If...

[Jon Estes]

If... the Calvinists view of salvation is correct, what kind of God is He that would only save some when He could save them all?

If... the Calvinists view of salvation is incorrect, what kind of God is He that would save some when He could save them all?

[Dave Roberts]

If....God is truly holy, why would he save any?

[Jon Estes]

[Sandy]

I found this today. Seems relevant to this discussion. (If someone can shorten that link, be my guest.)
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/allsetfree ... tm_source=[!]%20Newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=NL%20Progressive%20Christian&utm_content=49114

From personal experience, I've found one of the toughest, most difficult things to do in applying Quaker values is that they are not categorical and distinct, but they overlap and interact. When it comes to systems of doctrine and statements of faith, it is almost the opposite of what I was taught all of my life. There's no expectation of doctrinal conformity, and no expectation that any human study of the scripture or application of faith will be any closer or further from the "truth" than any other. I've found it extremely difficult to get away from drawing conclusions and thinking that what I've discovered, or what a particular preacher or author or denominational perspective has discovered or practices is "closer to the truth" than another. The approach in Seminary was to study theology "systematically" and to develop personal beliefs and convictions based on historical and traditional viewpoints, like Calvinism, Wesleyanism, Arminianism, Catholicism, Anabaptist theology, etc. We're taught to evaluate doctrine by whether we agree with it or not, and to dig in and find corroborating "scripture" to support our points, and we start with where we've presupposed ourselves to what we think is right. I've been in some pretty deep and comprehensive Bible studies over the past couple of years, without any mention of any theological "system" or use of one of their doctrinal points as an accepted conclusion. And while I wouldn't find myself in agreement with the author of the article I posted on many points, I would say that my perspective on many things has shifted considerably from what it was when I was a Southern Baptist denominational loyalist.

[Jon Estes]

[Sandy]

There are those who would say that a discussion of Calvinism doesn't belong in a "Baptist Faith and Practice" forum either.

[Haruo]

I'm an optimist, and a universalist, but I certainly don't think I can make an open-and-shut case for my beliefs. I trust God to love me and do for me what I can't for myself even when I don't trust him. I don't think God created a one-size-fits-all universe or saves based on a one-size-fits-all formula. I think God saves people who never heard of Jesus. But that's just me, and I'm not out to convince anybody.

[Jon Estes]

[JE Pettibone]

[Rvaughn]

[Dave Roberts]

The best explanation of the doctrine of election came to me from a Presbyterian who said:

" On the outside of the gates of heaven is writter, 'Whosoever will may come.'

On the inside of the gates of heaven is written, 'Chosen in him before the foundatioin of the world.'"

That has always helped and humbled me.

[Jon Estes]

I am not sure if the intent of my question was understood. It was less about Calvinism but more about the Character of God.

“What kind of God is He if...”

[JE Pettibone]

[Dave Roberts]

The greatest problem with the doctrine of God is that every principle seems to have an exception or an event in scripture that derails our neatly running theology. J. B. Phillips remains correct for all of us: "Your God is Too Small."

[Sandy]

[JE Pettibone]

[Sandy]

[Haruo]