John 3:14-16 teaches that Christ died for everyone

[Hammster]

Sure. Go ahead and point out what I've said about Calvinism that isn't true. Please.

That's easy. Calvinism isn't following John Calvin.

 

[FreeGrace2]

A MASTER who lived as a hermit on a mountain was asked by a monk,

Hi tb. Are you going to respond to my comments regarding your posts?

The picture of the pagoda and view was pretty, though. Thanks.

 

[Hammster]

Your comment reveals your total lack of comprehension of Titus 2:11. But hey, all I can do is offer an explanation.

Apparently you think "brings salvation" means everyone gets it, huh. No, Jesus Christ obtained eternal redemption (Heb 9:12) and by grace brings to all men. What's so hard to understand about this?

Does the verse say that it brings an offer of salvation, or just salvation?

 

[guuila]

Your comment reveals your total lack of comprehension of Titus 2:11. But hey, all I can do is offer an explanation.

And so far your "explanation" is incoherent. If you're going to say "all men" means 100% of humanity, it makes no sense that you're not a universalist since when this grace appears, it brings salvation training us to renounce ungodliness. Unless you're willing to say there are folks who receive this salvation and training to renounce ungodliness who aren't saved? Nah, I doubt you'll be that consistent.

Apparently you think "brings salvation" means everyone gets it, huh.

Um, no. It means 'all types of people' get it. I guess you don't understand the position you're arguing against yet.

No, Jesus Christ obtained eternal redemption (Heb 9:12) and by grace brings to all men. What's so hard to understand about this?

Not sure why you have to jump all over the Bible. Oh wait. Yes I do. It's kinda like how you interpret Matt. 10:33 by 2 Tim. 2:12. Totally different contexts (oh and by the way, neither one of those mention eternal rewards.) Matt. 10:33 is talking about the cost of discipleship.

 

[tulipbee]

Hi tb. Are you going to respond to my comments regarding your posts?

The picture of the pagoda and view was pretty, though. Thanks.

Your cup is too full and you must first cross the mountain. Then I'll make time to listen to you.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Does the verse say that it brings an offer of salvation, or just salvation?

You know very well what the verse SAYS. What you don't know is the problem. God brings salvation, which is a gift, to all men.

The verse does NOT say that all men get it, or that "all men" means only "some men" as Calvinism tries to twist it.

 

[Hammster]

MOD HAT ON

Due to some recent troll activity, this thread has been cleaned up. Some of your posts had to go. Sorry.



MOD HAT OFF

 

[guuila]

Of course they wouldn't. Do you know who Matt was written TO? Apparently not.


Of course they wouldn't. But no one can understand doctrine from a single verse anyway, so your point is pointless.

Okay. So how do you know Matt. 10:33 is about eternal rewards?

Hey, let's take your idea to another verse, oh, say, Heb 2:9. What do you suppose that same person would think it was saying? I know what you'll say, but the point is that it goes both ways.

Red herring.

Calvinism puts extreme limitations on God's grace, through your doctrine of election and atonement.

FreeGrace2ism puts extreme limitations on God's grace, through your doctrine of supposed human free will.

How can you ascribe to me "possible failure" of God's grace when my view is that His grace brings salvation to everyone, and His Son purchased eternal life for everyone? And He created everyone to seek Him, and He has reveaed Himself to everyone? How can you not see how unlimited His grace actually is?

I guess you'd have to be blind to not see it. Huh.

Because God tries to save people and fails.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Okay. So how do you know Matt. 10:33 is about eternal rewards?

I've read the entire Bible many times. And see all the connections.

Red herring.

I guess only when the shoe fits.

FreeGrace2ism puts extreme limitations on God's grace, through your doctrine of supposed human free will.

How does man's freedom have any effect on God's grace? His grace remains intact whether man receives or rejects His promise. Your claim makes no sense.

Because God tries to save people and fails.

"Tries and fails"? In my view? Of course not. Only in your misrepresentation and faulty conclusion.

Jesus actually purchased the gift of eternal life for everyone. That wasn't a failure. And it is available for everyone, on the basis of faith. Refute that if you don't believe it. I invite you to.

 

[tulipbee]

When you proclaim the Gospel to someone, calling has been made.

You do nothing more. Once you proclaim the Gospel it (Calling) has occurred !

The calling is the Gospel.

If the hearer is unregenerate, that calling will be dismissed.When you proclaim the Gospel to someone, calling has been made.

