2 The LORD hath made known his salvation:
his righteousness hath he openly showed in the sight of the heathen.


3 He hath remembered his mercy and his truth pslam 98:2-3
toward the house of Israel:
all the ends of the earth have seen
the salvation of our God.

26 and hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;

27 that they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us:acts 17:26-27

Tit 2:11
For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men,

:9
That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world. John 1:9


What's funny is that you believe in a "two wills of God" theory, if you believe that it's 'not God's will that anyone should perish', and yet it's His will to allow people the freedom to do just that. Maybe I should be asking you the same question you continue to ask me?
This is to funny.. See the following link to a site by Calvinist writer John Piper who attempts to defend the Calvinist belief of 2 wills in God.

http://www.desiringgod.org/library/topics/doctrines_grace/2wills.html

[dreamaccount200]

Because God sincerely desires for the gospel to be preached. The sincerity is a matter of perspective, mans perspective and God's perspective. But your question assumes "everyone must be given a chance" in order for the call to be sincere. But as Nang first pointed out, and I agree, everyone has not been given a chance to hear the gospel. Does that nulify the sincerity of the call to everyone?
You have provided no proof of this statement

[Calvinist4Him]

<insert lengthy emotional response>

Congratulations, you're earned a spot on my ignore list. I understand why GoBahnsen hasn't been posting in the Theology section as much...he can't put anybody on ignore including flamming morons.

[micah4]

Congratulations, you're earned a spot on my ignore list. I understand why GoBahnsen hasn't been posting in the Theology section as much...he can't put anybody on ignore including flamming morons.

Whether AnalogMan's response was "emotional" or not, he's still left you with perfectly valid critique of your response:


The poster didn't ask if God wanted his people to sincerely preach to the World.
The poster didn't ask if His people do or do not know who God will pass over.

The poster asked if GOD called everyone to repent and be saved!


Which seems to me to remain a valid critique if it is left ignored.

[dreamaccount200]

Whether AnalogMan's response was "emotional" or not, he's still left you with perfectly valid critique of your response:



Which seems to me to remain a valid critique if it is left ignored.

I agree

[dreamaccount200]

Congratulations, you're earned a spot on my ignore list. I understand why GoBahnsen hasn't been posting in the Theology section as much...he can't put anybody on ignore including flamming morons.

Insults ususally come when one can no longer defend there postion

[Calvinist4Him]

Whether AnalogMan's response was "emotional" or not, he's still left you with perfectly valid critique of your response:

Which seems to me to remain a valid critique if it is left ignored.

Smoke and mirrors...

...you have quite an imagination.

[Calvinist4Him]

Insults ususally come when one can no longer defend there postion

I've answered. The problem is you don't like my answer. Is that my problem? I think not.

[Assistant Junior Deputy Janitor Analogman]

Concession noted, C4H.

[john-philip]

Concession noted, C4H.

:lol:

No kidding. What a coward. :ahem: