Three Questions for Calvinists

[rogerg]

You did not explain why Paul mentioned the law 52 times.

I know that the Gentiles in Rome knew nothing of the law.

So please explain why the word 'law' appears 52 times.

Was Paul addressing the Jews in Rome?

I don't understand your questions? Why is the number of times the law was mentioned germane?

Paul was addressing the elect in Rome, who happened also to be Jews -
just as he addressed the elect in Ephesus.
To be of the elect trumps and overshadows all other categories or divisions that might pertain to someone.
If there's a specific underlying point that you're trying to make, why don't you just go-ahead make it instead of
beating around the bush because I can't figure out what it might be.

[Rom 1:7 KJV] 7 To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called [to be] saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.

 

[Shepherd]

Just one question for Arminians.

How do you sleep at night knowing you share the core doctrine of synergism with all satanic religions?

Islam.
Mormons.
Jehovah witnesses.
Buddhism.
Hinduism.
Luciferians.
Roman Catholics.
Scientology.
Oneness Pentecostal.
New age.
Witchcraft.
Voodoo.
All of liberal “Christianity”.
Etc.

😬 not good company to be in.

Since you mentioned Islam; their religion has fatalism, just like Calvinism does, since they believe that "allah" predetermines everything and chooses who will and who will not be allowed into paradise. The calvinist false-god is no better than "allah". He's certainly not the God of the Bible.

 

[Shepherd]

Isn't this parable about Jews and Gentiles and not about election?

You're right, it's not about election. The parable is about God inviting some men. The character of God is the same in every situation He is involved in, so. The fact is; He invited some men, because He wanted those men to come, they knew they were being invited, but they refused of their own free will. How hard can that be?

 

[Cameron143]

You're right, it's not about election. The parable is about God inviting some men. The character of God is the same in every situation He is involved in, so. The fact is; He invited some men, because He wanted those men to come, they knew they were being invited, but they refused of their own free will. How hard can that be?

Yes. But the symbolism is deeper. God went first to the Jew. When they rejected Him, He went to the Gentiles.

 

[Cameron143]

Since you mentioned Islam; their religion has fatalism, just like Calvinism does, since they believe that "allah" predetermines everything and chooses who will and who will not be allowed into paradise. The calvinist false-god is no better than "allah". He's certainly not the God of the Bible.

Election isn't really fatalistic if you understand it. It does have determinism from God's perspective, but His choices are accomplished by the independent choices of individuals. God is grand enough to accomplish His purposes while allowing autonomy to man.
Calvinism goes too far in one direction; Arminianism the other.

 

[Shepherd]

Yes. But the symbolism is deeper. God went first to the Jew. When they rejected Him, He went to the Gentiles.

Point was; God WANTED them to come. The Calvinist god never wanted them in the first place, so he never "enabled" them to believe.

 

[Shepherd]

Election isn't really fatalistic if you understand it. It does have determinism from God's perspective, but His choices are accomplished by the independent choices of individuals. God is grand enough to accomplish His purposes while allowing autonomy to man.
Calvinism goes too far in one direction; Arminianism the other.

"Election" is a Bible doctrine. But the way Calvinism twists and distorts it, is not.

 

[Cameron143]

Point was; God WANTED them to come. The Calvinist god never wanted them in the first place, so he never "enabled" them to believe.

Calvinists believe 1 Timothy 2:4.

 

[Cameron143]

"Election" is a Bible doctrine. But the way Calvinism twists and distorts it, is not.

I didn't say anything that contradicts this.

I only wrote in the first place to say that your OP has nothing to do with election or Calvinism. It deals with God's rejection of Israel due to their rejection of Him. And that's all it concerns.

Also, you seem to understand what people say about Calvinism more than you actually understand about Calvinism itself. Read what Calvin wrote and draw your own conclusions.

 

[Snacker]

Just one question for Arminians.

How do you sleep at night knowing you share the core doctrine of synergism with all satanic religions?

Islam.
Mormons.
Jehovah witnesses.
Buddhism.
Hinduism.
Luciferians.
Roman Catholics.
Scientology.
Oneness Pentecostal.
New age.
Witchcraft.
Voodoo.
All of liberal “Christianity”.
Etc.

😬 not good company to be in.

Jesus Christ is our company, and we sleep very well. Thank you for your concern.

 

[Snacker]

You present a logical fallacy. Probably more than one...

Still, no doubt you are smug in your sense of superiority.

Even though Jesus condemned such an attitude.

Smuggest of the smugs.
Now THAT’s an accomplishment. 👏

 

[Snacker]

Calvinists believe 1 Timothy 2:4.

Christians believe John 3:16-17 ❤️

 

[Cameron143]

Christians believe John 3:16-17 ❤️

Did you read it?

It was an answer to an objection raised to Calvinism. I was merely pointing out that the other person didn't really understand Calvinism.

I don't personally care what a person's view is. I do think people ought to actually understand what they object to.

 

[Cameron143]

Christians believe John 3:16-17 ❤️

For the record...so do Calvinists.

 

[Snacker]

For the record...so do Calvinists.

On an extremely limited basis.

 

[Nehemiah6]

For the record...so do Calvinists.

Not really. If you believe something, you do not twist it to mean something else.

 

[Cameron143]

On an extremely limited basis.

They believe it fully. They understand it differently.

 

[Cameron143]

Not really. If you believe something, you do not twist it to mean something else.

Everyone has something twisted. I do. You do too. I don't believe either side is deliberately twisting anything. It's a genuine misunderstanding for most people.

 

[Snacker]

They believe it fully. They understand it differently.

Sorry brother, you know I love and respect you, but we see things differently here. Those who say for God so loved the world means some make-believe limited world of only the elect, they prove themselves severely lacking any understanding regarding God’s providence.

 

[Cameron143]

Sorry brother, you know I love and respect you, but we see things differently here. Those who say for God so loved the world means some make-believe limited world of only the elect, they prove themselves severely lacking any understanding regarding God’s providence.

Why aren't both true. Both are clearly found in scripture. John 3:16 is in the same Bible as Ephesians 1:4.
Why isn't God grand enough to choose without compromising the choices that individuals make?
And the sentiments are mutual.