You do nothing more. Once you proclaim the Gospel it (Calling) has occurred !

The calling is the Gospel.

If the hearer is unregenerate, that calling will be dismissed.

If the hearer is regenerate, that calling shall ultimately result in their repentance and faith.

We don't know. It's the same Gospel for BOTH !

The Gospel is the calling !

We do the calling (Romans 10:14c). Whereas regeneration is done by the Holy Spirit.

Calling uses means (Gospel). Regeneration does not use means (it's supernatural).

If the hearer is regenerate, that calling shall ultimately result in their repentance and faith.

We don't know. It's the same Gospel for BOTH !

The Gospel is the calling !

We do the calling (Romans 10:14c). Whereas regeneration is done by the Holy Spirit.

Calling uses means (Gospel). Regeneration does not use means (it's supernatural).

 

[FreeGrace2]

When you proclaim the Gospel to someone, calling has been made.

You do nothing more. Once you proclaim the Gospel it (Calling) has occurred !

The calling is the Gospel.

If the hearer is unregenerate, that calling will be dismissed.When you proclaim the Gospel to someone, calling has been made.

You are missing the point. If the hearer is one of those you call ther "non-elect", which means to you that God never chose them for salvation, they CANNOT respond to the gospel, according to Calvinism. Your statement isn't being honest with your theology.

You do nothing more. Once you proclaim the Gospel it (Calling) has occurred !

The calling is the Gospel.

If the hearer is unregenerate, that calling will be dismissed.

Again, that isn't honest with your theology. It CAN'T be accepted if they are of the "non-elect" category. So to say it "will be dismissed" isn't being intellectually honest.

If the hearer is regenerate, that calling shall ultimately result in their repentance and faith.

But you have absolutely no support from Scripture that regeneration precedes believing in Christ. None. And those who are regenerate are portrayed in Scripture as saved. They go together. They don't occur at separate times.

The grammar of 1 Jn 5:1 proves that they occur at the same time.

We don't know. It's the same Gospel for BOTH !

This isn't true at all. How can you say the gospel (good news) is for the non-elect? They weren't chosen for heaven. They can't get there. So, what's the good news for them?

The Gospel is the calling !

We do the calling (Romans 10:14c). Whereas regeneration is done by the Holy Spirit.

Calling uses means (Gospel). Regeneration does not use means (it's supernatural).

Frankly, none of this is relevant. The issue is this: HOW can the gospel, meaning "good news" actually be good news for the non-elect? Please answer.

If the hearer is regenerate, that calling shall ultimately result in their repentance and faith.

You're repeating yourself. And there is no Scripture that teaches that regeneration precedes or is necessary for one to believe.

We don't know. It's the same Gospel for BOTH !

More repetition, but you need to answer the question: HOW is the gospel good news for the non-elect, since they weren't chosen?

The Gospel is the calling !

Yeah, you've said that multiple times, now.

We do the calling (Romans 10:14c). Whereas regeneration is done by the Holy Spirit.

Calling uses means (Gospel). Regeneration does not use means (it's supernatural).

Why all the repetition? You need to prove your claims. And please answer my question.

 

[guuila]

I guess this was overlooked. Probably not intentionally.

I've read the entire Bible many times. And see all the connections.

Please, educate me.

 

[Don Maurer]

You are missing the point. If the hearer is one of those you call ther "non-elect", which means to you that God never chose them for salvation, they CANNOT respond to the gospel, according to Calvinism. Your statement isn't being honest with your theology.

Duhh, how many times can FG2 be corrected that Calvinists agree that all men can (have ability) believe, but the problem is that because of the unregenerate nature, they will always love their rebellion too much and will never choose to believe.

But you have absolutely no support from Scripture that regeneration precedes believing in Christ. None. And those who are regenerate are portrayed in Scripture as saved. They go together. They don't occur at separate times.

The grammar of 1 Jn 5:1 proves that they occur at the same time.

