The lie of eternal security refuted once and for all.

[thecolorsblend]

The term "Christian" is found in the Bible as a label of those who follow Messiah, Yeshua.

I never said otherwise.

 

[MennoSota]

Ok, let's examine that very thought. So, what IF? What IF the Prodigal Son had sold himself into slavery to someone other than his Father and NEVER chose to go back home? Or once home, decided that he didn't LIKE IT there and moved away again?

Blessings,

MEC

Would that make him any less of a son? Would that have changed the family he was in?

 

[Wgw]

You are right. "Calvinist" is not found in the Bible. The term "Christian" is found in the Bible as a label of those who follow Messiah, Yeshua.
If we are going to discuss God's work in redemption we should emphasize God's words rather than our own.
As to the first verse you chose, it might be good to quote the verse and the context around it. Rather than spend time explaining my undestanding of this verse, I will point you to a good article.
http://www.desiringgod.org/articles/why-must-we-work-out-our-salvation
Finally, please expand on your phrase, "Do tell."

Note that @thecolorsblend did not say that "Christian" was an un-Biblical term (my own church is proud of the fact, by the way, that the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch), but that it was man made, which indeed the book of Acts conveys. The idea that words that appear in the Bible are inherently of supernatural origin would be grossly misleading.

 

[-57]

Matthew 6:15 (KJV)
15 But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.

Do YOU propose that ALL that are 'born again' will continually FORGIVE their neighbors? So what happens if they DON'T? The scripture here says they will NOT receive forgiveness. Without forgiveness there IS NO Salvation.


MEC

Here is where your theology is messed up. Your theology says no one is saved....well perhaps for a season, but, as soon as they don't forgive someone.....BAMMM....there goes their salvation.

 

[MennoSota]

Matthew 6:15 (KJV)
15 But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.

Do YOU propose that ALL that are 'born again' will continually FORGIVE their neighbors? So what happens if they DON'T? The scripture here says they will NOT receive forgiveness. Without forgiveness there IS NO Salvation.

Was Jesus teaching about salvation when he taught about prayer? What is the context of Matthew 6? May I suggest that this verse has nothing to do with salvation?

1 Corinthians 15 (KJV)

15 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;

2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.

So what happens if one DOESN'T keep to memory what Paul has preached: the Gospels? And what happens if one's LOSES their FAITH? For NO ONE has been GUARANTEED 'faith'. We are to KEEP UP our faith. That's one of those MUSTS I referred to before. And not just ANY faith, but faith in GOD through His Son.

Show us where we are GUARANTEED to be GIVEN faith to live our LIVES without error or chance of it being altered.

False professions of faith are, sadly, common. Remember that Paul was writing to a church that was tremendously dysfunctional. Paul is stating that he is confident of the Corinthians faith and their continued sanctification. Yet, he knows that not in the church at Corinth are redeemed.
One of the indications of salvation is the perseverance of the saints.

2 Peter:

20 For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning.

21 For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them.

22 But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, The dog is turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire.

Does this passage in 2 Peter 2, have anything to do with salvation or does it have to do with those who heard the gospel, tried it out and never received God's grace? I would suggest that the passage is addressing the Gnostic teachers who were leading people into heresy. Sadly, those folks who lacked discernment and followed these false teachers never knew God's grace.

Then consider this:

1 Corinthians 9:24
Know ye not that they which run in a race run all, but one receiveth the prize? So run, that ye may obtain.

^^^This has nothing to do with salvation.
or this:

Philippians 2:12
Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.

I suggest this is talking about the process of sanctification. Where does it say that a person will lose his/her salvation?

Now WHY would one NEED to 'work out' their Salvation if it is GUARANTEED? If it was IMPOSSIBLE to lose it, there would be NO NEED for fear nor a need to WORK IT OUT.

Now, you show me ONE that offers something contrary. ONE verse that states that one CANNOT LOSE their 'Salvation'.

You may not agree with these verses. It won't bother me if you don't, but I've shared more than one.

John 10:27-29
My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand.

John 6:37
All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out.

1 Corinthians 1:22
And who has also put his seal on us and given us his Spirit in our hearts as a guarantee.

Ephesians 1:13
In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit.



