Replies

The point of the example was to show the fallacy in using a simple conditional statement to imply the universal ability of all people to meet the condition.

Since you have obviously (in your own eyes) met the condition, why do you need to tell others that they have no chance of election?

"I'm there, you're not! Tough luck, suckers!"

Your whole doctrine is one of hopelessness. There is no reason to spread the Good News, the elect will get by and it's useless for the rest.

Since you have obviously (in your own eyes) met the condition, why do you need to tell others that they have no chance of election?

Yes, I meet the condition for salvation (which is what John 3:16 speaks of): I have faith in Christ. That was not the condition of my election, nor was anything else I did, am doing or will do. I don't need to tell others that they have no chance of election because I have absolutely no idea who is elect.

"I'm there, you're not! Tough luck, suckers!"

Whatever.

Your whole doctrine is one of hopelessness. There is no reason to spread the Good News, the elect will get by and it's useless for the rest.

You can continue to argue against hypercalvinism all you want, but those who hold the actual Reformed position will continue to press on in missionary work, preaching and acts of compassion.

Perhaps you should learn a little more about what the Reformed position actually is before denouncing it with grand words and appeals to emotion. Just a thought. In the mean time, do you have any scripture besides John 3:16 you wish to bring to this discussion, or is ridicule and forceful adjectives the meat of your argument?

"As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction." (2 Peter 3:16)

Sounds like a fairly accurate description of hyper-Calvinist, double predestination, huh!