Replies

Don't let them turn you to the dark side girl, your simple faith in what God has told us, is true.

Hi BigMack. Let me throw down the gauntlet. Show us all how any analysis of the Scriptures that has been presented by those of us this group would classify as "Calvinists" has violated the immediate context of any of the passages or the broad context of Scripture. I contend that the exegesis is sound. (I don't like the label "Calvinist" myself becase the doctrine predatates Calvin and I would say is the orthodox position of Peter and Paul.) The problem is that autonomous man does not like being brought squarely to grips with the idea that he is not the absolute source of authority in the universe. One does not have to like a conclusion for it to be true. God is the sovereign ruler over all of the universe he made, including the hearts and will of men. That said, it is also true that God is good and not the author of sin. The two statements are not mutually exclusive and the Scriptures are not ashamed to proclaim both truths.

Let me throw down the gauntlet. Show us all how any analysis of the Scriptures that has been presented by those of us this group would classify as "Calvinists" has violated the immediate context of any of the passages or the broad context of Scripture.

Way to go RF..How bout it mack?

God is the sovereign ruler over all of the universe he made, including the hearts and will of men.

If this is absolutely true, then Mack cannot help but believe as he does, and you are wasting your time trying to convince him otherwise.

God is the sovereign ruler over all of the universe he made, including the hearts and will of men. That said, it is also true that God is good and not the author of sin. The two statements are not mutually exclusive and the Scriptures are not ashamed to proclaim both truths.

You cannot just declare them not to be mutually exclusive. If that is your position, then you need to explain how this can be so.

Hi BigMack. Let me throw down the gauntlet. Show us all how any analysis of the Scriptures that has been presented by those of us this group would classify as "Calvinists" has violated the immediate context of any of the passages or the broad context of Scripture. I contend that the exegesis is sound.

The problem with Calvinism is its attempt to reconcile and systematize that which the Bible does not reconcile.

Though there is value in systematic theology, there is also a danger. We must be careful simply to believe the Bible as it stands. I believe Acts 13:48, which says "as many as were ordained to eternal life believed," and I also believe Acts 13:46, which says the unbelieving Jews had rejected God's salvation and had judged themselves unworthy of everlasting life. I don't try to develop a theological system that will somehow make perfect sense of it all.

BigMack