That verse previously offered says nothing of the sort. It simply states that one cannot be SNATCHED from Christ. It offers NOTHING concerning one's OWN CHOICE.

Blessings,

MEC

(I added some comments to your quote. You may wish to expand your quotation if you don't see it.)
Here's just a cursory sample of God choosing. (ESV) God seems to be quite consistent throughout the Bible. It seems that God is Sovereign and in control.
If God chooses to redeem us, do you think He may choose to take back His redemption? That would seem to go against His nature and His promises. Do you think God breaks His word and His promises?

Genesis 18:19

For I have chosen him, that he may command his children and his household after him to keep the way of the Lord by doing righteousness and justice, so that the Lord may bring to Abraham what he has promised him.”

Deuteronomy 7:6

For you are a people holy to theLord your God. The Lord your God has chosen you to be a people for his treasured possession, out of all the peoples who are on the face of the earth.

Psalm 105:43

So he brought his people out with joy, his chosen ones with singing.

Isaiah 41:8-10

But you, Israel,my servant,
Jacob,whom I have chosen,
the offspring of Abraham,my friend;
you whom I took from the ends of the earth,
and calledfrom its farthest corners,
saying to you, “You aremy servant,
I have chosen you and not cast you off”;
fear not, for I am with you;
be not dismayed, for I am your God;
I will strengthen you, I will help you,
I will uphold you withmy righteous right hand.

John 13:17-19

If you know these things,blessed are you if you do them. I am not speaking of all of you; I knowwhom I have chosen. Butthe Scripture will be fulfilled,‘He who ate my bread has lifted his heel against me.’I am telling you this now, before it takes place, that when it does take place you may believe that I am he.

Romans 11:5

So too at the present time there is a remnant, chosen by grace.

Ephesians 1:3-14

Blessed bethe God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places,even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will,to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved. In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses,according to the riches of his grace,which he lavished upon us, in all wisdom and insight making known to us the mystery of his will,according to his purpose, which he set forth in Christ as a plan for the fullness of time,to unite all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth.

In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will, so that we who were the first to hope in Christ might be to the praise of his glory. In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit,who is the guarantee of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it, to the praise of his glory.

Colossians 3:12

Put on then, as God's chosen ones, holy and beloved, compassionate hearts, kindness, humility, meekness, and patience,

1 Thessalonians 1:4

For we know, brothers loved by God, that he has chosen you,

1 Peter 2:9

But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light.

Revelation 17:14

They will make war on the Lamb, and the Lamb will conquer them, for he is Lord of lords and King of kings, and those with him are called and chosen and faithful.”

 

[Imagican]

Would that make him any less of a son? Would that have changed the family he was in?

The POINT of the Prodigal Son was HIS RETURN. He was WELCOMED HOME.

So I say that what family he was a part of is irrelevant to the story. He could have been a member of ANY family, but if he had remained LOST, it wouldn't have mattered. He was LOST and THEN found again.

Obviously the parable means something DIFFERENT to you. Please explain.

Blessings,

MEC

 

[MennoSota]

The POINT of the Prodigal Son was HIS RETURN. He was WELCOMED HOME.

So I say that what family he was a part of is irrelevant to the story. He could have been a member of ANY family, but if he had remained LOST, it wouldn't have mattered. He was LOST and THEN found again.

Obviously the parable means something DIFFERENT to you. Please explain.

Blessings,

MEC

If you are right, then why did the father have servants and not just have all family?
I think your view of the prodigal son is incorrect. The fact is that the son already was family when he left. The father always waited for his son. He never considered the son as anything other.

 

[Imagican]

Here is where your theology is messed up. Your theology says no one is saved....well perhaps for a season, but, as soon as they don't forgive someone.....BAMMM....there goes their salvation.

Really? How do you suppose that my theology is messed up when I post scripture that makes a STATEMENT?

Let me ask you this, what does the scripture mean?

What I SEE are many that don't want to LIVE UP to the responsibility that has been placed upon them that WOULD be 'saved'.

It is MY opinion that NO ONE is 'saved' until the Book of Life is opened and such determination is MADE. Not by Themselves, but by those that will JUDGE them according to RIGHTEOUSNESS.