I missed who quoted 1 John 5:1, but it is an excellent point. FG2 continues to demonstrate a total lack of ability to grasp the issues and writes these theologically ultra shallow statements that are painful to see anyone be so adamant in their shallowness. The guy simply does not have the ability to even discuss the issues. He writes "They don't occur at separate times." LOL, really!! Well what a news flash. Even the little kid in our SS classes knows that regeneration and faith occur at the same instant in time. Why would FG2 assert such a simple thing? Because he is sooooo clueless what the reformed believe. Of course both reformed Presbyterians and Reformed Baptists both believe that regeneration occurs in the same instant in time. We are of course talking about a logical order, not a moment in time. Someone else remarked (in the thread on spurgeon) about all the category errors FG2 makes. Well, here is another category error he made to pile on the list. Sheesh, come on FG2 raise the bar a little bit. At least properly represent reformed theology.

In FG2's self contradictory theology there is no consistency. To believe that regeneration does not cause faith in 1 John 5:1 and still be consistent, one would have to assert the same thing about several other texts in 1 John. Lets start with the reading in 1 John 5:1.

5:1 πας ο πιστευων οτι ιησους εστιν ο χριστος εκ του θεου γεγεννηται και πας ο αγαπων τον γεννησαντα αγαπα τον γεγεννημενον εξ αυτου

πας ο πιστευων (all those who believe) ---- Present tense participle in which the believe group believes that Jesus is the Christ.


εκ του θεου γεγεννηται (have been born of God)---- Perfect tense verb. Notice the duplication of the prefix. As a perfect tense, it is a past tense action with present tense results. The past tense action is being born again, the present tense results match up with the present tense participle.

So then, the grammar mandates that being born again, causes faith. Born again is the past tense action that causes the present tense result of faith. While one can justly say it is not about time, it is certainly about a logical order.

***** There are about 5 or 6 passages with the same identical construction in 1 John. I am referring to the perfect tense verb "born again" and a present tense participle. If one asserts that in 1 John 5:1 faith causes one to be born again, then to be consistent they would have to read passages like 1 John 2:29 as righteousness causing one to be born again. In 1 John 3:9 one would have to stop practicing sin to be born again. In 1 John 4:7 one would then have to already be loving the saints to be born again. In other words, one would have to be a Christian first, and then you are born again, but then why would one need to be born again if the person is already in the faith, righteous, loving the brother and others, and no longer practicing sin.

Now I already know what FG2 will do. He will faith to grasp how inconsistent his assertion is in 1 John 5 and the rest of 1 John. He will fail to realize that he wrongly accuse Calvinists of believing that faith precedes regeneration in time. He will keep his inconsistent reading of 1 John 5:1 and yet maintain the opposite where the grammer is identical. And he will continue trolling the same bad arguments.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Duhh, how many times can FG2 be corrected that Calvinists agree that all men can (have ability) believe, but the problem is that because of the unregenerate nature, they will always love their rebellion too much and will never choose to believe.

This is totally dishonest. Calvinism believes that unless one is chosen, they CANNOT believe. It can't be an issue of what they choose, but rather who God chooses. Why aren't you admitting that, and speaking about something that isn't even possible in your own theology?

I missed who quoted 1 John 5:1, but it is an excellent point. FG2 continues to demonstrate a total lack of ability to grasp the issues and writes these theologically ultra shallow statements that are painful to see anyone be so adamant in their shallowness.

Have you parsed the verse? I suggest it BEFORE you place foot in mouth.

The guy simply does not have the ability to even discuss the issues.

Loose translation very similar to what Peter said about Paul: "15and regard the patience of our Lord as salvation; just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, 16as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction."

He writes "They don't occur at separate times." LOL, really!! Well what a news flash. Even the little kid in our SS classes knows that regeneration and faith occur at the same instant in time.

How come so many Calvinists say that one must be regenerated in order to believe? And that Cornelius was regenerated BEFORE Peter arrived, gave the gospel, he believed and was saved?

Why would FG2 assert such a simple thing? Because he is sooooo clueless what the reformed believe. Of course both reformed Presbyterians and Reformed Baptists both believe that regeneration occurs in the same instant in time. We are of course talking about a logical order, not a moment in time. Someone else remarked (in the thread on spurgeon) about all the category errors FG2 makes. Well, here is another category error he made to pile on the list. Sheesh, come on FG2 raise the bar a little bit. At least properly represent reformed theology.

How can I "raise the bar" when dealing with you guys?

In FG2's self contradictory theology there is no consistency.

OK, back that up with some evidence, if you can. All you guys can throw all the incendiary untruths all you want, but you cannot prove any of them.

Born again is the past tense action that causes the present tense result of faith. While one can justly say it is not about time, it is certainly about a logical order.

All it says is that those who presently believe have been born again. Nothing about being born again causing anything. That's just your fantasy.

