No such thing after we are saved. We are then free. So if Paul speaks of those not yet free, try to look at context.It was referencing the bondage of our will.
Upvote
0
No such thing after we are saved. We are then free. So if Paul speaks of those not yet free, try to look at context.It was referencing the bondage of our will.
He is not talking to us who are awake and alive forevermore there. Get a grip. He is talking to folks who need to get saved.Ephesians 2 Paul tells us we are children of wrath and dead in our sins until God makes us alive in Christ Jesus.
“Wake up, O sleeper,
rise up from the dead,
and Christ will shine on you.”
You mean after God predestined it before the foundation of the world, Christ died for the ungodly and revealed your sinfulness and bringing you under the conviction of sin, then revealed the righteousness of God in Christ.
He did it all for us. He paid the ransom. He paid the price. He promised eternal life to as many as will choose/receive Him. How about not portraying God as some monster that has doomed billions (most men) to a torment too horrible to imagine before they were born!?Then you believe, that's your whole message, your lesson, man decides and everything depends on that. What about what God did and does? I would think that would rate a passing remark that doesn't have to be dragged out of you.
Why put religious labels on the wonderful ability to chose that God endowed man with? As for your real munster rant...sorry, that sounds like gibberish.
That's the problem with the Penal Substitution Atonement doctrine.Christ on the cross doesn't look like the love of God on display to the outsider either, it appears barbaric and horrific, what kind of love would do such a thing?
And scripture. It’s right in there.That’s how Calvinist explain the people who God doesn’t choose.
Why do you willingly believe lies?Yes. Before we get saved, if we really loved some lie, and rejected Jesus, I think there is a danger we could sink into it.
Doomed to hell? You’ll need to explain what you mean by that.Paul pleaded with people to choose Jesus. He did time for so doing. Since Jesus made it clear we need to choose life and come to Him, our freedom to choose to do so or to reject Him is held up as the basis of our eternal future...hardly irrelevant.
So here is a question for Calvies...are people doomed to hell regardless of whatever (in your mind irrelevant) choices they make, yes or no?
Read Acts 2:23. And Isaiah 53.That's the problem with the Penal Substitution Atonement doctrine.
It wasn't love that did that to Him, but the men that were unable to endure the light of His presence (John 1:11, Matthew 21:37-39, John 3:20).
No, we are all cursed, that is the Pauline doctrine:Paul pleaded with people to choose Jesus. He did time for so doing. Since Jesus made it clear we need to choose life and come to Him, our freedom to choose to do so or to reject Him is held up as the basis of our eternal future...hardly irrelevant.
So here is a question for Calvies...are people doomed to hell regardless of whatever (in your mind irrelevant) choices they make, yes or no?
I think that is hyperbole, I don't know of a single Calvinist that is saying you are going to hell because you don't happen to accept TULIP.Doomed to hell? You’ll need to explain what you mean by that.
So the doctrines related to “TULIP” aren’t essential in regards to the gospel? If not, why do you defend them? Does the Spirit of God lead to opposing views on this matter?I think that is hyperbole, I don't know of a single Calvinist that is saying you are going to hell because you don't happen to accept TULIP.
No, Calvinism is a systematic theology that I am convinced does reflect the gospel and the New Testament witness accurately. I've explored others and generally find merit in Arminian, Catholic and Orthodox systems. But when it comes to controversy like this one, I always end up siding with Calvinists, they simply make a better case biblically. I've always considered myself an evangelical and for the most part never felt the need to embrace systematic theology, that's changed recently. I'm more interested in systematic theology then I ever thought I would be and getting more interested in Calvinism.So the doctrines related to “TULIP” aren’t essential in regards to the gospel? If not, why do you defend them? Does the Spirit of God lead to opposing views on this matter?
No according to Ephesians 2 we are all children of wrath dead in our trespasses.That’s how Calvinist explain the people who God doesn’t choose.
Dad I was speaking of before our conversion. Can you address that please.No such thing after we are saved. We are then free. So if Paul speaks of those not yet free, try to look at context.
So another wards tulip, in regards to soteriology, isn’t essential doctrine a believer adheres to according to you? Not quite understanding what you said no to. But that’s what I get. Completely disagree with you on this. Calvinism in regards to the doctrines of grace, is the gospel according to scripture. One does not have to go through a systematic study on theology to come to understand and believe these great truths of the gospel. That’s certainly not how the Lord brought me to see these truths. So what merit can Arminianism or Roman Catholic or Orthodox bring to these truths of the gospel? They are completely opposed to the gospel of grace as you can see on many threads on this forum. The Spirit of God does not lead the elect to opposing views regarding essential soteriology doctrine. No believer will disagree with tulipNo, Calvinism is a systematic theology that I am convinced does reflect the gospel and the New Testament witness accurately. I've explored others and generally find merit in Arminian, Catholic and Orthodox systems. But when it comes to controversy like this one, I always end up siding with Calvinists, they simply make a better case biblically. I've always considered myself an evangelical and for the most part never felt the need to embrace systematic theology, that's changed recently. I'm more interested in systematic theology then I ever thought I would be and getting more interested in Calvinism.
The simple truth is most people just don't need a systematic theology, they haven't the time or patience for in depth exegetical studies either. I happen to be interested in exploring systematic theology further, the one I decided on was Calvinism, after exploring Wesleyan theology at length. I've even tried to see what our Catholic and Orthodox brethren have to offer, ultimately finding that I could not reconcile vital principles to those systems. Down through the years it's been the Calvinists who taught me the most and convinced me of the reliability of their systematic approach. I would never try to impose Calvinism on others, walk in the light as you see the light. But I need a systematic theology to further my studies and to organize the doctrines I'm interested in. Calvinism works for me, if you have no need of it, go in peace, I have no problem with you.
Grace and peace,
Mark
You don’t believe God has a say on who is or is not converted?False. If we can choose we were not locked into some fate.
He’s speaking of everyone’s condition even those who are later converted.He is not talking to us who are awake and alive forevermore there. Get a grip. He is talking to folks who need to get saved.