And it is also my opinion that the Bible PLAINLY illustrates that just SAYING that one believes in Christ means absolutely NOTHING. It's the FRUIT that one produces that PROVES what they BELIEVE.

There is NO 'magic' formula offered in the Bible that leads to Salvation. Some indicate that they can perform some MAGIC ritual or snap their fingers and NOW they KNOW they are SAVED.

What I would offer is that there are those that are so gullible that they are led by OTHER MEN to believe such non sense.

The Bible makes it CLEAR by EVERYTHING that it offers that we MUST DO many things, that if we DON'T DO what we MUST, we are to expect NOTHING other than what has been promised: Salvation for those that OVERCOME and DESTRUCTION for those that DON'T.

Some call this 'works theology'. Not in the Bible. While you CANNOT WORK you way to Salvation by WORKS alone, you also can't receive Salvation without DOING what is commanded to receive it. It is NOT the FREE gift some insist. It is FREELY offered. Nothing we have EVER DONE led to us EARNING the OFFERING. God didn't OWE it to us and we did NOTHING to deserve the OFFER. But in order to receive, there are a TON of conditions. Some don't like this idea because it involves RESPONSIBILITY. Much easier and comforting to brain wash oneself into believing that they don't HAVE to DO 'anything'. Just SAY some magic words and POOF, they are SAVED.

And then the OTHERS: those that believe that God CHOSE them and there is NOTHING that they can DO to change it? Oh, Ain't they SPECIAL? Especially in their ability to IGNORE or alter the MAJORITY of scripture offered in the NT. TULIP? Please. Can't even believe that ANYONE could take such theology seriously. But then L.Ron was able to garner quite a few followers with theology just as an inane. The IDEA that someone is chosen and that this predestination makes them IMMUNE from death is absurd. But it would be the PERFECT belief system for Ted Bundy. Imagine, someone able to DO ANYTHING without having to WORRY about being forgiven????? If that's not absurd, then I don't understand the meaning of the word.

So, the question according to the scripture I offered is this: What happens if God doesn't FORGIVE you for your sins? Can you STILL receive Salvation, (which IS forgiveness), if one is UN-FORGIVEN by God?

Blessings,

MEC

 

[Imagican]

If you are right, then why did the father have servants and not just have all family?
I think your view of the prodigal son is incorrect. The fact is that the son already was family when he left. The father always waited for his son. He never considered the son as anything other.

Ok, so you are saying that he could have been received BACK into the family if he NEVER RETURNED? If so, HOW?

Blessings,

MEC

 

[Imagican]

If you are right, then why did the father have servants and not just have all family?
I think your view of the prodigal son is incorrect. The fact is that the son already was family when he left. The father always waited for his son. He never considered the son as anything other.

The father having servants was NOT the point of the parable. The RETURN of the Prodigal Son was the THEME. He had demanded his inheritance and LEFT. After SQUANDERING it, decided to go back home and SELL himself into slavery to his father because he knew his father treated his slaves fairly. But when he came home he was welcomed with open arms BACK INTO his family. At least by his father. His brother didn't 'get it'.

It is parable of MANKIND'S FALL FROM GOD and God welcoming them BACK HOME. But the Son HAD TO COME back in order to be WELCOMED back.

So basically the parable is about Salvation. Not by being BORN into a particular family, we are ALL 'creations of God'. But by finding our way BACK HOME: receiving forgiveness and pledging our lives BACK to THE family of God.

God would have ALL men to be saved through the blood of His Son. But unfortunately for many MEN and God Himself, all men will NOT accept such 'salvation'.

But hey, the Bible tells us that there will be many that read it's parables and NOT understand them. I have tried my best to point out that I DO understand it and have offered you and any others that read what I offer what it means. I can LEAD you to water but I cannot make you drink.

Please, for your OWN sake, consider my words. If they still mean NOTHING to you. I'll pray that someone else is able to offer you words that you CAN understand. But I have offered you the MEANING of the parable. The POINT is the RETURN of the Prodigal Son. Not what particular FAMILY NAME he had.

But I'll offer this: If you are confused over such a simple parable, what else may you be confused about? Not an accusation, strictly a QUESTION of propriety. I would offer that those that are confused about the SIMPLEST of things, are most likely confused about things more complex.

