Johnny,
In regards to (a), (b), ©, & (d): You have hit the nail on the head. And Arminianism is no better. It just approaches absurdity from a different angle.
Thats all for now but this seems like a good thread.
FWIW, and far be it from me to stoke a fire, by “necroing”, I don’t think that the term “double predestination” is used too much, or where it’s used formally in confessions. The term used is “passed over” with regard to the reprobate. However, to be honest with y’all, I think this is semantics. I don’t blame anyone for logically coming to the term.
But I liken this to EU / UR saying that y’all don’t teach that “all roads leads to heaven”. Hmmmm let’s see, a rabid, secular atheist, a muslim who strapped himself with C4 and shrapnel and who’s final words were “allahhu akbar” and detonated himself in a public area with children present, Judas, Neitche and Nero will all ultimately be in heaven…? To say that you don’t teach “all roads lead to heaven” is semantics. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck… Johnny, you wanted an honest Calvinist? By the power of the Almighty’s providence you’ve got one now, bruh. 
As far as Arminians being regarded as heretics, yes. That was declared at the Synod of Dort, which is where the traditional 5 Points of Calvinism were clearly focused on as they were challenged in the Remonstrance. Oxy didn’t seem to consider them heretics, though.
BTW, I’m not oxy.
You would agree that all those people would be in heaven if they made a genuine deathbed confession of faith, correct? (I guess the suicide bomber miraculously survives for a few minutes, realises the error of his ways and repents as he lies there dying …)
So you agree that all paths potentially lead to heaven? Anyone can potentially be saved, no matter what terrible things they have done before conversion?
Neither of us believe they will become saved by walking the path they are on. There is one path to salvation … and that way is Christ.
I’d say “double predestination” is a different kind of issue.
Sonia
G’mornin Sonia! I agree with your first question as “genuine” would prove a sovereign, monergistic act of rgeneration on the part of the true and living God, thereby showing predestination / election.
Your second question? Vehemently NOOOOO!!! You know that. The second part of your second question? No, not anyone…only the elect. However, as I’ve stated before, we don’t know who the elect and reprobate are. So, humanly speaking are they potential “gets”? From that perspective, yes. Again, I think that this will lead to us quibbling on “semantics”.
It seems to me that EU /UR DOES believe they will be saved walking the path they are on. Not because of the path, indeed, in spite of. But nevertheless, they walk that path and the final endgame is salvation.
My point re “double predestination / all roads leads to heaven” was to illustrate that opponents of either side, of reasonable faculties, can make the assertion. It may not be explicit, but seems implicit. Believers of either system may protest and say, “No, that’s not what we technically teach or believe!” But again, the opponents will say, “That’s just semantics”. That’s what I meant.
All theological systems will have inherent difficulties. I’m ok saying that. To deny that there are no difficulties to believe of accept in the Doctrines of Grace would be theologically and intellectually dishonest. I believe the same is true for EU /UR and ALL other religions, Christian or not.
I generally thought the whole roads lead to heaven thing was about a formulated religion vs general religiosity.
To me, John 14:6 means that Jesus is the only valid agent that has control over the dead.
It does not have anything whatsoever to do with a person’s beliefs, church, name of religion, or anything really.
You’re a Christian, Jesus takes you to Heaven. Or not.
You’re a Hindu, Jesus still takes you there or here.
Same concept with C. S. Lewis’s idea and with the invisible church in Orthodoxy/Catholicism.
So “all religions lead to heaven” is a bit of a misnomer. Many of these religions do not lead to Jesus at all. Nevertheless, Jesus still exists, whether you believe he does is irrelevant. Jesus leads to Heaven, and he decides who he gets to take with him.
Let me see if I’m getting this right:
Calvinists believe that for the elect, all paths lead to heaven.
