Disprove Calvinist Soteriology

[EmSw]

If he did, I suppose. But he won't.

“For those who are according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who are according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit. For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace, because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so, and those who are in the flesh cannot please God. However, you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him.”
‭‭Romans‬ ‭8:5-9‬ ‭NASB‬‬

You should be praised above measure if you never live to the flesh. You should be proud of yourself, Hammster. Here's a pat on the back.

 

[Hammster]

You should be praised above measure if you never live to the flesh. You should be proud of yourself, Hammster. Here's a pat on the back.

Nothing to be proud of. It's all Him.

 

[EmSw]

Nothing to be proud of. It's all Him.

So, are you telling us you never live to the flesh? Do you have pure thoughts all the time? Do you keep His commandments all the time? That's quite amazing.

 

[Hammster]

So, are you telling us you never live to the flesh? Do you have pure thoughts all the time? Do you keep His commandments all the time? That's quite amazing.

“Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.”
‭‭Romans‬ ‭8:1‬ ‭

“However, you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him. If Christ is in you, though the body is dead because of sin, yet the spirit is alive because of righteousness.”
‭‭Romans‬ ‭8:9-10‬ ‭NASB‬‬

 

[EmSw]

“Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.”
‭‭Romans‬ ‭8:1‬ ‭

“However, you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him. If Christ is in you, though the body is dead because of sin, yet the spirit is alive because of righteousness.”
‭‭Romans‬ ‭8:9-10‬ ‭NASB‬‬

I sure wish you would have given us all of Romans 8:1.

Romans 8:1
There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus, who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit.

Are you saying you can't walk according to the flesh? How do you know you have the Spirit?

 

[jimmyjimmy]

Why would I not understand what 'saved' is? Is it some mystery that only a few can understand?

You asked if saved people would be condemned, so maybe you don't understand the definition of, "condemned". You certainly don't understand the meaning of one or both of those words.

 

[EmSw]

You asked if saved people would be condemned, so maybe you don't understand the definition of, "condemned". You certainly don't understand the meaning of one or both of those words.

I actually asked if a saved person sows to the flesh, will he reap corruption.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

I actually asked if a saved person sows to the flesh, will he reap corruption.

Why ask if the verse clearly says such?

Do you imagine that Calvinists, who take the study of God's word more seriously than any other group of people I've ever come across, would dismiss or disagree with the plain teaching of scripture?

 

[Hammster]

I sure wish you would have given us all of Romans 8:1.

Romans 8:1
There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus, who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit.

Are you saying you can't walk according to the flesh? How do you know you have the Spirit?

And the following verses, including the one I posted, explain further.

And I did give you all of 8:1.

 

[EmSw]

Why ask if the verse clearly says such?

Do you imagine that Calvinists, who take the study of God's word more seriously than any other group of people I've ever come across, would dismiss or disagree with the plain teaching of scripture?

I didn't say dismiss it, it's that you don't believe it.

 

[Thursday]

Why should I?

Because you claimed I was quoting it out of context and therefore my interpretation is somehow flawed.

You don't want to address it, it seems, because it proves that your dogmas are contrary to scripture.

 

[Hammster]

Because you claimed I was quoting it out of context and therefore my interpretation is somehow flawed.

You don't want to address it, it seems, because it proves that your dogmas are contrary to scripture.

Your "seems" is incorrect.

 

[Thursday]

That's incorrect.

“For the one who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption, but the one who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life.”
‭‭Galatians‬ ‭6:8‬ ‭NASB‬‬

That is 100% true.

So then, you don't believe in unconditional election, and therefore you reject a central dogma of Calvinism.

 

[Thursday]

Your "seems" is incorrect.

Then please give us your interpretation so we know the difference.

What are you afraid of?

 

[Hammster]

So then, you don't believe in unconditional election, and therefore you reject a central dogma of Calvinism.

That would be an incorrect conclusion.

 

[Hammster]

Then please give us your interpretation so we know the difference.

What are you afraid of?

Please don't goad. It's a rule violation.

 

[Thursday]

Please don't goad. It's a rule violation.

You are the one goading. Look in the mirror.

You claim my interpretation of scripture is wrong won't even offer your own interpretation.

You are avoiding the subject.

 

[Hammster]

You are the one goading. Look in the mirror.

You claim my interpretation of scripture is wrong won't even offer your own interpretation.

You are avoiding the subject.

I don't recall you giving an interpretation. I only remember you posting a verse or two and then telling me that they disprove Calvinism.

And no, I'm not avoiding. All you have to do is look at my convo with EmSw.

 

[Thursday]

I don't recall you giving an interpretation. I only remember you posting a verse or two and then telling me that they disprove Calvinism.

And no, I'm not avoiding. All you have to do is look at my convo with EmSw.

I stated that the passage clearly disproves unconditional election because it provides conditions for salvation.

Do you accept this Calvinist definition:

"This understanding of election has traditionally been called "unconditional election." It is "unconditional" because it is not conditioned upon anything that God sees in us that makes us worthy of his choosing us."

 

[Hammster]

I stated that the passage clearly disproves unconditional election because it provides conditions for salvation.

Do you accept this Calvinist definition:

"This understanding of election has traditionally been called "unconditional election." It is "unconditional" because it is not conditioned upon anything that God sees in us that makes us worthy of his choosing us."

What are the conditions for salvation that it provides?