Blessings,

MEC

 

[MennoSota]

Really? How do you suppose that my theology is messed up when I post scripture that makes a STATEMENT?

Let me ask you this, what does the scripture mean?

What I SEE are many that don't want to LIVE UP to the responsibility that has been placed upon them that WOULD be 'saved'.

It is MY opinion that NO ONE is 'saved' until the Book of Life is opened and such determination is MADE. Not by Themselves, but by those that will JUDGE them according to RIGHTEOUSNESS.

And it is also my opinion that the Bible PLAINLY illustrates that just SAYING that one believes in Christ means absolutely NOTHING. It's the FRUIT that one produces that PROVES what they BELIEVE.

There is NO 'magic' formula offered in the Bible that leads to Salvation. Some indicate that they can perform some MAGIC ritual or snap their fingers and NOW they KNOW they are SAVED.

What I would offer is that there are those that are so gullible that they are led by OTHER MEN to believe such non sense.

The Bible makes it CLEAR by EVERYTHING that it offers that we MUST DO many things, that if we DON'T DO what we MUST, we are to expect NOTHING other than what has been promised: Salvation for those that OVERCOME and DESTRUCTION for those that DON'T.

Some call this 'works theology'. Not in the Bible. While you CANNOT WORK you way to Salvation by WORKS alone, you also can't receive Salvation without DOING what is commanded to receive it. It is NOT the FREE gift some insist. It is FREELY offered. Nothing we have EVER DONE led to us EARNING the OFFERING. God didn't OWE it to us and we did NOTHING to deserve the OFFER. But in order to receive, there are a TON of conditions. Some don't like this idea because it involves RESPONSIBILITY. Much easier and comforting to brain wash oneself into believing that they don't HAVE to DO 'anything'. Just SAY some magic words and POOF, they are SAVED.

And then the OTHERS: those that believe that God CHOSE them and there is NOTHING that they can DO to change it? Oh, Ain't they SPECIAL? Especially in their ability to IGNORE or alter the MAJORITY of scripture offered in the NT. TULIP? Please. Can't even believe that ANYONE could take such theology seriously. But then L.Ron was able to garner quite a few followers with theology just as an inane. The IDEA that someone is chosen and that this predestination makes them IMMUNE from death is absurd. But it would be the PERFECT belief system for Ted Bundy. Imagine, someone able to DO ANYTHING without having to WORRY about being forgiven????? If that's not absurd, then I don't understand the meaning of the word.

So, the question according to the scripture I offered is this: What happens if God doesn't FORGIVE you for your sins? Can you STILL receive Salvation, (which IS forgiveness), if one is UN-FORGIVEN by God?

Blessings,

MEC

Are you familiar with the book of Galatians?

Certainly God's act of calling sinners to Himself is not formulaic. And, certainly God's work of regeneration will be tangibly noticeable. The key is that God is the catalyst for the change.
Humans will, by their very nature, follow false teachers. The apostle Paul, before the Damascus road, is a great example of following legalism. God acted and changed Paul's life...despite Paul's will to choose otherwise.

 

[Imagican]

You know, those that KNOW the truth are offered that they are to speak with 'authority'. That means that we have NOT been instructed to '[bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] foot' around God's Word if we KNOW it. We are to SPEAK it NOT as: "Well mabe..................."or "who's to say............." or "well it COULD mean..............". Those that KNOW what they are speaking about are instructed to offer what they KNOW without such speculation.

Yes, there are MANY things that I do NOT KNOW. But there are many things that I DO KNOW. And those things that I DO know aren't about SPECULATION. They are about KNOWLEDGE. KNOWING.

And it seems that many find such an approach OFFENSIVE. Why? Why would ANYONE find OFFENSE in the TRUTH?

Well, we know that the words of Christ and the apostles were treated in the same manner by MANY. Many rejected their words BECAUSE of an inability to ACCEPT them. But we KNOW that their words WERE 'the truth'.

So it boils down to LUSTS. Some LUST to maintain false understanding. The attempt to justify by attacking any and all that offer something DIFFERENT than that which matches their LUSTS.

