A few scriptures came to mind as I was reading...
How? You're a Calvinist so what would the "reprobate" be seeing exactly, and what purpose would it serve to show them a sign anyway?
1) That he needs a Savior and 2) that his/her turning from God is something he/she desires, else you'd be saved John 12:37-50 Mark 4:12 2 Timothy 2:25
Everyone 'not living a perfect life' does not equate to "choosing" an eternity of 'hell'. It's all very well rattling off some 'noble' sentiments but it's pretty empty rhetoric. All the prayers and 'exertions' are going to amount to nought if it's all a 'done deal' anyway which is effectively what Calvinism is.
There is something inside of me, having heard the gospel, that persuaded me toward repentance and desire for Christ, upon hearing the gospel message that I needed His saving Grace. There is something inside of you that rejects and/or resists it. Question: Do you have control of that 'something?' Read the above verses again, perhaps Romans 9 as well.
Pretty explanatory I would have thought. You don't believe you're going to suffer such a fate do you?
This wasn't toward me, but I'd lean on all my answers thus far against the notion and 2 Timothy 2:25 is a good reminder to me as well as one of the verses I gave for you.
It isn't 'whiny' to object to interminable suffering or a belief that espouses such.
I again think hell is a suffering at our own hands. For instance again, what made you refuse the gospel story that you are a sinner, that Christ died for our sins and rose again, and that by believing you may have life in His name? Why didn't that make a difference in your life. What are you choosing instead? Aren't you the one choosing it? Romans helps answer some of these question, for this one, Romans 9 for me.
Nobody's stopping you from opening your eyes either to stop being blinkered by doctrine. If you think you're the arbiter of 'what the bible really says' then you're a writing cliche as well frankly. Theologically this is predominantly an open theist website where Calvinism is regarded as erroneous to outright heresy depending, so comments like yours hold zero sway.
I don't think it always an issue, and I try to argue from a perspective that scripture has answers without you needing my interpretation. I try to let them speak for themselves. This isn't/wasn't to me in particular, but it could have been so I address it from my own perspective, not to interpose, but to add a few thoughts of my own as well as try to connect you with scriptures.
Eh, semantics. Might as well say that Stevie Wonder was shown a 'Thin Ice' sign before he realized he was on a frozen lake. I mean, what is the point of everyone supposedly being given a sign of some sort if only a few have the power to recognize them for what they are?
Romans 1 is beyond one sign in the way Paul expresses it. He goes on to discuss much of your dialogue here with dialogos in detail, so I often point to Romans and the gospel of John for answering them.
Yeah, wonderful. Well, for the lucky elect anyway.
lain:
This again, wasn't written to me, but as I'm interjecting my thoughts, I'm trying to field as much of your concern as I can. A conversation like this might be seen a bit from any one particular Christian perspective that it need not get too tied up in election. What I mean is this: From a Calvinist pov, God knows if you are elect or not, we then together are trying to discover if that is so. An Arminian would say the moment you choose, you are elect, and the Open Theist would say about the same, that Christ elected to save those who are lost. As a Calvinist, I see me slightly in the mix, but rather see you and God coming to meet over a truth where you will follow, or will not. "Why one and not the other" is peering beneath both your veil and God's. As a Calvinist, my job is to ensure you two meet. If I haven't done a good job, I hope I can do better introductions when next you meet.
Er, no, it isn't. I'll freely admit I don't like the notion of it, I doubt anyone with the merest shred of compassion about them would, but that doesn't make your presumptions hold water of any sort. There's numerous scriptures that contradict Calvinism and limited atonement but I doubt you'll even have pause for thought over them. Seriously, you have to redefine the word "all" a myriad times to become "some" under your doctrine.
If I were more a part of the conversation, I'd have to try to carefully extract "Calvinist" rhetoric from the discussion of "hell." While our Calvinism certainly informs our understanding of hell, it shouldn't a reason why any related doctrine is shucked by the wayside. The greater part of Christendom holds to a literal view of Scripture and Jesus talks about hell. That is more important in a conversation like this than a 'Calvinist' or 'Arminian' talking about hell.
Yeh, sure. Yours no doubt...
lain:
My final assuming, where such isn't directed at me, but where I'd had to answer would be to say that one vested in scriptures would probably be one to defer to. Such doesn't demand, it merely defers and listens. When we paid professors, we didn't buy in wholesale, that wasn't what we were paying for, and this time its free and he seems willing to invest in your time. This thread will either be a rally without a lot of research or investigation (reactionary) or will be more organized, orderly, and investigatory. It seems to have a lot of youthful exuberance from the outset :think: It seems pointed on that course, but the side conversations may delve deeper. Your questions and responses provided an opportunity for scripture interactions that were already on my mind. -Lon