Sonia
Okay smartypants, you’re halfway right…so progress is being made
Matt, if you accept that all paths lead to heaven for the elect, why do you have a problem with the idea that all paths lead to heaven for everybody, eventually? You are effectively saying that it doesn’t matter what terrible blunders the elect make along the way, their *ultimate *salvation is assured. And that is what we EUs believe also!
And just to hammer Sonia’s point home even harder, we EUs don’t believe that all religions, all beliefs, lead to salvation. All who are saved are saved through Christ. They just don’t necessarily know that. Yet!
And as I’ve said in my post to you on our one-to-one thread, the term ‘heresy’ is null and void in these sorts of debate. What you call heresy an Arminian calls orthodoxy. To the Pharisees, Jesus was a heretic, was he not? And anyway, ‘heresy’ ought not to worry a Calvinist, as their election and salvation are 100% assured, regardless of what any ‘heretics’ might say. The elect simply cannot be deceived.
For the record, if believing God loves and will save all his children makes me a heretic, I’m proud to be one.
Shalom
Johnny
No, just the narrow path.
and there are few who find it…
This post is submitted for Johnny’s sake primarily, but applicable for all, even myself.
Johnny, I’m quoting Sonia’s post because you think she made a great point for you to drive home further. Perhaps that was her primary and only intent. I took her post as a playful, clever, and cute little jab at me. I thought I responded in kind.
Sounds like Arminianism within Calvinism.
Although, tbh, I think it’s kinda that way. Some amount is sort of predestined, chosen, provided for Jesus. Others are welcome to join. Those predestined can screw up, too “many are called, few are chosen”.
You flatter yourself when you say that you are “seriously interested” in “debating” a Calvinist. You are CONSUMED / OBSESSED with finding a Calvinist who will allow your harrowing vitriol and hatred to go unabated. And unless they take it, and through your “teaching” repent, they / I will be / remain nothing more than brainwashed, illogical, inconsistent blah blah blah. I showed up on this forum and have been immediately forthright as to why I’m here. I’ve acknowledged personal struggle with reprobation and you run with it, calling it fruit. You say you want to know what Calvinists believe and why…? You are utterly convinced of what we believe and why. We believe in a demon-god who demands blood sacrifice and utterly delights in sadistic perversion who allows no choice. There! Are you happy? For some reason, I doubt it. You say you do your best to love and fellowship with Calvinists? Really? How many Calvinists are in your sphere, if I may ask? And if what I’ve read here is your “best”, buddy, you’ve made the best arguement for “T” since Genesis 6:5 
. Or else your lying about really trying to try your best…which again affirms “T”. It’s hard to kick against the goads, Johnny…
Oh yeah, Bird was quite right to call you out for using “shalom”…it sounds soooo phony following some of your posts.
Shalom
Matt
It is a self evident fact that we daily grow into the image of the god we serve.
Hi Matt
Genesis 6:5: “The LORD saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time.”
You’re saying that about me? Thanks, mate! I know I’m a sinner, but I didn’t realise I’d sunk quite as low as to have become the living epitome of human wickedness. If I were the sensitive type I might take considerable offence at the implication of your joke. Assuming you are joking?
It’s obvious you are angry and upset. I guess that’s because you’ve just woken up to the fact that the anti-Calvinist sentiment expressed on this board is widespread and implacable. You characterise that opposition as vitriol and hatred. I might call it something else – reasoned, logical and scriptural exposure of the falsity of Calvinism, perhaps. And it was one of the reasons I at least was interested in debating a Calvinist, as I had hoped he or she would be able to show that Calvinism isn’t actually unreasonable, illogical or unscriptural. Unfortunately, thus far you haven’t done that.
But as you have said yourself, no vitriol or hatred has been directed at you personally – certainly not from me. The hatred is for the doctrine – the doctrine that a God who “is love” creates sentient creatures – including you and me and the people that we love the most – knowing full well that not only are some of those sentient creatures going to spend eternity in conscious torment in hell, but that he himself sends them there; and this somehow manifests his ‘glory’.