I don't WANT to believe in ANYTHING so far as BELIEFS are concerned. I choose to accept what is offered in God's Word. I don't WANT to believe in it. I believe in it because I want to believe in the TRUTH.

And once the truth is recognized, I am more than willing to share it. COST FREE. Don't expect ANYTHING in return. But it is appreciated or felt WARRANTED when others recognize it as the TRUTH. But I don't EXPECT it, just appreciate it as accomplishing the REASON that I offered it.

Blessings,

MEC

 

[MennoSota]

The father having servants was NOT the point of the parable. The RETURN of the Prodigal Son was the THEME. He had demanded his inheritance and LEFT. After SQUANDERING it, decided to go back home and SELL himself into slavery to his father because he knew his father treated his slaves fairly. But when he came home he was welcomed with open arms BACK INTO his family. At least by his father. His brother didn't 'get it'.

It is parable of MANKIND'S FALL FROM GOD and God welcoming them BACK HOME. But the Son HAD TO COME back in order to be WELCOMED back.

So basically the parable is about Salvation. Not by being BORN into a particular family, we are ALL 'creations of God'. But by finding our way BACK HOME: receiving forgiveness and pledging our lives BACK to THE family of God.

God would have ALL men to be saved through the blood of His Son. But unfortunately for many MEN and God Himself, all men will NOT accept such 'salvation'.

But hey, the Bible tells us that there will be many that read it's parables and NOT understand them. I have tried my best to point out that I DO understand it and have offered you and any others that read what I offer what it means. I can LEAD you to water but I cannot make you drink.

Please, for your OWN sake, consider my words. If they still mean NOTHING to you. I'll pray that someone else is able to offer you words that you CAN understand. But I have offered you the MEANING of the parable. The POINT is the RETURN of the Prodigal Son. Not what particular FAMILY NAME he had.

But I'll offer this: If you are confused over such a simple parable, what else may you be confused about? Not an accusation, strictly a QUESTION of propriety. I would offer that those that are confused about the SIMPLEST of things, are most likely confused about things more complex.

Blessings,

MEC

No confusion on my end.
The Father was looking for his son to return. He always considered his child as his family. Even if the child had not come he, the father would have considered his child as family.

Where we disagree is on the word, "all." You wish to make the term unlimited to include the entire world. Yet, you are saying that God is too weak to save all people, even though He wants all people to be saved. Your God is, therefore, not Sovereign and not omnipotent. I say that the term "all" is limited to God's elect children. God will never lose even one of His children. All his chosen ones will be saved. God will not allow any to perish.
You have a serious contradiction with your use of the word "all", while I have no contradiction with seeing the term "all" as being limited to the elect.
Our God is omnipotent and Sovereign.

 

[Imagican]

Are you familiar with the book of Galatians?

Yes, VERY.

Certainly God's act of calling sinners to Himself is not formulaic. And, certainly God's work of regeneration will be tangibly noticeable. The key is that God is the catalyst for the change.
Humans will, by their very nature, follow false teachers. The apostle Paul, before the Damascus road, is a great example of following legalism. God acted and changed Paul's life...despite Paul's will to choose otherwise.

You can't say this with ANY authority. It is your OPINION. You cannot say with AUTHORITY that God's 'calling' is NOT systematic. For one thing, you are NOT God. Second you seem to have a difficult time even discerning His Word. You appear to ME to be a follower of MEN more than a follower of God. For I have heard the words that you echo from MANY. And they are ALL followers of the SAME MAN or MEN. And the words of this man or these men do NOT reflect the Word of God AS OFFERED. They have managed to pick and chose a handful of scripture to try and ALTER the message to suit themselves. And then went out and convinced OTHERS to follow THEIR message, not God's. My opinion, of course.

Example: MAYBE, one MUST be in a particular PLACE in their life BEFORE God is able to SUCCESSFULLY 'call' them. You indicate that it's RANDOM. I offer that it is NOT. I would offer that God CALLS people when they are READY to be 'called'. And what circumstances are involved may be MORE than 'very complex'. And some may NEVER reach a 'time to be called'. Others may be 'called' from earlier times in their lives than others. My EXPERIENCE in looking AROUND myself throughout my life is MORE indicative of TRUTH than your offering that God just RANDOMLY 'calls' people to Him. All are NOT 'called' at the same POINT in their lives. So this indicates a SYSTEMATIC approach rather than RANDOM.

