Replies

Would it be fair for me to post something like this?

Based on almost two years discussion with non-Calvinists on FR, here is what I perceive them to believe:

1) Man is inherently good, and just has a problem making bad decisions. It is felt that he will get right with God on his own, given half a chance.
2) Anyone, at anytime, and for any reason, can patch things up with God, and things will be just "hunky-dory between them, just so long as they exercise their free-will.
3) Jesus died for everyone, and even whispered in Joe Stalin's ear just before he died and gave him full forgiveness of all his sins. There is no sin problem, Jesus took care of that for everyone, everywhere, without exception.
4) God offers salvation to all everywhere equally. The fact that many haven't heard the Gospel isn't a problem, since God understands their limitations and makes exceptions for them.
5) As long as men continue to hold tightly to God, and don't let go, they might make it into heaven in the end. After all, it is all the result of their choices, and they can choose to let go and turn their backs on God anytime they feel like it. However, even if they do this, they will probably be given lots of second chances.

Now, is that a fair characterization of the non-Calvinist's beliefs? Probably not, but then again, you have to realize that this is just what I preceive. You really need to help this poor ignorant Calvinist out, beginning with the first point. We seem to get stuck on the nature of man as it relates to this conversation.

Would it be fair for me to post something like this?

This is FR. You can post whatever you want so long as it isn't racist, abusive, etc. You know the rules.

As to correctness, there is certainly a problem with posting material and representing it as the opinions of others when it is not their opinion. They can simply deny its accuracy.

I, however, am not posting your opinions for you. I'm attempting to post accurate definitions of a historic theological acronym known as "tulip." It is certainly significant that you say you believe "tulip" to be the truth of the bible. I will accept any legitimate modifications to the definitions given by those who are part of the calvinist movement. Your web link to a site with "tulip" definitions was certainly helpful.

These are the definitions I will use for reference on all calvinist threads in the future, with a mind, of course, to refining them as legitimate input is given.