To most of us – non-Calvinist Christians of every hue, adherents of other religions, agnostics, atheists – this doctrine is both a) unbiblical – as I have repeatedly tried to show in my posts; and b) revolting. It is not the doctrine of love revealed and modelled in the life of Jesus Christ.
I’ll quote George MacDonald, as per my signature, as he sums it up perfectly: “To say on the authority of the Bible that God does a thing no honourable man would do, is to lie against God; to say that it is therefore right, is to lie against the very spirit of God.”
Now if you’ve read some of the testimonies of ex-Calvinists on this board you will find people whose lives have been warped, damaged by Calvinism. And if you read my own testimony, in the post you quote from, you will see spelt out there at least in part my own reasons for feeling so strongly about Calvinism. It is a horrible theology. It maligns and misrepresents utterly the character of God. It drives sensitive people away from God. It causes the watching world to recoil in horror and disbelief – in unbelief.
Perhaps when you’ve calmed down a bit you might revisit your last post and realise – as I have done in the past, for we all say and do things in the heat of the moment which we regret afterwards – that it doesn’t do you much credit.
Shalom
Johnny
Johnny, I will provide a little clarification for you on Gen 6:5…If all of your posts re. Calvinism represent you trying to try love Calvinists, then that is the best arguement for Total Depravity…SINCE Genesis 6:5. The difference is real. Maybe subtle, but real. I qualified it with a laughing emoticon. That doesn’t mean that I don’t believe there wasn’t seriousness in my point, though. You did miss the word “since” and that has implications. BTW, as part of the “T”, I believe Gen 6:5 is applicable to ALL of mankind (the UR “all” not the Calvinist “all” ), not just you. It applies to those who aren’t regenerate. This is why Jesus said “You must be born from above to even SEE the Kingdom of God”. “The natural man is hostile to the things of the Lord”. Bit by bit, I’ve been trying and am trying to accomodate you as to WHY Calvinists believe what we believe. Savvy? As I’ve said in a previous post, you ask the question but already have your own answer…we are illogical, fingers stuck in our ears etc etc etc. When you make posts about Reformed Theology that include your descriptions, you ARE attacking me. Just because you don’t name me personally doesn’t mean it’s not an attack on my character and mind. James warns about bridling the tongue and cursing image-bearers. You have NOT found a loophole by saying that just because you don’t mention my name you are absolved. I know that I do the same thing, but I’m under no delusions about it. “T” represents me as well. Yeah, I’m aware of antiCalvinist sentiment. It was brought to my attention when I’d heard of the some of the reformers getting their tongues cut out and burned at the stake. AntiCalvinism sentiment has been around since the Reformation. I’m ok with some internet roughhousing. I’ve not yet resisted to the point of my blood being shed. This is extremely serious stuff we are discussing with eternal (Calvinist eternal 
) consequences.
Tempers may flare. I take you to task however, for being inflammatory and condescending and if I respond in similar fashion you say, “Geez, what a grouch. You’re angry, Matt”. I’m the only person here on this forum now (that I’m aware, at least) contending for the Doctrines of Grace. I feel I have to tread a bit more lightly. Does that not make sense?
Shalom
Matt
To be honest, I am teetering with the possibility of the doctrines of Grace. However I would still apply them even going only with byronarn’s understanding, where “limited atonement” is “limited” in scope without eliminating the possibility of EU/UR.
Am I 100% sold on it? No. But I can see some of the logic. So consider me a sympathizer. However, even if convinced in them, it would still be in a UR context as I see that plain as day in scriptures.
Thanks for being honest, 1Cor. Remember the words of Gamaliel in Acts…“if this is of man, it will come to nothing. However, if this be from God you will not be able to oppose it, indeed, you might even be found opposing God!”. Worldview shifts don’t come fast or easy…at least not for me. I’m not here steal UR’s. Just wanted to hear from yourselves WHY you believe what you believe and was asked WHY I believe what I do, so I’m trying to provide cogent answers in between being a thorn in Johnny’s flesh…actually, the two provide the same result
Hello Matt
Thanks for your most recent post. What are we going to do with each other, eh? 