The important issue concerning Paul is this: Paul wasn't following 'false teachers'. He was following what he THOUGHT were those LED by God as delivered by MOSES. He BELIEVED that those he was following were DOING that directed by GOD. So we MUST view what Paul was following by what we are offered. Christ didn't CONDEMN Paul on the road to Damascus, He simply asked him a QUESTION. And through Paul being able to determine the ANSWER is what OPENED His SPIRITUAL eyes as physically he was being BLINDED. That was HIS punishment: being FORCED to open his SPIRITUAL eyes and being UNABLE to use his physical eyes in the process. Once he had been a FOLLOWER of those professing to follow God's Word. Then he became SPIRITUAL and was following God's Word as OFFERED by God. He wasn't WRONG in persecuting the Jews for the REASON he was DOING it. For he was unable to even SEE what he was doing until it was revealed to him. He was a 'faithful servant' to both: those he followed BEFORE his eyes were opened and then that which he followed AFTER his eyes were opened. Paul didn't CHOSE otherwise, he didn't KNOW any better. He simply chose to follow the commands of his LEADERS to the best of his ability.

Blessings,

MEC

 

[MennoSota]

Where do I indicate randomness? Does not the Bible say..."Before the world began, I knew you."? What is random about God choosing us from before the foundation of the world?

Also, can you type without shouting?

 

[Imagican]

No confusion on my end.
The Father was looking for his son to return. He always considered his child as his family. Even if the child had not come he, the father would have considered his child as family.

There you go AGAIN. NOTHING within scripture speaks of the father LOOKING for his son's return. We can offer whatever SPECULATION we chose, but that is NOT what the Bible says.

Oh my. Your attempt is erroneous. ALL mankind are NOT considered to be God's FAMILY. While all are a product of God's creation, ALL will NOT end up being, "Children of God". And YOUR idea that YOU and a select group of others were PREDESTINED is no less erroneous. Teachings of a MAN, certainly not Biblical.

When the Prodigal Son LEFT, he LEFT WITH his inheritance. He took WITH himself whatever FAMILY ties he had. He basically chose to ABANDON his family and that is the THEME of the parable.He LEFT HOME, (became LOST), and then RETURNED HOME, (was FOUND). His family NAME had nothing to DO with the understanding offered in the parable.

Just as MAN basically THREW away inheritance when he DISOBEYED in the garden. It was up to MAN to bring himself BACK through the GUIDANCE of the Father. The Father doesn't GO OUT and DRAG him back. God expects us to RECOGNIZE the TRUTH and make a CONSCIOUS EFFORT to reconcile HIMSELF with God by the method God has made manifest through His very Son. We are to COME BACK HOME, not just sit and wait for God to DO EVERYTHING.

Where we disagree is on the word, "all." You wish to make the term unlimited to include the entire world. Yet, you are saying that God is too weak to save all people, even though He wants all people to be saved. Your God is, therefore, not Sovereign and not omnipotent. I say that the term "all" is limited to God's elect children. God will never lose even one of His children. All his chosen ones will be saved. God will not allow any to perish.
You have a serious contradiction with your use of the word "all", while I have no contradiction with seeing the term "all" as being limited to the elect.
Our God is omnipotent and Sovereign.

I resent even the implication that I have offered anything of the sort. I have NOT even MENTIONED the power of God to DO 'anything'. I have offered what scripture reveals, not what I WANT scripture to reveal. So please, in order to maintain a semblance of empathy or respect for one another, let us NOT make such FALSE accusations of our OWN design. I did NOT even MENTION what Power God has or doesn't have. I most certainly NEVER used the word WEAK in reference to God. YOU MADE THAT UP and then accused ME of offering it. Shame on you.

Calvinism is nothing more than a MYTH created by the man who the name is coined for. A set of IDEAS that have NO place in truth except in the hearts and minds of those that FOLLOW his myths.

