Pagesfromthecompassionate wrote:
If one believes that Christian Bible system that you decry as 'unloving' and 'uncompassionate' then how can those belivers involved be also then loving and compassionate?

The low-calvinists tend to be more level-headed then the high-calvinists.

It still seems to be the case today. The low-Calvinists that come here are treated so badly by the high-Calvinists that are here.

Preacher wrote:
Be careful to make blanket statements, especially in light of the fact that there are many texts which support unconditional election.

Just for you to catch up on where I am at with this guys, we have left with:

all= elect
any= elect
world= elect
whosoever= elect
anything that if taken literally would mean that God loves all= elect.

I am not sure, but can you do better. They desperately are in need of help. I have not read much of your post but it seems like you are willing to have a sincere discussion. I tried with some here, but unfortunately, they have proven time and time again that they are more insterested in Sola Calvinim than Sola Escritura. They want to ask all the questions but consider it painful to answer simple yes-no questions.

Hopefully not, but more than likely, he will.

rogerant wrote:
Overcoming Evil wrote...
2 Peter 3:9 .... but is longsuffering to US-WARD, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
And who would US-WARD be...
1 Peter 1:1 Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to THEM that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ: Grace and peace be multiplied unto you through the knowledge of God, and of Jesus OUR Lord, According as his divine power hath given unto US all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called US to glory and virtue: Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these YE might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.

For all the talk of Scripture interpreting scripture (which they only use as a red herring to avoid the immediate context) you would think that they could see that in Paul's epistle grace is always the gift not faith.

They want to hang their theology on one verse that they interpret without any consideration of the laws of language.

Oh, wretched sinner out there, if I am the only one in here you will here this from, so be it, but listen clear. God loves you. Yes you. He died for you! He desires YOU to repent and come to his loving arms. There is no sin too deep where his grace cannot reach.

And while others stammer at this truth, while others are relundant to scream it from the housetops I want you to hear it from me. God does not only love an elite few. He has not predestined you to go to hell! No my friend. Rest assured: God loves you! God loves you! GOD LOVES YOU!!!

I Con the Bible wrote:
Your own text answers its own question. God is longsuffering to who? To us! Who is us? Every one in the world? No! Us means those who are in Christ. Peter is re-affirming what

To say otherwise makes a mockery of your own Calvinism by insisting that the elect are in danger of judgement.

I Con The Bible wrote:
Your own text answers its own question. God is longsuffering to who? To us! Who is us? Every one in the world? No! Us means those who are in Christ. Peter is re-affirming what

The context is more than clear that "us-ward" and "any" are antecedents to the ungodly.

To say otherwise makes a mockery of your own Calvinism by insisting that the elect are in danger of judgement.

I Con The Bible wrote:
I have repeatedly given copious quantities of Scripture in the past and you have not answered them yet, so why should I waste my time and give you more?

I use to be able to start from the local context, to the remote context, and then to the whole of Scripture. I also use to provide both grammatical and etymological arguments for the passages in question. Unfortunately, I am not able to do that anymore.

In contrast, all I received from you is a bunch of verse launching parties without any attempt to even consider the context. In fact you scoff at the idea of a literal interpretation in favor of a hermeneutic that deals with "the whole of Scripture" which is nothing more than another way of saying that you cannot provide a verse for any of your points made.

I have proven time and time again that the Calvinist has all of the questions but none of the answers. That's ok. That is what daddy's are for.

Minnow wrote:
Once a Calvinist ALWAYS a Christian.

Icon the Bible wrote:
Behind the question, "Does God love everybody?" lurks the question, "Does God will the salvation of everybody?" mwa...mwah...mwahhh my logical deductions hold more authority than the scriptures...mwa...mwa...mwahh

2 Peter 3:9 wrote:
The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

Icon the Bible wrote:
I am also appalled at the prevalence of Arminiasm despite the overwhelming Scriptural evidence to the contrary. mwa...mwa...mwahhh

Mike wrote:
Daddy,
I don't know why they are upset with you. Don't they know you can't help it, you are preordained from eternity past to be just the way you are? How could Christ have died for you, of all people? Why do they fight God's plan for you by trying to change your mind? You have no will anyway, so you can't even want to change. They sure are strange folk.

DJC's Nothing wrote:
_____
"Peanuts"
You write: "CANNOT be verified NOWHERE" and have the audacity to recommend that I take a 7th grade English class?
[Why am I suddenly thinking of hippos?]

DJC's Nothing wrote:
And I'm STILL waiting on your EXPLICIT Biblical proof-text(s) affirming that:
"JESUS DOES NOT GET WHAT HE PAID FOR" (your quote)

If you want to believe that:

1. World means elect
2. All means elect
3. Any means elect
4. None means elect
5. And anything else that you can think of means elect.