I think I can see, through a glass darkly, where you’re coming from - or trying to come from.
All my posts on this forum have been written in the hope that, while they may be virulently anti-Calvinism, they are not anti any individual Calvinist on the forum. (Because of course, I *have *taken Mark Driscoll very strongly to task, for all the reasons I cite in my posts about him, and also had a bit of a swipe at John Piper.)
But laughing emoticons or no, your previous post on this thread carried the clear implication that I represent the Gold Standard in total depravity - at least, that’s how I interpreted it. I could have been wrong, for all the reasons you and I have discussed, about the lack of tone of voice etc on the internet. But now you say it was all a joke, probably, and it’s okay because it applies to all of mankind - who aren’t regenerate. So, is that what you think of me, then, that I am unregenerate?
Yes, I have formulated my own opinions of Calvinists, here and elsewhere. I have yet to meet one who was able to explain the unscriptural illogicalities of Calvinism.
Do go ahead and take me to task if I step out of line. I do that quite a lot. But I’m not asking for absolution, I am just saying that I (trust I) have never resorted to ad hominem arguments in my dialogue with you. All the things I have said in opposition to Calvinism have been heartfelt and honest, and directed to the theology, the doctrine. And that is *not *the same thing as having a go at you personally, certainly not on your character. I had thought we had come to an understanding on that. If you choose to see an attack on your beliefs as an attack on you personally, well I’m sorry, but there’s not much I can do about that. I’m hardly going to say, oh, okay, Matt doesn’t like it if I attack Calvinism, therefore I’m going to pretend I think it’s all hunky dory and not say anything against it. Because of course, I *loathe *some - by no means all - elements of Calvinst doctrine.
Matt, I do know how you feel when the things you believe in - ie your Calvinist doctrines - are impugned or maligned. I feel very hurt when my atheist friends ridicule belief in God, or much worse, I see or read things which mock or ridicule Jesus Christ. But the thing is, the hurt *you *feel when your Calvinist beliefs are attacked is the mirror image of the hurt *I *feel when I contemplate the Calvinist doctrines of limited atonement and reprobation. You see, the God I love and worship simply isn’t like that - He would no more condemn one of His children to eternal hell than you or I would reject and subject to torment one of our own children.
You consider what I say about Calvinism inflammatory. I say what Calvinism says about *God *is inflammatory.
Yes, these are serious matters. All the more reason why I have tried to conduct our dialogues with a healthy dose of humour. It seems I have failed. I’m sorry about that.
If I can speak totally without irony or sarcasm, straight from the heart, I would like to say that I think you’re a good bloke, a Christian struggling to do his best by the light he he has received, who for reasons that I currently do not understand believes in doctrines which I find anathema (and probably don’t understand). I guess maybe you feel the same - or similar - about me and my beliefs.
Shalom
Johnny
Good post, Johnny! YOU ARE NOT the gold standard for “T”. I was being humorous, but it was not all a joke, either. More of a “Oh you who judge…are you not guilty of the very same?” That applies to me too, Johnny, I know that. I think you’re a good bloke, as well. You joined this forum not too much earlier than myself. We both started as Arminian antiCalvinists but converted later. Not copping out right now, but I’ve got to go. The rest of my weekend is packed w/responsibilty, but if I get a chance, I’ll post soon. Take care.
Okay, Matt, thanks for extending - and taking - the olive branch.
Good luck with your sermon, by the way. I am preaching in my little church tomorrow, on the ‘problem of evil’. (Dad still not recovered enough to resume preaching, but hopefully he’s going to come along and hear me make a fool of myself.) How did I ever let myself in for that?
All the best mate.
Shalom
Johnny
I notice that the original linked blog post is no longer up. Hmmm…