Let me make this CLEAR: I believe that EVERYONE who does not OPENLY resist EVIL is susceptible to DEMONIC influence. EVERYONE. So I am NOT pointing fingers at YOU as an individual, I am pointing fingers at EVERY single soul that has ever existed or will EVER exist upon this planet as it has existed and will until it's destruction. So PLEASE, don't revel in the excitement of me pointing my finger at YOU as an individual.

But when we entertain demons, (as most that promote CULTS of their own design DO), then it most certainly attracts 'other demons' of similar desires. And if we don't DEFEND ourselves through the TRUTH, then we are capable of being manipulated to follow whatever direction the wind blows.

So the question isn't WHAT one believes, but WHY they believe it?

Blessings,

MEC

For anyone that was unfortunate to read what was previously posted here. I apologize. I had TWO windows open and had deleted this from the FIRST. Unfortunately, when I clicked POST, it was the SECOND window that posted. You can clearly SEE this by where I had offered my blessings and closing. I have deleted it NOT because it wasn't TRUE or my thoughts, but because often some indicate that it's WRONG to make any statements pertaining to the state of one's 'condition' like being LOST or such. While it seems to be OK to make statements about being SAVED, those about being LOST seem to have a different influence. I don't KNOW why but it's NOT my forum, I'm just visiting here. So PLEASE accept my apologies to any that may have read what I have deleted. It was NEVER meant to be published and I've done what I am able to assure everyone and make it as RIGHT as I'm able.

Blessings,

MEC

 

[Imagican]

Where do I indicate randomness? Does not the Bible say..."Before the world began, I knew you."? What is random about God choosing us from before the foundation of the world?

Also, can you type without shouting?

Boy, you sure indicate a dedicated denseness.

Ok, I'll bite. What was the CRITERIA God used to PREDETERMINE those PREDESTINED to Salvation from those PREDESTINED to DESTRUCTION? Did He 'roll dice'? Cast lots? pick a number between one and million? Eenie Menie Minny MOE? Hot potatoe? Or did He basically just 'randomly' decide, "this one will be saved, this one WON'T"?

See, you can't answer this any better than I can because in FACT, this isn't how it was DONE. As far as WE KNOW, the ONLY two PEOPLE that have ever been SPECIFICALLY created were Adam and Eve. ALL the rest, (not counting his ONLY begotten Son because OBVIOUSLY He was MORE than JUST a 'person'), were BEGOTTEN by OTHER MEN.

Yet you would indicate otherwise. That we, like some form of pliable puppets, were DESIGNED and CREATED from a time BEFORE their creation. They were PREDESTINED to BE what God WANTED them to be. Like puppets of sorts that have or had NO choice in the direction they would follow, but MADE to be what God WANTED them to be. Forgive me if I start LAUGHING as some point.

I would offer the same words to those with such beliefs the words Paul offered to the Corinthians concerning ANYTHING 'childish' men can conceive. Put away such 'childish ideas' and GROW UP according to the TRUTH. Not MY truth, God's TRUTH and that entire concept it purely MAN MADE. I can plainly and clearly show ANYONE that hasn't BRAIN WASHED themselves into such beliefs that those very beliefs are NON existent in the BIBLE. The Bible teach NO such non sense. And EVERYONE outside of this 'group' recognizes as well as I DO even if unwilling to VOICE their understanding. I think political correctness that may well lead to the destruction of others is about as NON Christian as could be. We don't IGNORE the beliefs of others to APPEASE them. We simply SHOW them that what they are choosing to believe is FALSE. We don't BEAT around the bush and PRETEND. If we LOVE others then the LAST thing we would wish if for them to perish through the false teachings of OTHER MEN who have already condemned themselves.

Blessings,

MEC

 

[MennoSota]

I resent even the implication that I have offered anything of the sort. I have NOT even MENTIONED the power of God to DO 'anything'. I have offered what scripture reveals, not what I WANT scripture to reveal. So please, in order to maintain a semblance of empathy or respect for one another, let us NOT make such FALSE accusations of our OWN design. I did NOT even MENTION what Power God has or doesn't have. I most certainly NEVER used the word WEAK in reference to God. YOU MADE THAT UP and then accused ME of offering it. Shame on you.