 

[Don Maurer]

This is totally dishonest. Calvinism believes that unless one is chosen, they CANNOT believe. It can't be an issue of what they choose, but rather who God chooses. Why aren't you admitting that, and speaking about something that isn't even possible in your own theology?

LOL, can you quote one major Calvinist that describes what we believe in the same words you do. Please provide a link.

I am a Calvinist. I get to say what my theology is, not you.... LOL!!

Have you parsed the verse? I suggest it BEFORE you place foot in mouth.

Duhhhhh, you parse words, not verses. Again, you are so painfully shallow. If you know what parsing is then why that mistake? yes, I gave partial parsings of two words. Read the post. Why would I need to parse any of the words anyway? If you want them parsed, which word?

Let me guess, if I parse every word in John 5:1, then you will want some other goose chase, then I should parse every word in 1st John. Sheesh, so shallow.

Loose translation very similar to what Peter said about Paul: "15and regard the patience of our Lord as salvation; just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, 16as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction."

So you do not want to talk about 1 John 5:1? I know this game, when you cannot talk about 1 John 5:1 jump to another verse quickly. Sheesh, how shallow.

How come so many Calvinists say that one must be regenerated in order to believe? And that Cornelius was regenerated BEFORE Peter arrived, gave the gospel, he believed and was saved?

Again the game of switch verses. In any case, the passage about Cornelius does not make any propositions about regeneration at all.

How can I "raise the bar" when dealing with you guys?

Ahm, by actually staying on topic. In your response on 1John 5:1 you have yet to present any exegesis of the text. You just switch texts.

OK, back that up with some evidence, if you can. All you guys can throw all the incendiary untruths all you want, but you cannot prove any of them.

I would go to the bother of backing it up, but I honestly feel you are not worth the time. In the very last conversation, you responded to Hedrick and made a comment that the grace that leads to faith is not limited to just the elect, then later said there is not prevenient grace at all.

Then you stoop to the really really bad argument that the word "prevenient grace" is not found in the Bible. Of course I could have replied that neither is the word "Trinity" found in the bible, yet that doctrine is true. I did not reply that way because I find you so disappointingly shallow. You do not seem to be able to respond honestly anyway.

If anyone presents an argument, you never even bother to point out any flaws in the argument. You just troll and troll and make counter claims and then ridicule. You present this shallow presentation time after time and it gets quickly old.

All it says is that those who presently believe have been born again. Nothing about being born again causing anything. That's just your fantasy.

I probably did not speak the best words to bring the greek tense down to your low level. The perfect tense of the verb "born" of God requires that the verb be understood as a past action.

Get it? Do you understand what I mean by "past action?" I guess you do not know what that means? The perfect tense of the verb also implies that the past action, has a present result. With a present participle at the beginning of the sentence ("believe") you have your present tense result.

So then, I do not know who quoted this verse, but they are right. It is the perfect verse to defend the concept of regeneration as the cause of faith.

 

[crimsonleaf]

FG2 can you please address post #131?

 

[crimsonleaf]

Sure, use words that don't actually SAY what you believe. This is what I said:

You described Calvinism as if man can believe but chooses not to, when that is totally untrue. It's all about being chosen or not in your theology. Why don't you admit that?

Many Calvinists believe that man has the ability to choose God, but not the will. A few of us here believe exactly that. The fact that you're so woefully uneducated about our beliefs ought to disqualify you from debating with us.

So please don't come here to tell us what we believe and then try to knock it down.

 

[SayaOtonashi]

Prophecies Jesus - 44 Messianic Prophecies Jesus Fulfilled

 

[FreeGrace2]

FG2 can you please address post #131?

Why should I? No one on your side has EVER provided ANY support for all the charges they've thrown.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Many Calvinists believe that man has the ability to choose God, but not the will.

If not the will, then there is no choice, is there. You're being dishonest to claim that man can choose but lacks the will. And there is no Scripture to back you up.

A few of us here believe exactly that. The fact that you're so woefully uneducated about our beliefs ought to disqualify you from debating with us.

If that were so, how come NONE of you has provided ANY verse that refutes what I believe, and you guys CANNOT provide ANY verse that actually SAYS what you believe?

So please don't come here to tell us what we believe and then try to knock it down.

How odd. That's exactly what y'all been doing to me since I got here; misrepresent my view and they try to knock it down.