Calvinism is nothing more than a MYTH created by the man who the name is coined for. A set of IDEAS that have NO place in truth except in the hearts and minds of those that FOLLOW his myths.

Let me make this CLEAR: I believe that EVERYONE who does not OPENLY resist EVIL is susceptible to DEMONIC influence. EVERYONE. So I am NOT pointing fingers at YOU as an individual, I am pointing fingers at EVERY single soul that has ever existed or will EVER exist upon this planet as it has existed and will until it's destruction. So PLEASE, don't revel in the excitement of me pointing my finger at YOU as an individual.

But when we entertain demons, (as most that promote CULTS of their own design DO), then it most certainly attracts 'other demons' of similar desires. And if we don't DEFEND ourselves through the TRUTH, then we are capable of being manipulated to follow whatever direction the wind blows.

So the question isn't WHAT one believes, but WHY they believe it?

Blessings,

MEC

Calvin what a man stricken with more INFLUENTIAL demons than MOST. Everyone OUTSIDE of his GROUP understands this. While the understanding may vary by DEGREES, all outside of his FOLLOWERS recognize his FALSE TEACHINGS.

So, if YOU are a Calvinist, it is MY opinion that you aren't qualified to discuss the TRUTH of God's Word so LONG as you have made CALVIN or his teachings your God. And I prose that this is TRUTH concerning ANY that choose to follow the teachings of MEN instead of God through His Son. MY OPINION, get it?

LOL, I'll end this conversation. You seem like an angry person and I won't bother with you anymore. As you say, Blessings.

 

[Imagican]

If you really believe that then so be it. If you are referring to my use of capital letters to emphasize certain words, then let me assure you, it is NOTHING of the sort. No anger involved.

And let me offer this: I'll just bet, that you recognize that I do not type IN capital letters. That you've clearly recognized that the ones I DO capitalize are FOR emphasis.

So if what I offer is TRUE, then you know it is no sign of anger and therefore are simply using this as a ruse to stop communication.

All you really need to do is say, I don't LIKE communicating with you. No need for false accusations if you KNOW that my use of capital letters is NO indication of ME being angry.

I'll tell you what, since not only do I seem to continually deal with those that are so, let's say, TRADITIONALIZED. Not according to the TRUTH as pertains to God or His word, but traditions of MEN no matter how inane, here's what I'm going to DO. For the sake of those that CAN'T or don't WANT to 'overcome', I'm going to STOP using capital letters at ALL.

And you know what, it won't change a thing except me being able to emphasize certain words that are MORE important than others. There STILL going to be those that when confronted with the TRUTH, who have no means of arguing against it, there will STILL be those that will find SOME reason to falsely accuse me of being 'angry' or 'combative' or 'rude' or 'know it all' or whatever they can THINK of to try and discredit the MESSENGER rather than the message.

And guys and gals, doesn't that sound familiar? It's the EXACT same method used by those that ATTEMPTED to silence Christ and the apostles. If we can't make you SHUT UP, then we have you REMOVED. But one way or another you aren't going to CONTINUE offering THAT message.

Blessings,

MEC

 

[thecolorsblend]

And guys and gals, doesn't that sound familiar? It's the EXACT same method used by those that ATTEMPTED to silence Christ and the apostles. If we can't make you SHUT UP, then we have you REMOVED. But one way or another you aren't going to CONTINUE offering THAT message.

If Sota's comments were an isolated incident, I'd understand. Or at least I'd be disengaged.

But, with respect, I've received PM's from other members who haven't responded very well to your posting style. Whether it's the words you use, your "tone of voice" or what have you, some members have told me that they find some of your posts a little abrasive. You might want to assume this relates to the point you make but I'd remind you that you're hardly the only member of this forum who says what you say. So that alone can't be the explanation. Reviewing a few posts of yours from recently in this thread, I can only say that I can see what those who have been a bit put off are talking about.

Me, I've got no dog in the fight either way. Certainly I would not presume to censor you. But since the post to which I'm replying did express some curiosity regarding the reaction people have had to you, I felt it worthwhile to chip in my two pennies on the subject. My objective is not to provoke you or even to shame you. Maybe we're all being a bit too sensitive. I admit that's a possibility. But hopefully this shpiel of mine offers you a more balanced view.